importance of unions essay

Subscribe to Heddels

Don’t miss a single Heddels post. Sign up for our free newsletter below!

What Are Unions and Why Are They Important?

What is a labor union and when were they first formed?

Dispatch riders waiting outside the TUC headquarters in 1926, UK. Image via TUC

Union formation really began to pick up in the United Kingdom around the time of the Industrial Revolution (1760-1840), when new factories popped up swiftly and had little regard for the conditions its employees had to endure. Workers fought back and settled many disputes, giving rise to “combinations” of colleagues protecting their rights.

Most early unions were on behalf of those in textile industries, as well as mechanics and blacksmiths, and although they laid the groundwork for organizations to continue to improve the lives of workers across the world, it’s worth remembering that they certainly weren’t inclusive of everyone. Despite the National Labor Union’s attempts to insist that it didn’t discriminate against “race or nationality” in 1869, the organization continually failed to fight hard enough for the rights of African-Americans and women, so in the same year, the Colored National Labor Union was formed.

Like this? Read these:

Beginning to See the Light – The Importance of Brand Transparency and How To Decipher It

How to Find Your Glove Size – 2 Simple Methods

What are unions like today.

A woman strikes at the Grunwick film processing plant in London, 1976. Image via The Guardian

Unionized teachers on strike in Chicago in 2019. Image via Quartz.

At this point, it’s worth noting that laws surrounding unions vary drastically between different countries, depending on its history and politics. 

What are the plus (and minus) points of unions?

Martin Luther King Jr. and Joachim Prinz at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963. Image via AFL-CIO

How does the “right to work” relate to labor unions in the United States?

Campaigners from the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists in 2017. Image via In These Times

The general gist is that it entitles workers to be employed in ‘unionized’ workplaces (what’s called a ‘closed shop’) without joining a union. They can also leave a union at any time without having to fear losing their job, as was once the case. As well, even if an employee isn’t a union member, the right-to-work state law allows them to still access the benefits that the organizations offer, only they’ll likely be required to pay a fee for certain services.

Women in Bangladesh campaign for better working conditions with a representative from the labor rights organization Solidarity Centre. Image via Solidarity Centre

In the region, labor unions have become so key to the improvement of working conditions, pay, and job security that their representation can often be the difference between life and death.

Previous Article

Sage de cret’s khaki field jacket flaunts corduory, nylon, and terry cloth, next article, square trade’s incense cones are hand-dipped in richmond, va.

Related Articles

Getting in the Grooves: A Beginner’s Guide to Vinyl Records

Persian Rugs – History & Buyer’s Guide

• Contributors
• Valuing Black Lives
• Black Issues in Philosophy
• Blog Announcements
• Climate Matters
• Genealogies of Philosophy
• Graduate Student Council (GSC)
• Graduate Student Reflection
• Into Philosophy
• Member Interviews
• On Congeniality
• Philosophy as a Way of Life
• Philosophy in the Contemporary World
• Precarity and Philosophy
• Recently Published Book Spotlight
• Starting Out in Philosophy
• Syllabus Showcase
• Teaching and Learning Video Series
• Undergraduate Philosophy Club
• Women in Philosophy
• Diversity and Inclusiveness
• Issues in Philosophy
• Public Philosophy
• Work/Life Balance
• Submissions
• Journal Surveys
• APA Connect

The Union as a Basic Institution of Society

My new book, In the Name of Liberty: The Argument for Universal Unionization, (Cambridge University Press, 2020) contains three essays. The book’s first essay shows that even in a libertarian utopia, unions would naturally arise as a result of free market transactions with which no one has a right to interfere. The second essay shows that in a real world liberal capitalist state, private sector unions are a necessary basic institution, and therefore must be part of every firm in order to ensure background justice. And the final essay looks at public sector unionization, and shows that our attitude toward unionization there should not be any less accommodating

Taken together, the three essays show that as matter of liberty, what anti-union folks would call compulsory unionization, or what I call universal unionization, is required as matter of background justice in every liberal capitalist society. While I obviously can’t give a summary of the entire book in a blog post, I will try to summarize the second essay, that is, why we should consider unions a basic institution of society.

Before I do however, I want note that despite being one of the most important tools in the fight for distributive justice, political philosophers have long shied away from discussing unionization. Instead, they have ceded its discussion to economists and industrial relations specialists. The insights that political philosophers could have provided have accordingly been missed by those writing about unions for decades. I’m not saying that the beat-down unions have taken over the last 40 plus years is the result of this intellectual neglect. But I think it is fair to say that political philosophers have good reason to start paying as much attention to the question of unionization now as they have been to the question of economic inequality for many years.

The Current State of Unionization

The state of unionization in the United States today, I’m afraid, is grim. After reaching a peak in 1953 of 33.8 percent for salaried workers (27.7 percent for all employed workers), unionization hit 10.3 percent for salaried workers in 2019 (and slightly less for all employed workers), its lowest level in over 75 years . In part this decline comes from the success unions have had in establishing better working conditions and wages for all—joining a union simply seems less urgent now than it used to. In part this decline is due to changes in the relevant economies, where large numbers of unionized jobs in heavy manufacturing have been moved to less-unionized countries, and the jobs that remain are in industries that are more difficult to organize. Local outsourcing, where what used to be high-paying unionized jobs are moved to smaller, exploitive, non-unionized contractors, has also played a role. As have technological advances in automation, which have made many well-paying unionized jobs obsolete.

But this decline in union membership is also the result of decades of relentless attacks by the political right against the very idea of unionization—attacks that have been steadily increasing , in both frequency and vigor.

Joining a union has always been treated as presenting an issue of free association. Workers argue they have a right to unionize, employers argue they do not. But even when employers recognize the right to unionize, they tirelessly place obstacles in front of those who would like to do so. They retaliate against union organizers, conduct ruthless anti-union campaigns, and do whatever they can to starve unions of the funds they need to operate.

Union supporters respond by emphasizing that unionization promotes the common good. That is, they make a consequentialist argument for unionization. They claim that unions raise wages, improve working conditions, reduce income inequality, suppress invidious discrimination, and so on. And while anti-union forces deny these claims, their denials are largely unsuccessful, because the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence shows that the workers’ claims are true.

The more successful anti-union argument is that compulsory unionization is also a violation or workers’ right of free association, just as a prohibition on voluntary unionization would be. The right to liberty gives workers the option to refuse to join a union if they don’t want to, employers claim. And they should not want to, because unionization infringes on their liberty in all sorts of ways

The Anti-Union Argument from Liberty

 This is a powerful argument, because almost every political philosopher agrees that arguments from right should win out over arguments from consequences. In other words, there is wide agreement that even if unionization were to have good effects, rights cannot be violated for the common good. So even if the union folks are right about the common good, compulsory unionization loses out. And if unionization really does infringe a worker’s liberty, discouraging voluntary unionization is part of protecting workers’ rights. The union’s arsenal of arguments is accordingly outmatched from the very start .

But the claim that liberty protects workers against compulsory unionization is perverse. Workers should not have to go through what amounts to a political campaign and vote to unionize before an employer is required to recognize the union and deal with it. Unions, I argue, are a basic institution of a just society. And as a basic institution, their existence is not optional. They are subject to regulation just like any other basic institution, but with the exception of small, family-run firms, every firm must have a union, just like every community must have a government if it is going to be in a position to be just.  

This does not mean that firms would all become what are called “closed shops.” These are businesses where only existing members of the union can be hired. Instead, firms would be what are called “union shops.” Hiring would proceed as it does now, and workers would not need to be a member of the union to get a job. Once hired however, the worker would automatically become a member of the relevant union.

This may sound like a radical position, and I suppose it is because I was just asked to give a talk on this to the Radical Philosophy Association. But it really is not radical at all. Remember, capitalist societies reject the idea of central economic planning. Instead, they rely on the price mechanism of the free market to ensure that the economy allocates resources, including human resources, efficiently.

But the free market is not in operation within the firm. Within the firm, resources are deployed, like in a socialist economy as a whole, by centralized command. Every firm has a strict hierarchical structure. Notwithstanding the fact that shareholders may have some say in the way the firm is managed (although only huge shareholders have any real influence and others simply have to choose to go along or sell their stock and move on), the firm functions like a mini socialist dictatorship.

Note that this isn’t just me saying this—this is the view of Ronald Coase , the Nobel-prize winning economist. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that the view that the firm does employ the free market system internally is not controversial at all. The difference between a capitalist and a socialist society is that that in a socialist society, the guiding principle for how the firm should be run is the common good. In a capitalist society, in contrast, the guiding principle is the good of that particular individual firm, meaning, supposedly, the maximization of its profit .

So what? Well, this does seem odd, for how can you base an entire system on what you claim is a free market and still endorse the existence of firms? The justification offered for allowing firms to form in a capitalist society despite the internal central planning this entails is that doing do saves a lot of what economists call “transaction costs.” These are expenses that would otherwise be incurred negotiating each individual business venture with all the relevant participants, thereby allocating resources internally as well as externally using the price mechanism. That would imply that no one could be an employee—everyone would be an independent contractor and could accept or refuse any assignment and haggle over the price every time something in a particular business venture needed to get done. This, in turn, would require countless time-consuming individual sets of negotiations and give the organizer of the business venture only limited ability to plan for how a product would be designed, built, marketed, serviced, and delivered over time.

By adopting a strict hierarchical structure, in contrast, we eliminate all the cost and delays of engaging in these repeated negotiations. We also eliminate the uncertainty of not knowing what human resources are available in the medium to long term and at what cost. We therefore have more resources to dedicate to actually producing things. This makes them cheaper, and therefore more accessible to larger numbers of people. It raises the general standard of living.

While some transaction costs can be saved by recognizing the firm as a basic institution, however, there are social costs incurred by doing so as well. These are costs that arise from the production process but are typically more indirect, intangible, and difficult to monetize. For example, few relationships are as fraught with opportunities for abuse, exploitation, and mental, physical, and economic domination as the employer-employee relationship. In other words, being an employee subjects one to a serious threat to one’s liberty.

Just ask employees what they fear most—it is the possibility that their manager will, for one entirely arbitrary reason or another, fire them, or do something to make their working life more physically or mentally onerous, less financially rewarding, and in any event, more psychologically distressing. So it is ironic indeed that those on the political right claim that compulsory (what I call universal) unionization infringes on workers’ liberty.

This claim is similar to those who are protesting lockdown and social distancing measures and effectively claiming they have the liberty to infect themselves and others if they want to. But this is not the kind of liberty that a liberal capitalist democracy was created to protect. Insisting that all employees join a union is an infringement of what we philosophers’ call “negative” liberty—that is, human interference with one’s ability to do something one would otherwise have the capacity to do.

But every liberal capitalist democracy interferes with everyone’s negative liberty in a massive number of ways every day. If I could beat you up, steal your stuff, defraud you, and enslave or even kill you if I wanted, I would have more negative liberty, and you would have more if you could do these things to me. But this would make social life impossible. The motto, after all, is “Live Free or Die,” not “Live Free and Die or Kill Others.”

Everyone who is thinking clearly, then, realizes that the mere interference with someone’s negative liberty does not amount to a violation of a right to liberty, something you have an absolute power to prevent in a free society. Negative liberty is not a political theory—it is not a theory about what ends we can pursue and how to set priorities among competing ends. It is an analytical theory—it tells us that interference with our capacity to act by other human agents is different than interference by things or animals or the laws of physics. And it claims that when there is such interference, this needs to be justified. It does not tell us what counts as a justification or how strong that justification has to be. Some other theory, a political theory, one that does describe the ends we may pursue free from interference, is required to do that.

What Liberty Really Means in this Context

There are a number of theories that do this, but the one that is most relevant here is “republican” liberty, which is derived from how philosophers conceived of liberty back in the ancient republics of Greece and Rome. Their thinking was that someone is not free if they are subject to the arbitrary will another. Being a slave is obviously the most extreme example of this, given the requirement of absolute subjugation by the slave to the will of the master. But absolute subjugation is not required. Even a single instance of subjugation to the arbitrary will of another is a violation of one’s republican liberty.

Given the degree to which workers have little autonomy and are at the mercy of arbitrary and capricious decisions by their employer, republican liberty is obviously at risk when it comes to the employer-employee relationship. Without a union, employees are subject to all kinds of arbitrary treatment. With a union, employees have at least some protection against this. If the firm is going to continue to be the basic institution of our economy—and I am not suggesting that this should change—then unionization is a necessary countermeasure to the threat to republican liberty that the firm presents. Rather than being an infringement of the kind of liberty we actually care about when we talk about freedom in a liberal capitalist democracy, compulsory unionization is a protector of it.

The Basic Structure

To defend this conclusion, let’s go back to some fundamental aspects of how every society must be organized. As John Rawls famously reminded us in his A Theory of  Justice , every society must have a basic structure. In other words, it must decide what kind of economic, legal, political, and educational system it wants to employ.

Once it makes those choices, it must then populate these systems with basic institutions. These are the institutions which operationalize the basic stricture—they set the stage for ordinary social and political life to take place. They cannot guarantee justice—a great deal of post-institutional regulation is required to do that. But they can be designed so as to maximize the chances that justice can be achieved. This is what creating “background justice” means.

