Donald Trump made saving the jobs at Carrier a big campaign rallying point. On December 06, 2016 New York Times reported from Chuck Jones, the president of United Steelworkers Local 1999, that

  • 550 people are losing their jobs.
  • 700 other positions at a different Indiana plant would be moving to Mexico.

Are these two claims correct?

  • 2
    Keep in mind that until Carrier completes all related actions, no one knows anything but estimated numbers. The economy changes; and some, or all, the expected actions might never have happened anyway. Until it's done, it's only "plans". Dec 9 '16 at 13:55

I don't think the numbers are so round and exact, but that claim is at least largely true.

United Technologies, who owns Carrier, is still closing down a nearby plant and moving a number of jobs to Mexico. See Business Insider:

Carrier's parent company, United Technologies, is still going forward with its plan to close its Huntington, Indiana, plant and outsource 700 jobs to Mexico, according to local media reports.


In addition to the Huntington closure, 600 Carrier jobs will also still be moving to Mexico.

Note, the figure there is 600, not the 550 reported by the Times (the Times quotes Chuck Jones saying "What nobody’s mentioning is 550 people are losing their jobs"). Fortune, for example, has it at "more than 500" or "about 500".

From Snopes, note that some of the jobs included in Trump's number of "saved" jobs were never slated to go in the first place.

Moreover, we learned, the stated total of 1,000-plus jobs to be retained at the U.S. Carrier plant included 300 administrative and engineering positions that were never slated for relocation in the first place. The actual number of factory jobs saved as a result of the Trump deal, therefore, is 800. The company also informed us that the planned relocation of 700 jobs from United Technologies' Huntington, Indiana plant to Mexico will move forward as well, making the combined number of jobs Carrier and its parent company still plan on relocating 1,300.

  • 1
    I thought I was clear that the numbers are inexact but any suggested edits are welcome.
    – rougon
    Dec 8 '16 at 18:29
  • 1
    Not that I don't trust you, but I am confused about what you are criticizing in my answer. I don't think I was saying some of the things that you claim I am saying. However, feel free to edit my answer, unless you think that it is low quality, in which case, please flag!
    – rougon
    Dec 8 '16 at 18:48
  • Hope my edits clarify what I was trying to point out. The number of jobs leaving Carrier has been reported as "about 500", "more than 500", "600", and "550" by various sources. But the NYT did not say that 700 Carrier jobs were leaving, as you originally wrote.
    – ff524
    Dec 8 '16 at 19:33

In addition to statements by representatives of the union cited in the New York Times and other media sources, statements made by United Technologies CEO Greg Hayes in an interview also confirm that only 800 of the (2100) jobs leaving Indiana have been "saved".

In February 16, United Technologies said that 1400 jobs from the Carrier facility in Indianapolis and 700 jobs from its Huntington plant would be eliminated. Per the report in Indy Star at the time:

Carrier is shuttering its manufacturing facility on Indianapolis' west side, eliminating about 1,400 jobs during the next three years.

United Technologies Electronic Controls announced Wednesday that it will move its Huntington manufacturing operations to a new plant in Mexico, costing the northeastern Indiana city 700 jobs by 2018. Those workers make microprocessor-based controls for the HVAC and refrigeration industries.

In an interview with CNBC (video, transcript), United Technologies CEO Greg Hayes confirms that the recent deal involves saving 800 jobs in Indiana:

the 800 jobs we were able to save in Indiana

That's 800 jobs of the 1400 that would have been eliminated from the Carrier facility - leaving about 600 Carrier jobs still being eliminated (1400-800=600), and no change in the Huntington situation.

Also in the same interview, Hayes says:

We still get to do the preponderance of the restructuring which we were going to do anyways.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .