Union Organizing and Labor Outreach in the Contemporary United States

Despite their long decline, labor unions increasingly find themselves in the news. From the spirited debate over income inequality, to fights over minimum wage and the unlikely mobilization of fast food workers at the very bottom of the American labor market, labor issues are of great public interest. In this article, I review scholarship on contemporary union organizing and outreach activity. This work suggests that while innovative organizing and outreach strategies, sometimes lumped together under the rubric of “social movement unionism” and “alt‐labor,” are demonstrated to be effective in advancing union causes, only a handful of unions appear to have the will and resources to utilize them. Moreover, while the implementation of new organizing and outreach strategies has been uneven and has not boosted union membership nationally, organized resistance to unions, from court rooms to state legislatures, has increased substantially.     

Culture of the Labor Movement and Work in the United States

With the resurgence of union organizing during the 1990s, a new scholarship about the labor movement has emerged, documenting and explaining this new social movement unionism. Literature on the culture of work is well developed while, generally speaking, in the scholarship about the labor movement, culture is an underdeveloped analysis. In this article, we look at the culture of market fundamentalism as the dominant way of thinking and explaining work and labor in the United States. Market fundamentalism has emerged at the same time that women and immigrants have become much more numerous among U.S. workers, and they have brought with them new cultural emphases at work and among unions. In response to market fundamentalism and with the activism of women and immigrants among others, unions have transformed their own culture toward social movement unionism and have pushed for a new culture of work.     

Labor Union Political Strategy in an Era of Decline and Revitalization

U.S. labor unions faced sharp membership losses over the last few decades, and some responded by ushering in a new, revitalized model of organizing. Yet we know little about how these forces may be shaping the political activities of the labor movement. Has crisis prompted unions to take aim at public policies inhibiting union vitality, or have unions turned outward to embrace broader social causes? This paper uses an original dataset of union appearances in congressional hearings to analyze unions’ legislative advocacy activities. Findings suggest substantial differences between those unions that are likely to appear in hearings on core labor‐related topics and those that appear in hearings on broad social issues: AFL‐CIO unions are more likely to participate in hearings on core labor issues, while unions commonly cited as “revitalized” and public sector unions are more likely to appear in hearings on broad social issues.     

Outsourcing and union power

The outsourcing of union work and jobs either diffuses or diminishes union membership, depending on perspective and situation. The correlation of trends in union membership to trends in union power, while less than perfect, has until recently been relatively strong over the past sixteen years. The fact that as diverse a sample of unions as AFSCME, SEIU, and UAW have chosen to make outsourcing a prominent labor/public relations issue suggests that the correlation continues to be perceived by the union movement to be significant, notwithstanding the efforts of the “new” leadership of the AFL-CIO to break that link with respect to union political power by “taxing” member unions and their members to contribute both money and militancy to the 1996 election cycle. Although outsourcing may lead only to the diffusion of union membership either within or between unions, as opposed to the diminution of union membership, this fact has not received a great deal of attention. The net effect on total union membership of outsourcing from one union employer to another union employer is unclear, although the effect on the membership of the union at the outsourcing employer is not. The redistribution of membership within a union as a result of outsourcing is likely to have little immediate impact on union power. However, as even the best case scenario presented above suggests, it may have significant long-run deleterious effects on union bargaining power by taking labor out of a sheltered market and putting it into potentially competitive market. This is particularly likely to be the case when outsourcing (1) places the outsourced work into a different industry or wage contour and (2) creates the possibility of moving from sole-source to multiplesource supplier arrangements. The redistribution of membership between unions as a result of outsourcing is unlikely to have a major impact on union power broadly defined. It can have, however, serious deleterious effects in terms of the power of an individual union, as suggested in my “competitive case” scenario. The fact that one union’s losses due to outsourcing may be another union’s gain is of little consolation to the losing union. That act, in and of itself, may make the threat of outsourcing a potential union “Achilles heel” at the bargaining table by placing it into competition with some other, perhaps unknown, union as well as possibly nonunion competition. The most obvious threat to union power comes from outsourcing that diminishes union membership overall by transferring jobs from union to nonunion employers. The willingness and ability of employers to move work/jobs entirely out of the orbit of union control constitutes, in terms of power and particularly union bargaining power, a revisitation of the phenomenon of the “runaway shop.” It may also be viewed as a proactive form of hiring permanent replacements for (potentially) striking workers. The union options in dealing with such a challenge are to endeavor to preclude outsourcing through legislation or collective bargaining or to chase the work by organizing the unorganized, hopefully with the help of the unionized outsourcing employer. Neither option may be easy, but as the 1996 auto industry negotiations suggest, the former may be less difficult than the latter. The possibility that outsourcing from union to nonunion employer may provide unions with the power to organize from the top (outsourcer) down (outsourcee) cannot be entirely ignored as the issue of supplier “neutrality” reportedly was raised in the 1996 auto negotiations. The adverse effects of outsourcing on union political and financial power, by virtue of its impact on the level or distribution of union membership, can and may well be offset by an increase in union activism—as measured by dues levels, merger activity, organizing commitment, and political action. The adverse effects of outsourcing on union bargaining power are more problematical from the union standpoint. The effect of outsourcing, whatever its rationale or scenario, appears to be to put union labor back into competition. Thus, outsourcing constitutes yet another challenge to the labor movement in its ongoing and seemingly increasingly unsuccessful battle to take and keep U.S. union labor out of competition by proving itself able and willing to organize to the extent of the market and standardizing wages in that market.     