Once we have embraced capitalism as our economic system, it is clear that the primary form of business organization must be the firm. It is therefore a basic institution. But because the firm also puts the republican liberty of workers at risk, we cannot rely on post-institutional regulation alone to address this risk. History shows us that without unions, workers are too often subject to exploitation and abuse and arbitrary treatment even when there are laws prohibiting such misconduct. Given the expense, delay, and risk of seeking recourse in the courts, the deterrent effect of these post-institutional legal prohibitions are not enough. A just society must do more to discourage the firm from using its power to threaten the liberty of its employees. It must recognize that unions are as much a basic institution as the firm itself and make unionization universal.

Note, however, that when I speak of universal unionization, I am speaking only of the core functions of unions. These are: the right to collectively bargain for workers with their employer; to monitor employer compliance with existing rules and regulations and the terms of the collective bargaining agreement; to represent individual workers in disciplinary actions brought against them by their employer; and to lobby government for the enactment of laws, rules, and regulations that promote workers’ interests. These core functions do not include the right to strike. Rather than being a core function, this is something that can be bargained for or relinquished in exchange for other benefits.

Finally, note that embracing universal unionization would not resolve all the practical questions about how this would be implemented and what unions could and could not do in the exercise of their permitted functions. All sorts of rules about how unions could go about their business, how unions would compete to represent the employees of particular firms, and so on, would be required.

But again, these are post-institutional rules. All basic institutions are subject to such rules, and as long as these rules do not undermine any of the union’s core functions, these rules can be determined according to the normal political process or by bargaining between the union and the employer. Only if we recognize that unions are a basic institution, however, is unionization something that cannot be taken from workers without depriving them of the very kind of liberty that liberal capitalist democracy was created to ensure.

Free Speech and Free Association

But what about the rights of free speech and free association—wouldn’t universal unionization violate these?

The first thing to note here is that these are derivative rights—that is, they are derived from our general concept of liberty, and are not independent of it. They are merely applications of our general concept of liberty to specific kinds of activities. As such, they cannot be broader than the fundamental notion of liberty from which they are derived. So if general liberty supports recognizing universal unionization, that conclusion cannot be reversed by considering the role of special liberties like free speech and freedom of association.

Nevertheless, claims based on these particular notions are popular, and their derivative nature has not stopped anyone from raising them successfully to attack unionization through the courts. So let’s consider them anyway.

The free speech argument is an attack on the ability of unions to collect dues in order to finance their operations. Unions have to represent all employees, even those who are not members, so workers who want to “free ride” have an incentive to refuse to join, for they get the same services whether they join or not. To prevent this, most states have rules that require non-members to pay ”agency fees”—basically the same dues as everyone else less a small amount—to cover the cost of representing them. The free speech argument against this is that the involuntary payment of such a fee is a form of compelled speech, and therefore a violation of the liberty of freedom of expression.

But this is nonsense. Free speech may be infringed when we prevent someone for spending money to finance a particular point of view, as the US Supreme Court controversially held decades ago. But this does not suggest, despite what the Court has now also held , that the compelled payment of an agency fee is an infringement of free speech. In the former case, the money is being used to say something the contributor wants said, so precluding this is preventing him from publicizing his views. But in the latter case, when someone is being compelled to pay a fee, what exactly is that person supposed to have been compelled into saying? The communicative significance of a compelled payment is ambiguous, at best.

Indeed, the fact that payment has to be compelled makes the message it expresses more likely to be that one is opposed to whatever the payment is used to fund. We would certainly never assume that taxpayers support everything a government does just because they pay for it. If an involuntary payment were compelled speech, taxation and every fee the government imposes would be impermissible.

When it comes to freedom of association, the problem is this: freedom of association implies a liberty to associate with those you want to; it does not imply a right not to associate with those you don’t. One cannot just declare oneself not to be American or Texan or an oboist or a consumer if one otherwise meets the relevant criteria for being included in these groups. You can sever your ties if you want, and this may remove you from that grouping, but as long as the ties remain you remain a member.

Similarly, a person need not take a job if they do not want one. But if they voluntarily become an employee, they automatically become a member of the union. No right to free association precludes that.

Can We Really Achieve Universal Unionization?

Isn’t this all just pointless utopianism, though—there is no realistic possibility that unionization will be made universal, so why argue for it?

The reason is that pushing the objective of the union movement toward universal unionization makes it much more likely that some progress can be made on making the US more pro-union than it currently is. After all, there was a time when the right was trying to ban unionization altogether. And while they have not succeeded in doing this so far, they have gotten a lot closer than they were, partly because what they have accomplished now looks like a compromise instead of total victory.

The left needs to use this tactic too. By advocating universal unionization, we can restore balance to employer-employee relations, and make it much more likely that we will make some progress even if universal unionization itself is not likely to be achieved.

Note: An earlier version of this essay appeared in the online journal Aeon on August 3, 2020 under the title “ Universal Unions .”

• Mark R. Reiff

Mark R. Reiff is the author of five books, including   In the Name of Liberty: The Argument for Universal Unionization  (Cambridge University Press, 2020);  On Unemployment, Volume I and II (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015); and Exploitation and Economic Justice in the Liberal Capitalist State (Oxford University Press, 2013). He has taught political, legal, and moral philosophy at the University of Manchester, the University of Durham, and the University of California at Davis. In 2008-09 was a Faculty Fellow at the Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. Website: www.markreiff.org

• free association
• free speech
• Political Philosophy
• Ronald Coase
• unionization

RELATED ARTICLES

The supreme court’s symbolic code of conduct, kierkegaard, public philosophy, and “the present age”, why arguments (almost) never work: motivated reasoning and persuasion, the simpsons and ai(mmortality), barbie as philosophy, undrip’s limits on corrective reforms to the basic structure, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

WordPress Anti-Spam by WP-SpamShield

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Advanced search

Posts You May Enjoy

How to practice embodied pedagogy, engineering and embodiment, how (not) to think about anti-feminist women, science as process versus science as behemoth, survival and self in audre lorde (on her birthday).

Report | Unions and Labor Standards

How unions help all workers

Report • By Matthew Walters and Lawrence Mishel • August 26, 2003

Briefing Paper #143

Download PDF

Share this page:

Unions have a substantial impact on the compensation and work lives of both unionized and non-unionized workers. This report presents current data on unions’ effect on wages, fringe benefits, total compensation, pay inequality, and workplace protections.

