1 / 28

Why has union density declined?

Why has union density declined?. Why has union density declined?. John Commons Union growth is cyclical, structural,and institutional Cyclical: Economic factors that affect labor demand Structural: Demographics, industrial composition, part-time vs full-time

rich
Download Presentation

Why has union density declined?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Why has union density declined?

  2. Why has union density declined? John Commons Union growth is cyclical, structural,and institutional Cyclical: Economic factors that affect labor demand Structural: Demographics, industrial composition, part-time vs full-time Institutional: laws, enforcement, type of government

  3. Structural Factors • Female Labor Force Participation • Minority population growth • Education • Shift in population South and West • Job growth in traditionally nonunion sectors (services, retail) • Job declines in traditionally unionized sectors (manufacturing)

  4. Structural Factors: Assessment • Female Labor Force Participation: small impact, women more likely to vote union • Minority population growth: small impact, blacks more likely to vote union, Hispanics mixed

  5. Structural Factors: Assessment • Education: small impact due to union growth in teachers, government employees, health professionals

  6. Structural Factors: Assessment • Job growth in traditionally nonunion sectors (services, retail): IMPORTANT 1950 1980 2001 Service 11.9% 19.8% 31.0% Retail 14.9% 16.6% 17.8% • Job declines in traditionally unionized sectors (manufacturing): IMPORTANT Manufacturing 33.7% 22.4% 13.4% Trans/Util 8.9% 5.7% 5.3%

  7. Structural Factors: Assessment • But declines in membership density within traditionally unionized sectors are also IMPORTANT 1985 2002 Manufacturing 25% 14% Trans/Util 37% 23% Trade 7% 4.5% F.I.R.E. 3% 1.9%

  8. Structural Factors: Assessment • Female Labor Force Participation: small impact, women more likely to vote union • Minority population growth: small impact, blacks more likely to vote union, Hispanics mixed • Education: small impact due to union growth in teachers, government employees, health professionals • Shift in population South and West: IMPORTANT • Job growth in traditionally nonunion sectors (services, retail): IMPORTANT • Job declines in traditionally unionized sectors (manufacturing): IMPORTANT • Decreases in density within industries: IMPORTANT

  9. Surveys of union interest among unorganized workers show Broad-based support of about 33% Why don’t they join?

  10. Supply and demand for union services • Structural changes don’t explain within sector declines • Institutions have not changed since Taft-Hartley (’47) and Landrum –Griffin (’59) (except for changes in direction of political pressure) • Economic Model • Demand-side: Workers trade off returns from union representation (wages, benefits, job conditions, job security, ….) against costs (dues, rules, potential job insecurity, ….)

  11. Example LIUNA: Laborer’s International Union of North America http://www.liuna.org

  12. Supply and Demand Application: Dickens and Leonard, “Accounting for the Decline in Union Membership, 1950-1980.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review (April 1985)

  13. Conclusions • 1/3 of decline due to decreased economic growth • <1/3 of decline due to decreased organization rate Org rate = percent of unorganized workers who participate in an election • 1/4 of decline due to decrease in union success rate in certification elections Success rate = percent of pro-union votes on certification election

  14. Problem • Is decreased union effort and success due to declining worker demand, declining union supply, or rising firm resistance? • Farber and Krueger, “Union Membership in the United States: The Decline Continues”

  15. Data • Nationwide surveys of union sentiment in 1977, 1984, 1991, 1992 • Is decline due to decrease in proportion expressing interest in unionization or an increase in proportion who want unions but cannot get services (frustrated demand)?

  16. Venn Diagram of Union Interest • U= In union or not D=Want union or not U=0D=1 U=1D=1 U=0 D=0 U=1D=0

  17. Venn Diagram of Union Interest • U= In union or not D=Want union or not U=1D=1 U=0D=1 U=0 D=0

  18. Conclusion • Decrease due to decreased interest in unionization, holding demographics, industry structure constant. • Farber and Krueger believe there is no evidence of decreased union density due to increased anti-union animus by firms. • (Unless decline in pro-union sentiment is driven by firm actions)

  19. Evidence on Union Supply • Fiorito and Jarley, IRRA 55th Annual Proceedings, 2003 • 1995: new AFL-CIO leadership pledges $20 million for organization • Unions need to add 300,000 workers per year to maintain density • Little evidence of rising effort or membership after John Sweeney’s call to organize

  20. Theory of Union Supply • Farber, “Union Success in Representation Elections: Why Does Size Matter?.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review (January 2001) Facts: • Union organization effort declined precipitously since the mid 70s. • Average size of unit in elections declined over time • Union success on certification elections fell • Union success fell most in large firms.

  21. Theory of Union Supply • Farber, “Union Success in Representation Elections: Why Does Size Matter?.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review (January 2001) Conclusions: • Unions would be expected to face declining win rates over time as the most promising prospects are organized first. • Decrease in union organization effort is consistent with the declining supply of promising prospects • There has always been a lower union success rate in large firms. The growing gap in election success rates between large and small bargaining units is consistent with a simple application of the law of large numbers when probability of success is < .5 • Could also be that large firms fight harder against unions.

  22. Management Resistance to Unions: How Important is it? • Kleiner, JLR (Summer 2001) • Firms can resist union organizational efforts through carrots and sticks • Carrots (wages, benefits, revenue sharing, participatory management, …) • Sticks include: • Hiring consultants (annual expense $200 million) • Legal resistance • Illegal resistance

  23. Evidence of rising illegal resistance • Rising importance or worker reinstatement due to illegal firing • Rising 8(a)(3): Union discrimination; and 8(a)(5): good faith bargaining filings • Minnesota sample of 26 contentious organization drives • 14/26 led to NLRB investigations • Union successful in only 3/26 cases • Kleiner citing Freeman: 40% of union decline due to employer resistance

  24. Why would firms risk illegal activity, penalties? • Penalties too low ($2,733/worker) • Low compared to some other federal violations • Returns to resistance can be very large

  25. Richard Hurd. “Union Free Bargaining Strategies and First Contract Failures” • Even if union wins certification election, firm may be able to avoid bargaining • About 25% of certifications fail to result in a first contract • Certification gives the union exclusive rights to represent the bargaining unit for minimum of 12 months (contract bar), maximum of three years. • After 12 months, if union fails to get a contract, employees may ask for decertification

  26. Bargaining delay strategies • Technical refusal to bargain • NLRB decisions on bargaining unit, remedies on election conduct not appealable • ULP decisions are appealable • Refusal to bargain leads to ULP charge, appeals can drag out process • Example: IBEW and Tempco Electric Heaters

  27. Bargaining delay strategies • Defiant bargaining • Violate requirement to bargain in good faith because benefits outweigh costs • Example: IAM and S&S Screw • Evasive bargaining • Attempt to comply with good faith bargaining while dragging out the process • Example: SEIU and Freedom Crest Nursing Home

  28. Bargaining delay strategies • Peremptory bargaining • Adopt nonnegotiable terms that will not be acceptable to the Union • Example: BCTW and Dawn Frozen Foods • Nearly 75% of failures to reach first contract use these methods, 18% of new certifications

More Related