Managerial Hostility and Attitudes Towards Unions: A Canada-US Comparison

We use a cross-country survey of attitudes toward work and unions, which includes a sample of managers in both the US and Canada, to explore whether there is greater attitudinal hostility to unions in the U.S. Our estimates indicate that American manager’s attitudes towards unions are, perhaps surprisingly, less hostile than those of Canadian managers. We explain this first finding by the differential effect of perceived union power, which is greater in Canada than the US and which is correlated negatively with union approval. We also find that US managers are less likely to use extreme methods to oppose union organizing drives, implying that the lower union rates in the US as compared to Canada are not likely the result of greater negativity towards unions themselves but rather some other factor or combination of factors. The implication is that if Canadian managers faced the same labor relations playing field as their US counterparts, they would likely find it easier to thwart union certification drives as well. Alternatively stated, Canadian-style labor relations reforms (such as card-check systems or quicker certification votes) could perhaps tip the balance in favor of unions when organizing in the US.     

American trade unions and public approval: Can unions please all of the people all of the time?

Public opinion about labor unions has long been viewed as an important determinant of industrial relations outcomes. Yet, analyses of changes in union popularity over time have been largely qualitative and have focused on the impact of short-term idiosyncratic events. This paper provides a quantitative analysis of the determinants of American public approval of unions from 1936 to 1991. Hypotheses relating to the union wage advantage, strike activity, the national unemployment rate, and World War II, receive the strongest support. The implications of these results for organized labor and future research on attitudes toward unions are discussed.     

The economic status of union workers in the United States

Although American labor unions evolved out of poverty, today’s typical union worker is relatively affluent. Current Population Survey data show that average annual household earnings in 2002 for full-time union workers were nearly $79,000, nearly double the median of all households (including ones with non-workers), and more than for nonunion worker households. While relatively few union workers are truly “poor,” a larger proportion (over one-third for members of teachers’ unions) comes from households with over $100,000 in annual income. A puzzle: why do union members tend to support liberal policies and politicians far more than their relative affluence would predict? Perhaps it partly reflects rent-seeking behavior.     

Union organizing expenditures: Determinants and their implications for union growth

This paper explores some implications of the economics of union organizing. Following the literature, it is argued that the economic costs and benefits of organizing are systematically related to the proportion of the union’s jurisdiction already organized. Evidence is presented that unions do allocate a smaller proportion of their budgets to organizing when a greater proportion of their jurisdiction is already organized. Total union organizing expenditures, however, are found to increase over a broad range as the percentage organized increases. The supply of union-organizing services to unorganized workers apparently only declines at relatively high levels of union penetration. These critical levels of unionization have been attained only by a few U.S. labor organizations.     

The Mixed Fortunes of Irish Unions: Living with the Paradoxes of Social Partnership

We assess the fortunes of Irish unions since 1980 and, in particular, focus on the period of national social partnership since 1987. We argue that, structurally, unions have been weakened by a sharp decline in union density levels. In addition, labor law reform has not been as permissive as unions desired. However, on the other hand, we highlight that union membership in Ireland has never been higher and unions exert a strong influence over many areas of government policy. In conclusion, we argue that continuing with social partnership is the most viable option for Irish unions, though significant gains in union power are unlikely to happen.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Si,Se Puede</Emphasis>: Organizing Latino Immigrant Workers in South Omaha’s Meatpacking Industry

Faced with declining union membership and a growing immigrant workforce, the US labor movement has started to realize the importance of organizing immigrant workers. Yet the conventional wisdom among many within the movement is that immigrant workers are “unorganizable.” Based on a case study of a collaborative effort between the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Omaha Together, One Community to organize an estimated 4,000 Latino immigrant meatpacking workers, I demonstrate not only the “organizability” of immigrant workers, but also the fact that they have been organizing themselves, with the help of a community-based organization, in the absence of union efforts. This case study suggests that in order to facilitate successful organizing campaigns among immigrant workers, unions need to reach out to community-based organizations and institutions that have established relationships with immigrant workers.