Some of the conclusions are:

• Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.
• Unions reduce wage inequality because they raise wages more for low- and middle-wage workers than for higher-wage workers, more for blue-collar than for white-collar workers, and more for workers who do not have a college degree.
• Strong unions set a pay standard that nonunion employers follow. For example, a high school graduate whose workplace is not unionized but whose industry is 25% unionized is paid 5% more than similar workers in less unionized industries.
• The impact of unions on total nonunion wages is almost as large as the impact on total union wages.
• The most sweeping advantage for unionized workers is in fringe benefits. Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans.
• Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than nonunionized workers. They also pay 18% lower health care deductibles and a smaller share of the costs for family coverage. In retirement, unionized workers are 24% more likely to be covered by health insurance paid for by their employer.
• Unionized workers receive better pension plans. Not only are they more likely to have a guaranteed benefit in retirement, their employers contribute 28% more toward pensions.
• Unionized workers receive 26% more vacation time and 14% more total paid leave (vacations and holidays).

Unions play a pivotal role both in securing legislated labor protections and rights such as safety and health, overtime, and family/medical leave and in enforcing those rights on the job. Because unionized workers are more informed, they are more likely to benefit from social insurance programs such as unemployment insurance and workers compensation. Unions are thus an intermediary institution that provides a necessary complement to legislated benefits and protections.

The union wage premium

It should come as no surprise that unions raise wages, since this has always been one of the main goals of unions and a major reason that workers seek collective bargaining. How much unions raise wages, for whom, and the consequences of unionization for workers, firms, and the economy have been studied by economists and other researchers for over a century (for example, the work of Alfred Marshall). This section presents evidence from the 1990s that unions raise the wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise total compensation by about 28%.

The research literature generally finds that unionized workers’ earnings exceed those of comparable nonunion workers by about 15%, a phenomenon known as the “union wage premium.”

H. Gregg Lewis found the union wage premium to be 10% to 20% in his two well-known assessments, the first in the early 1960s (Lewis 1963) and the second more than 20 years later (Lewis 1986). Freeman and Medoff (1984) in their classic analysis, What Do Unions Do? , arrived at a similar conclusion.

Table 1 provides several estimates of the union hourly wage premium based on household and employer data from the mid- to late 1990s. All of these estimates are based on statistical analyses that control for worker and employer characteristics such as occupation, education, race, industry, and size of firm. Therefore, these estimates show how much collective bargaining raises the wages of unionized workers compared to comparable nonunionized workers.

The data most frequently used for this analysis is the Current Population Survey (CPS) of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is most familiar as the household survey used to report the unemployment rate each month. The CPS reports the wages and demographic characteristics (age, gender, education, race, marital status) of workers, including whether workers are union members or covered by a collective bargaining contract, and employment information (e.g., industry, occupation). Using these data, Hirsch and Macpherson (2003) found a union wage premium of 17.8% in 1997. Using data from a different, but also commonly used, household survey—the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP)—Gundersen (2003) found a union premium of 24.5%. So, estimates from household surveys that allow for detailed controls of worker characteristics find a union wage premium ranging from 15% to 25% in the 1990s.

Another important source of workplace information, employer surveys, has advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, wages, occupation, and employer characteristics—including the identification of union status—are considered more accurate in employer-based data. The disadvantage is that data from employers do not include detailed information about the characteristics of the workers (e.g. education, gender, race/ethnicity). However, the detailed occupational information and the skill ratings of jobs (education requirements, complexity, supervisory responsibilities) used in these studies are most likely adequate controls for “human capital,” or worker characteristics, making the surveys reliable for estimating the union wage premium.

Pierce (1999a) used the new Bureau of Labor Statistics survey of employers, the National Compensation Survey, to study wage determination and found a union wage premium of 17.4% in 1997. Pierce’s study was based on observations of 145,054 nonagricultural jobs from 17,246 different establishments, excluding the federal government.

In another study, Pierce (1999b) used a different employer survey—the Employment Cost Index (ECI), a precursor to the National Compensation Survey—and found a union wage premium of 20.3%. This estimate is for all nonagricultural employers except the federal government, the same sector employed in Pierce’s NCS study (though for an earlier year—1994).

These two estimates of the union wage premium from employer surveys provide a range of 17% to 20%, consistent with the range identified by the household surveys. Thus, a variety of sources show a union wage premium of between 15% and 20%.

Since unions have a greater impact on benefits than wages (see Freeman 1981), estimates of the union premium for wages alone are less than estimates of the union premium for all compensation (wages and benefits combined). That is, estimates of just the wage premium understate the full impact of unions on workers’ pay. A 1999 study by Pierce estimates the union premium for wages at 20.3% and compensation at 27.5% in the private sector (see Table 1). Thus, the union impact on total compensation is about 35% greater than the impact on wages alone. (A later section reviews the union impact on specific fringe benefits such as paid leave, health insurance, and pensions.)

Many “measurement issues” have been raised about estimates of the union wage premium. Some researchers have argued that union wage premiums are significantly underestimated by some measurements. Hirsch (2003), in particular, raises an important question regardi ng the rising use of “imputations” in the CPS. Information is “allocated,” or “imputed,” to a respondent in the CPS when they either refuse to report their earnings or a proxy respondent is unable to report earnings. Hirsch reports that earnings were imputed for fewer than 15% of the CPS in the 1980s but 31% in 2001. The method of imputing earnings to workers for whom earnings aren’t reported does not take account of their union status, thus reducing the estimates of the union wage premium. The increase in imputations has, Hirsch says, created an increasing underestimate of the union wage premium. Table 1 shows Hirsch’s estimates for the union premium in the private sector using traditional methods (18.4%) and using a correction for imputation bias (23.2%). Hirsch’s results imply that imputations depress estimates of the union wage premium for 1997 by 20%, and that the union wage premium is actually one-fourth higher than conventional estimates show.

Union wage premiums and inequality

Historically, unions have raised the wages to a greater degree for “low-skilled” than for “high-skilled” workers. Consequently, unions lessen wage inequality. Hirsch and Schumacher (1998) consider the conclusion that unions boost wages more for low- and middle-wage workers, a “universal finding” of the extensive literature on unions, wages, and worker skills. As they state:

The standard explanation for this result is that unions standardize wages by decreasing differentials across and within job positions (Freeman 1980) so that low-skilled workers receive a larger premium relative to their alternative nonunion wage.

The larger union wage premium for those with low wages, in lower-paid occupations and with less education is shown in Table 2 . For instance, the union wage premium for blue-collar workers in 1997, 23.3%, was far larger than the 2.2% union wage premium for white-collar workers. Likewise, the 1997 union wage premium for high school graduates, 20.8%, was much higher than the 5.1% premium for college graduates. Gundersen (2003) estimated the union wage premium for those with a high school degree or less at 35.5%, significantly greater than the 24.5% premium for all workers.

