But like so much in the American auto industry, the old rules of bargaining no longer apply. In recent weeks, the U.A.W.’s Web site crashed in the hours after new contracts were unveiled with General Motors and the Ford Motor Company because so many workers were downloading them.

And how did many workers learn about the deals? Through Facebook pages and Twitter feeds kept up to date, often late into the night, by union staff members stationed in the halls outside the bargaining rooms. For the first time, the union also worked with each company to set up secure Web sites that allowed workers to receive e-mail updates.

“We may have gotten a lot more done in the past, and things would have gone smoother provided we had tools like this,” said General Holiefield, the U.A.W. vice president in charge of negotiations with Chrysler, who explained his approach to the talks in a four-minute video posted on YouTube and Facebook last week. “I couldn’t see going forward without using these.”

Talks with Chrysler have not concluded, though plant leaders from across the country have been summoned to Detroit for a meeting on Monday, signaling that discussions are in the final stages.

Some labor specialists say the wave of social networking this year has provided a bigger window than before into the negotiating process in Detroit, even though the talks still occur in private. Not only is communication more instant and accurate, but it has been extended to people previously left on the sidelines, including retirees.

“There is unprecedented openness about this process,” said Kristin Dziczek, labor analyst for the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. “You’re not getting the blow-by-blow, but they’re being much more open and transparent in communicating with their members and with the public, who, quite frankly, made a major investment in saving these companies.”

Through Facebook, autoworkers at plants in Kansas City, Mo., or Kokomo, Ind., have been able to voice concerns and ask questions directly to the bargaining teams, something they could not do in past years. Facebook helped workers at a Chrysler factory in Dundee, Mich., gather support before voting last month to join the national contract; they had previously been covered by a separate agreement that provided less job security.

While the U.A.W. worked to repair its Web site last week, it posted a summary of the Ford contract on Facebook, and received more than 500 comments in response. Since ratification meetings started, the moderators of the U.A.W.’s page for Ford workers have been busy answering requests to clarify sections of the contract language, sometimes responding within minutes.

In several instances, the union used Facebook to rebut rumors being disseminated on plant floors or in the news media, rather than allowing them to spread unchallenged. Shortly after a Detroit television station reported that workers would get a signing bonus of $7,500, a message posted on Facebook from Jimmy Settles, the union’s vice president in charge of Ford negotiations, described the report as inaccurate and “designed to intentionally create false expectations.” The finished deal included a bonus of $6,000 for most workers, some of whom had begun posting on Facebook that they would vote against any contract with a bonus of less than $15,000.

“It allowed us to get to the membership quickly,” Mr. Settles said in an interview. “The one thing we always had to combat was the expectations of our members. Historically, we didn’t have the apparatus to get that information out.”

The Chrysler team reacted similarly last week to quell speculation that the talks were headed to arbitration. Chrysler workers agreed in 2009, as part of the company’s government-aided bankruptcy, to give up their right to strike and that any impasse would be sent to binding arbitration, a result that both parties have said they want to avoid.

Art Reyes, the president of U.A.W. Local 651 in Flint, Mich., said Facebook had gone a long way toward “demystifying” the complex negotiations.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1f8f0dbe0d5388982eaccd6c57bc232d