The future of public sector unionism in the United States

The future of nonpublic safety, non-teacher, non-federal public sector unions is bright. As a result of past success, the unions, led by AFSCME, have an organizing culture and sufficient power within the sector to maintain and increase density. However, the challenges that lie ahead in the 21st century will surely test the strength of AFSCME and the other public service unions. The large gains in public employee membership achieved in the last third of the 20th century are not likely to come with the relative ease with which they were achieved during that period. The remaining unorganized workers are in locations and occupations that have not been historically fertile ground for unions, public or private. In addition, the threat of privatization of jobs requires public unions to re-think their traditional strategies and organize in the more hostile private sector while simultaneously protecting the public sector from attacks. The public sector unions recognize that they have a tenuous grasp on their relatively strong position and must organize to maintain and strengthen their position. Absent dramatic changes in federal private sector labor law, and adoption of numerous public sector labor laws, the resources necessary for organization will be tremendous. The future is bright for the public sector unions only because they have demonstrated a willingness to adapt to change, make sacrifices, and deploy sufficient resources to achieve growth. The views herein are the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of AFSCME.     

Challenging Misconceptions about Organizing Women into Unions

In many countries, women are the fastest growing group of unionized workers. As unions scramble to restore their flagging membership, women become central to the process of union membership renewal. Yet survey data collected from union organizers in Canada show that unions are only partially meeting women’s demand for union representation, in large part because of gender bias in union organizing practices. To develop this argument, this article offers data analysis that challenges four popular misconceptions about women and unions which contribute to gender bias in union organizing practices. These misconceptions are: women are less likely to support unions than men; high rates of unionization in the public sector rather than women themselves explain the high rates of union growth amongst women; small workplaces are a particular barrier to organizing women and women are more passive and avoid conflict, therefore reducing their likelihood of withstanding a hostile organizing drive. Having challenged these misconceptions, the article concludes with a discussion of the many ways in which union organizing practices are gender biased. Issues discussed range from the limited number of women hired as organizers to the tendency of unions to target small male‐dominated workplaces for organizing, over women‐dominated workplaces, in spite of the latter’s greater likelihood of success.     

Do union organizing activities affect decertification?

This paper tests the hypothesis that unions face a trade-off between retaining organized units and organizing new bargaining units. Using cost-benefit analysis, a model is developed which examines the impact of representation elections on the level of decertification activity for the period 1948 to 1979. The results indicate that as unions increase their efforts to organize more employees, they trade-off a loss of membership through decertification. The shift of resources from servicing existing units to organizing new units causes a sufficient change in the benefit/cost ratio for employees to result in loss of union certification.     

Union presence and executive compensation: An exploratory study

While executive compensation has historically attracted considerable attention and controversy, this issue is becoming increasingly more contentious as organizations attempt to cut labor costs through reengineering and downsizing. Unions, governments, and workers are becoming critical of seemingly excessive executive compensation while employees are asked to make concessions. In fact, many labor organizations are specif-ically targeting executive compensation for criticisms: Witness their web sites tracking executive pay and numerous press releases and public statements. However, do unions, through their presence in a firm, affect executive compensation? While there is con-siderable research on the determinants and correlates of executive compensation, the literature is silent on the role of unions. We investigate the distinctive effects of union presence with data on a sample of Canadianbased metalmining firms. The differences between union and nonunion firms, as well as the unique effects of union presence, are analyzed and future research suggested.     

Formalization,collectivization, and the demand for union services

Formalized collective bargaining rather than individual employer-employee negotiation is the fundamental characteristic of a unionized labor market. Formalization involves the substitution of rules for employer discretion. Collectivization substitutes simultaneous decision making on behalf of all workers in a unit for a set of individual employee decisions. Formalization and collectivization are present in nonunion as well as union labor markets and their extent varies within as well as between these two sectors. In particular, individuals may negotiate where they belong in a union environment, and the presence of rules invites negotiation over their interpretation. Nevertheless, because formalization and collectivization are obvious concomitants of trade union organization, their costs to both employers and employees should explain the probability of union organization, as well as the incidence of such antecedents of the modern trade union as the Italian padrone who acted as foreman, pay-master, and employment agency for newly-arrived immigrants to the United States; and the Indianjamdar, a construction industry recruiter-foreman. Our occasional observations of union-induced costreductions may appear to counter the implicit assumption in much of the trade union literature that unions always induce suboptimal combinations of factor inputs and factor payments (nonunion firms could choose union-induced parameters on their own and do not). Because these cost reductions may be accompanied by increased costs imposed by unions, however, the cost reductions discussed below imply nothing about overall effects of unions on employers or employees. I wish to thank John Pencavel for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. For further analysis of these points, see Flanders (1968). See Epstein and Monat (1973) for a discussion of the services provided by labor contractors.     