Card’s (1991) research provides a comprehensive picture of the impact of unions on employees by estimating the union wage premiums by “wage fifth,” where the sample is split into five equal groups of workers from the lowest wage up to the highest wage workers. As Table 2 shows, the union wage premium was far greater among low-wage workers (27.9%) than among middle-wage (18.0%) or the highest-wage workers (10.5%).

Unions reduce wage inequalities because they raise wages more at the bottom and in the middle of the wage scale than at the top. Lower-wage, middle-wage, blue-collar, and high school educated workers are also more likely than high-wage, white-collar, and college-educated workers to be represented by unions (see Table 2). These two factors—the greater union representation and the larger union wage impact for low- and mid-wage workers—are key to unionization’s role as a major factor in reducing wage inequalities (see Freeman 1980, 1982; and Freeman and Medoff 1984).

That unionization lessens wage inequality is also evident in the numerous studies that attribute a sizable share of the growth of wage inequality since 1979 to the erosion of union coverage (Freeman 1991; Card 1991; Dinardo et al. 1996; Blackburn et al. 1991; Card et al. 2003; Blanchflower and Bryson 2002). Several studies have shown that deunionization is responsible for at least 20% of the large increase in wage inequality (Mishel et al. 2003). This is especially the case among men, where steep declines in unionization among blue-collar and non-college-educated men has led to a rise in education and occupational wage gaps. Farber’s (2002) estimate shows that deunionization can explain as much as 50% of the growth in the wage gap between workers with a college education and those with a high school education.

Unions and fringe benefits

In and earlier era, non-wage compensation was referred to as “fringe benefits.” However, items such as adequate health insurance, a secure retirement pension, and sufficient and flexible paid leave to manage work and family life are no longer considered “fringe” components of pay packages. Thus, the union impact on benefits is even more critical to the lives of workers now than in the past. This section presents evidence that unionized workers are given employer-provided health and pension benefits far more frequently than comparable nonunion workers. Moreover, unionized workers are provided better paid leave and better health and pension plans.

The previous section reviewed data that showed that unions have had a greater impact in raising benefits than in raising wages. This section examines the union effect on particular benefits, primarily paid leave, health insurance, and pensions. Unions improve benefits for nonunionized workers because workers are more likely to be provided particular benefits and because the specific benefits received are better.

Table 3 provides information from the employer survey (the ECI) about the impact of unions on the likelihood that a worker will receive benefits. The table shows that unionized workers are 3.2% more likely to have paid leave, a relatively small impact, explained by the fact that nearly all workers (86%) already receive this benefit. Unions have a much greater impact on the incidence of pensions and health insurance benefits, with union workers 22.5% and 18.3% more likely to receive, respectively, employer-provided pension and health benefits.

Table 3 also shows the union impact on the financial value of benefits, including a breakdown of how much the greater value is due to greater incidence (i.e., unionized firms are more likely to offer the benefit) or to a more generous benefit that is provided.

Union workers’ paid leave benefits are 11.4% higher in dollar terms, largely because of the higher value of the benefits provided (8.0% of the total 11.4% impact). Unions have a far larger impact on pensions and health insurance, raising the value of these benefits by 56% and 77.4%, respectively. For pensions, the higher value reflects both that unionized workers are more likely to receive this benefit in the first place and that the pension plan they receive is generally a “richer” one. For health benefits, the value added by unions mostly comes from the fact that union workers receive a far more generous health plan than nonunionized workers. This factor accounts for 52.7% of the total 77.4% greater value that organized workers receive.

Table 4 provides further information on the union premium for health insurance, pensions, and paid leave benefits, drawn from a different data source (a series of supplements to the CPS) than for Table 3.1 The first two columns compare the compensation characteristics in union and nonunion settings. The difference between the union and nonunion compensation packages are presented in two ways: unadjusted (the difference between the first two columns) and adjusted (differences in characteristics other than union status such as industry, occupation, and established size). The last column presents the union premium, the percentage difference between union and nonunion compensation, calculated using the adjusted difference.

These data confirm that a union premium exists in every element of the compensation package. While 83.5% of unionized workers have employer-provided health insurance, only 62% of nonunionized workers have such a benefit. Unionized workers are 28.2% more likely than comparable nonunion workers to be covered by employer-provided health insurance. Employers with unionized workforces also provide better health insurance—they pay an 11.1% larger share of single worker coverage and a 15.6% greater share of family coverage. Moreover, deductibles are $54, or 18%, less for unionized workers. Finally, unionized workers are 24.4% more likely to receive health insurance coverage in their retirement.

Similarly, 71.9% of unionized workers have pensions provided by their employers, while only 43.8% of nonunion workers do. Thus, unionized workers are 53.9% more likely to have pension coverage. Union employers spend 36.1% more on defined benefit plans but 17.7% less on defined contribution plans. As defined benefit plans are preferable—they provide a guaranteed benefit in retirement—these data indicate that union workers are more likely to have better pension plans.

Union workers also get more paid time off. This includes having 26.6% more vacation (or 0.63 weeks—three days) than nonunion workers. Another estimate, which includes vacations and holidays, indicates that union workers enjoy 14.3% more paid time off.

Union wages, nonunion wages, and total wages

There are several ways that unionization’s impact on wages goes beyond the workers covered by collective bargaining to affect nonunion wages and labor practices. For example, in industries and occupations where a strong core of workplaces are unionized, nonunion employers will frequently meet union standards or, at least, improve their compensation and labor practices beyond what they would have provided if there were no union presence. This dynamic is sometimes called the “union threat effect,” the degree to which nonunion workers get paid more because their employers are trying to forestall unionization.

There is a more general mechanism (without any specific “threat”) in which unions have affected nonunion pay and practices: unions have set norms and established practices that become more generalized throughout the economy, thereby improving pay and working conditions for the entire workforce. This has been especially true for the 75% of workers who are not college educated. Many “fringe” benefits, such as pensions and health insurance, were first provided in the union sector and then became more generalized—though, as we have seen, not universal. Union grievance procedures, which provide “due process” in the workplace, have been mimicked in many nonunion workplaces. Union wage-setting, which has gained exposure through media coverage, has frequently established standards of what workers generally, including many nonunion workers, expect from their employers. Until, the mid-1980s, in fact, many sectors of the economy followed the “pattern” set in collective bargaining agreements. As unions weakened, especially in the manufacturing sector, their ability to set broader patterns has diminished. However, unions remain a source of innovation in work practices (e.g., training, worker participation) and in benefits (e.g., child care, work-time flexibility, sick leave).

The impact of unions on wage dynamics and the overall wage structure is not easily measurable. The only dimension that has been subject to quantification is the “threat effect,” though measuring this phenomenon is a difficult task for several reasons. First, the union presence will likely be felt most in the markets where unions are seeking to organize—the nonunion employers affected are those in competition with unionized employers. These markets vary in nature. Some of these markets are national, such as many manufacturing industries, while others are local—janitors and hotel and supermarket workers. Some markets are defined by the product—what employers sell, such as autos, tires and so on—while other markets are occupational, such as music, carpentry, and acting. Therefore, studies that compare industries cannot accurately capture the economic landscape on which unions operate and do not adequately measure the “threat effect.”

A second difficulty in examining the impact of the “threat effect” on nonunion wages is identifying a measure, or proxy, for the union presence. In practice, economists have used union density, the percentage of an industry that is unionized, as their proxy. The assumption here is that employers in highly organized settings face a higher threat of union organization than a nonunion employer in a mostly unorganized industry. In broad strokes, this is a reasonable assumption. However, taken too literally and simply, union density can be misleading. First, it is not reasonable to consider that small changes in union density—say, from 37% to 35%, or vice-versa—will produce observable changes in nonunion wages. Any measurement of the “threat effect” that relies on small changes in union density will almost surely—and erroneously—yield little or no effect. Second, the relationship between union density and nonunion wages is not linear. Union density is not likely to produce any threat effect until some threshold level of unionization is reached, as much as 30% to 40%. That is, unionization of 20% in a particular industry may have no impact but 40% unionization may be sufficient to make employers aware of union organizing and union pay and practices. Empirically, this means a 20 percentage point change in unionization density from zero to 20 may have no effect, but a change from 20 to 40 will have an effect. Likewise, a union presence of 60% to 70% may provide as strong a threat, or ability to set standards, as unionization of 80% or more. Therefore, the relationship between union density and nonunion wages depends on the level of density: significant effects after a threshold level of density (e.g., 30% to 40%), a greater effect when density is higher, but no continued increase of impact at the highest densities.

The sensitivity of the results to the specification—a linear or nonlinear specification of union density—is seen in studies of the union threat effect. A linear specification assumes that small changes at any level have the same impact, while a nonlinear specification allows the union effect to differ at different levels of unionization—perhaps less at low levels and more at medium or high levels. In an important early study of the “threat effect,” Freeman and Medoff (1981) examined the relationship between union density and nonunion wages and compensation in manufacturing. They found that union density had no association with higher nonunion pay (the relationship was positive but not statistically significant). Mishel (1982) replicated those results (p. 138) but also employed a nonlinear, qualitative specification (Table 4) that found large threat effects: nonunion establishments in industries with union density from 40% to 60% and from 60% to 80% paid 6.5% and 7.3% more, respectively, than nonunion establishments with low union density (0% to 40%).

Farber (2002, 2003) has conducted the most recent analysis of union threat effects, the relationship between union density and nonunion wages across industries, in the private sector. Farber’s analysis, which uses a linear specification of union density (i.e., assumes small changes at any level have an impact), combines sectors where threat effects, if any, are geographic (hotel, construction, and janitorial work) and national (manufacturing). In one analysis, Farber finds a positive threat effect for the 1970s, 1980s, and mid-1990s. For example, the average nonunion worker in an industry with 25% union density had wages 7.5% higher because of unionization’s presence. Farber’s results show a lower, but still significant, threat effect in later years, though the effect on the average nonunion wage has diminished because of the erosion of union density. Farber also shows, not surprisingly, that the threat effect is greater for workers with no more than high school degree but minimal for those with a college degree.

Farber pursues much more stringent tests of the threat effect in models that use “industry fixed effects” in order to ensure that the effect of other industry characteristics are not wrongly being attributed to union density. Farber’s results in this further analysis show a threat effect among all workers in the 1970s and 1980s but not in the 1990s. Nevertheless, threat effects still prevailed across decades for those without high school degrees and for those with high school degrees, and in the 1980s for those with some college education. For example, nonunionized high school graduates (the largest category of workers in the United States) earned 2.0% to 5.5% higher wages in industries with 25% unionization than they did in completely nonunionized industries.

The union effect on total nonunion wages is nearly comparable to the effect of unions on total union wages. Table 5 illustrates the union impact on union, nonunion, and average wages among workers with a high school education. Farber’s stringent model from 1983 estimates that, for high school workers in a 25% unionized industry, the “threat effect” raises the average nonunion wage by 5.0%, thereby lifting the average wage by 3.8%. Assuming that unions have raised the wages of union workers by 20%, this raises the average high school wage by 5% (25% of 20%). The total effect of unions on the average high school wage in this example is an 8.8% wage increase, 3.8 percentage points of which are due to the higher wages earned by nonunion workers and 5.0 percentage points of which are due to the union wage premium enjoyed by nonunionized workers.

Two conclusions can be reached based on these studies. First, unions have a positive impact on the wages of nonunion workers in industries and markets where unions have a strong presence. Second, because the nonunion sector is large, the union effect on the overall aggregate wage comes almost as much from the impact of unions on nonunion workers as on union workers.

Unions and workplace protections

An extensive array of labor laws and regulations protects workers in the labor market and the workplace. From the National Labor Relations Act and Social Security Act of 1935 to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, labor unions have been instrumental in securing labor legislation and standards. However, beyond their role in initiating and advocating enactment of these laws and regulations, unions have also played an important role in enforcing workplace regulations. Unions have provided labor protections for their members in three important ways: 1) they have been a voice for workers in identifying where laws and regulations are needed, and have been influential in getting these laws enacted; 2) they have provided information to members about workers’ rights and available programs; and 3) they have encouraged their members to exercise workplace rights and participate in programs by reducing fear of employer retribution, helping members navigate the necessary procedures, and facilitating the handling of workers’ rights disputes (Weil 2003; Freeman and Medoff 1984; Freeman and Rogers 1999).

Unions have played a prominent role in the enactment of a broad range of labor laws and regulations covering areas as diverse as overtime pay, minimum wage, the treatment of immigrant workers, health and retirement coverage, civil rights, unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation, and leave for care of newborns and sick family members. Common to all of these rules is a desire to provide protections for workers either by regulating the behavior of employers or by giving workers access to certain benefits in times of need (Weil 2003; Davis 1986; Amberg 1998). Over the years, these rules have become mainstays of the American workplace experience, constituting expressions of cherished public values (Gottesman 1991; Freeman and Medoff 1984).