Is there any merit to the merit-based immigration system? What Sub-Saharan African immigrant labor and housing market outcomes tell us about U.S. economic and immigration systems

For decades, U.S. immigration policy debates have centered on creating a merit-based system limiting entry to high-skilled immigrants. Yet the emphasis on merit-based immigration ignores the fact that high-skilled immigrants already enter the United States in merit-based immigration assume high-skilled immigrants benefit the U.S. economy because they are better able than low-skilled immigrants to translate skills into economic success. Using Sub-Saharan (Black) African immigrants' labor and housing market outcomes, I show that meritocracy only partially explains U.S. labor and housing outcomes, leaving a merit-based system unlikely to address America's economic needs. The majority of immigrants to the U.S. are non-White, and racial discrimination in the labor market results in occupational and wage disadvantages in the U.S. Due to the public charge rule, high skilled immigrants may be less likely to get their visas renewed or green card applications approved because of these labor market disadvantages. Without stable visa status, high-skilled immigrants will be less likely to make long-term economic investments in the United States—an important way of contributing to the U.S. economy. Together, research indicates that U.S. immigration reform will not work without first enacting policy addressing racial disparities in economic systems.     

Unemployment,immigration, and NAFTA: a panel study of ten major U.S. industries

We conduct a pooled cross-section and time-series analysis of the unemployment rates across ten major industries in the U.S. from 1983 to 1994 to assess the effect of NAFTA and immigration. Our results indicate that the output produced by the industry, unemployment benefit coverage, and interest rates are significant determinants of industry unemployment rates, but union presence does not affect industry unemployment. Both Canadian and Mexican immigrants appear to be complements to the U.S. labor force, with Canadian immigrants highly complementary to American labor. Finally, the Chow test provides no evidence that NAFTA has changed the structure of unemployment determination in these industries. We are indebted to Emily Hoffman and Matthew Higgins for their comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies.     

The state of the unions: United States and Canada

This study demonstrates that the Canadian labor movement has outperformed its American counterpart in terms of union growth, union density, and certification outcomes. Labor and product market factors do not appear to be major contributing factors. Public policy and increased employer resistance have played a critical role, particularly in the decline of unionization in the United States. Union-related variables — militancy, structure, and the desire and ability to organize — are also important in explaining the divergent union trends in the two countries.     

UNIONS, PLANTS, JOBS, AND WORKERS

The relationship between unions and their members is an important, yet neglected, subject in recent studies of the sociology of work. This study develops and tests a theory of union satisfaction and participation that combines recent research in the sociology of work with previous explanations of union satisfaction and participation provided by industrial relations researchers, in an attempt to understand the relationship between unions, plants, jobs, and workers in U.S. manufacturing industries. This theory predicts that union members will be satisfied with their unions and participate more in them if there are extensive ties between workers, employers, and unions. These ties stem from the focus of labor/management relations in particular, and class struggles in general, on market outcomes and the historical linkage of union membership with employment in the United States. The theory also predicts that unions them-selves act as ties to specific work settings and that union participation is a forum for voicing dissatisfaction with specific characteristics of workers' jobs. Testing these predictions is complicated by contradictory nature of the structure and organization of work in advanced industrial societies. The analysis provides qualified support for this theory, with data drawn from more unions, plants, and union members than have been used to date. In addition to discussing modifications to the theory and analysis presented here, the study includes a discussion of its implications for the future of unionization and the organization of work, in light of declines in union membership, increased efforts to decertify unions and resist union organizing efforts, and deindustrialization in the United States.     

The AFL-CIO Split: Does It Really Matter?

In 2005, the AFL-CIO split and the Change to Win Coalition (CtW) was founded because of the personal ambition of dissident union leaders and their frustration with the severe and continuing decline in union membership. The CtW was build on a shared faith that only a fresh start could lead the unions out of their crisis. But a convincing case has not been made that the seceding unions would be more successful outside of AFL-CIO. When it is seen against the backdrop of the crisis in the labor movement and the enormity of the task of union organizing and revival, the AFL-CIO split does not really matter.