Less well recognized perhaps, is the important role that unions play in ensuring that labor protections are not just “paper promises” at the workplace. Government agencies charged with the enforcement of regulations cannot monitor every workplace nor automate the issuance of insurance claims resulting from unemployment or injury. In practice, the effectiveness of the implementation of labor protections depends on the worker’s decision to act. This is done either by reporting an abuse or filing a claim. Unions have been crucial in this aspect by giving workers the relevant information about their rights and the necessary procedures, but also by facilitating action by limiting employer reprisals, correcting disinformation, aggregating multiple claims, providing resources to make a claim, and negotiating solutions to disputes on behalf of workers (Freeman and Rogers 1999; Weil 2003; Hirsch, et al. 1997).

Evidence of the vital role of unions in implementing labor protections can be found in the research on various programs and benefits. Union membership significantly increases the likelihood that a worker will file a claim or report an abuse. Examples of this research can be found in such areas as unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, pensions, and the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime provision.

Unemployment insurance

Unemployment insurance (UI) is a joint federal and state program that was created in the Social Security Act of 1935 to provide some income replacement to workers who lose their job through no fault of their own. Budd and McCall (1997) offer a cost-benefit decision-making analysis to explain the costs facing the unemployed worker in filing a UI claim. In a system with complex eligibility rules and benefit calculations and a lack of uniformity among states regarding these rules, the difficulty, or “cost,” of obtaining information is formidable. In fact, the main reason that many unemployed workers never file a claim is because they thought they were not eligible (Wandner and Stettner 2000). The threat of an employer retaliating by not rehiring a laid-off worker might be another cost weighing on the decision to file a claim. Unions can help offset the costs of workers who are laid off.

Primarily, unions provide information to workers about benefit expectations, rules, and procedures, and dispel stigmas that might be attached to receiving a social benefit. Unions also can negotiate in their contracts layoff recall procedures based on seniority and protection against firing for other than a just cause, as well as help workers build files in the case of a disputed claim (Budd and McHall 1997). Additionally, the union-wage differential reduces the likelihood that unemployed workers will be ineligible for benefits because their pay is too low (Wenger 1999).

Budd and McHall (1997) have estimated that union representation increases the likelihood of an unemployed worker in a blue-collar occupation receiving UI benefits by approximately 23%. At the peak of UI coverage in 1975, one in every two unemployed workers received UI benefits. By the mid-1980s, the ratio of claims to unemployed workers (the recipiency rate) had fallen to almost 30%. Blank and Card (1991) found that the decline in unionization explained one-third of the decline in UI recipiency over this period. These findings underscore the difference unions make in ensuring that the unemployment insurance system works. Considering that UI acts as a stabilizer for the economy during times of recession, the role of unions in this program is pivotal (Wandner and Stettner 2000).

Worker’s compensation

Laws governing workers’ compensation are primarily made at the state level (with the exception of federal longshoremen), but they generally form an insurance system in cases where a worker is injured or becomes ill at the workplace. The employer is liable in the system, regardless of fault, and in return they are protected from lawsuits and further liability. Once again, lack of information about eligibility and the necessary procedures for filing a claim forms the greatest obstacle to receipt of benefits. Fear of employer-imposed penalties and employer disinformation are important other factors weighed by workers deciding whether to act.

As with unemployment insurance, unions provide information to workers through their representatives, and they often negotiate procedures to handle indemnity claims. Through grievance procedures and negotiated contracts, unions protect workers from employer retaliation and, furthermore, act to dispel the notion among workers that employer retaliation is commonplace (Hirsch et al. 1997).

Hirsch et al. (1997) found that, after controlling for a number of demographic and occupational factors, union members are 60% more likely to file an indemnity claim than nonunion workers. Employers and the private insurance companies that sell worker’s compensation insurance policies have mutual interests in denying claims to limit costs (Biddle 2001). According to Biddle, higher denial rates lead to lower claim rates. The robust finding of Hirsch et al. demonstrates that unions provide a needed counterbalance to this interest.

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)

The Occupation Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) provided the foundation for the Occupation Safety and Health Administration, which enforces safety and health standards at places of work. The administration’s purpose is to limit work-related injury, illness, and death due to known unsafe working conditions. They currently have only 2,100 inspectors to monitor over seven million establishments. Enforcement of OSHA regulations presents an obvious challenge; OSHA implementation requires worker action to initiate complaints.

In two studies of OSHA and unions in the manufacturing and construction industries (1991a and 1991b), Weil found unions greatly improve OSHA enforcement. In the manufacturing industry, for example, the probability that OSHA inspections would be initiated by worker complaints was as much as 45% higher in unionized workplaces than in nonunion ones. Unionized establishments were also as much as 15% more likely to be the focus of programmed or targeted inspections in the manufacturing industry. In addition, Weil found that in unionized settings workers were much more likely to exercise their “walkaround” rights (accompanying an OSHA inspector to point out potential violations), inspections lasted longer, and penalties for noncompliance were greater. In the construction industry, Weil estimated that unions raise the probability of OSHA inspections by 10%.

In addition to the findings above, Weil notes that the union differential could be even larger if OSHA’s resources were not so limited. He claims, “Implementation of OSHA seems highly dependent upon the presence of a union at the workplace” (Weil 1991a). Following the trend of declining unionization, OSHA claims have dropped from their peak in 1985 of over 71,500 and are currently at close to 37,500 (Siskind 2002; OSHA 2003).

Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

Passed in 1993, the FMLA grants workers 12 weeks of unpaid leave in a 12-month period to care for newborn or newly adopted children, or in case of a personal or family member’s health condition. The leave taker is guaranteed the same or equivalent position upon return. One of the most striking characteristics of the act is that less than an estimated 60% of employees covered by the FMLA are not even aware that it exists. There is also widespread misunderstanding on the part of the employer about whom the act covers and when it applies. There is evidence that this leads employers to reject legally entitled leaves (Budd and Brey 2000).

According to Budd and Brey (2000), union members were about 10% more likely to have heard of the FMLA and understand whether or not they were eligible. Union members were found to have significantly less anxiety about losing their job or suffering other employer-imposed penalties for taking leave. And although the authors did not find union membership significantly increases the likelihood that a worker would take leave, they did find that union members were far more likely to receive full pay for leave taken.

The biggest obstacle to workers exercising their rights under the FMLA—besides the fact that the leave is unpaid rather than paid—is information, since only a very slim majority has even heard of the act. With the exception of a $100 fine for failing to post a notice, employers have little incentive to inform employees of their rights. Unions are one of the few institutions to create awareness about FMLA’s existence and regulations.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

This act, passed in 1938, had two main features: first, it established a federal minimum wage. Second, it established the 40-hour work week for hourly wage earners, with an overtime provision of time and a half the hourly wage for work done beyond 40 hours. Trejo (1991) examined the union effect on compliance of the latter part of the FLSA, finding that employer compliance with the overtime pay regulation rose sharply with the presence of a union. He hypothesizes that this result reflects the policing function of unions because unions often report violations to enforcement agencies.

Summary: union impact on workplace protections

The research evidence clearly shows that the labor protections enjoyed by the entire U.S. workforce can be attributed in large part to unions. The workplace laws and regulations, which unions helped to pass, constitute the majority of the labor and industrial relations policies of the United States. However, these laws in and of themselves are insufficient to change employer behavior and/or to regulate labor practices and policies. Research has shown convincingly that unions have played a significant role in enforcing these laws and ensuring that workers are protected and have access to benefits to which they are legally entitled. Unions make a substantial and measurable difference in the implementation of labor laws.

Legislated labor protections are sometimes considered alternatives to collective bargaining in the workplace, but the fact of the matter is that a top-down strategy of legislating protections may not be influential unless there is also an effective voice and intermediary for workers at the workplace—unions. In all of the research surveyed, no institutional factor appears as capable as unions of acting in workers’ interests (Weil 2003). Labor legislation and unionization are best thought of as complements, not substitutes.

This paper has presented evidence on some of the advantages that unionized workers enjoy as the result of union organization and collective bargaining: higher wages; more and better benefits; more effective utilization of social insurance programs; and more effective enforcement of legislated labor protections such as safety, health, and overtime regulations. Unions also set pay standards and practices that raise the wages of nonunionized workers in occupations and industries where there is a strong union presence. Collective bargaining fuels innovations in wages, benefits, and work practices that affect both unionized and nonunionized workers.

However, this review does not paint a full picture of the role of unions in workers lives, as unions enable due process in the workplace and facilitate a strong worker voice in the broader community and in politics. Many observers have stated, correctly, that a strong labor movement is essential to a thriving democracy.

Nor does this review address how unionism and collective bargaining affect individual firms and the economy more generally. Analyses of the union effect on firms and the economy have generally found unions to be a positive force, improving the performance of firms and contributing to economic growth (Freeman and Medoff 1984; Mishel and Voos 1992; Belman 1992; Belman and Block 2002; Stiglitz 2000; Freeman and Kleiner 1999; Hristus and Laroche 2003; with a dissenting view in Hirsch 1997). There is nothing in the extensive economic analysis of unions to suggest that there are economic costs that offset the positive union impact on the wages, benefits, and labor protections of unionized and nonunionized workers. Unions not only improve workers’ benefits, they also contribute to due process and provide a democratic voice for workers at the workplace and in the larger society.

— August 2003

1. The ECI data and the March CPS supplements show different benefit coverage rates with a union differential in coverage lower in the ECI than the CPS. This may reflect that the CPS reports individuals’ coverage while the ECI reports the coverage of occupational groups in establishments. The ECI overstates nonunion benefit coverage to the extent that uncovered nonunion workers are present in unionized occupation groups.

Amberg, Stephen. 1998. “The CIO Political Strategy in Historical Perspective: Creating the High-Road Economy in the Postwar Era.” In Kevin Boyle, ed., Organized Labor and American Politics, 1894-1994: The Labor-Liberal Alliance . Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, pp.159-194.

Barkume, Anthony J. 2002a. “Compensation supplements and use of incentive pay in U.S. job markets.” Working Paper No. 352. Office of Compensation and Working Conditions, Department of Labor.

Barkume, Anthony J. 2002b. “What compensation provides the firm and incentive instrument? Some recent evidence for U.S. private industry.” Unpublished paper.

Belman, Dale. 1992 “Unions, Quality of Labor Relations, and Firm Performance.” In Lawrence Mishel and Paula B. Voos, eds., Unions and Economic Competitiveness. Economic Policy Institute, New York, M.E. Sharpe, pp. 41-107.

Belman, Dale and Richard Block. 2002. “Collective Bargaining and Organizational Performance.” In Richard N. Block. ed., Collective Bargaining, Firm Competitiveness, and Employment in the United States . Kalamazoo, Mich.: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Biddle, Jeff. 2001. Do high claim-denial rates discourage claiming? Evidence from workers compensation insurance. Journal of Risk and Insurance . Vol. 68, No.4, pp. 631-58.

Blackburn, McKinley L., David E. Bloom, and Richard B. Freeman. 1991. “Changes in earnings differentials in the 1980s: concordance, convergence, causes, and consequences.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 3901. Cambridge, Mass.: NBER.

Blanchflower, David G. and Alex Bryson. 2002. “Changes over time in union relative wage effects in the U.K. and the U.S. revisited.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 9395. Cambridge, Mass.: NBER. < http://www.nber.org/papers/w9395 >

Blank, Rebecca M. and David E. Card. 1991. Recent trends in insured and uninsured unemployment: Is there an explanation? Quarterly Journal of Economics . November 1991, pp. 1157-89.

Buchmueller, Thomas C., DiNardo, John, Valletta Robert G. 2001. “ Union effects on health insurance provision and coverage in the United States.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 8238. Cambridge, Mass.: NBER.

Budd, John W. and Brian P. McCall. 1997. “Unions and unemployment insurance benefits receipt: Evidence from the CPS.” Working Paper. Industrial Relations Center: University of Minnesota.

Budd, John W. and Angela M. Brey. 2001. “Unions and family leave: Early experience under the Family and Medical Leave Act.” Working Paper. Industrial Relations Center: University of Minnesota.

Card, David. 1991. “The effect of unions on distribution of wages: Re-distribution or relabelling? Princeton University, Department of Economics, Working Paper No. 287. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University.

Card, David. 1996. The effect of unions on the structure of wages: A longitudinal analysis. Econometrica. Vol. 64, pp. 957-99.

Card, David. 2001. The effect of unions on wage inequality in the U.S. labor market . Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Vol. 54, pp. 354-67.

Card, David, Thomas Lemieux, and W. Craig Riddell. 2003. “Unionization and wage inequality: A comparative study of the U.S., the U.K. and Canada.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 9473. Cambridge, Mass.: NBER. < http://www.nber.org/papers/w9473 >

Davis, Mike. 1986. Prisoners of the American Dream: Politics and Economy in the History of the U.S. Working Class . London: Verso.

DiNardo, John, Nicole M. Fortin, and Thomas Lemieux. Labor market institutions and the distribution of wages, 1973-1992: A semi-parametric approach.” Econometrica. Vol. 64, September 1996, pp. 1001-1044.

Doucauliagos, Hristos and Patrice Laroche. 2003. “What Do Unions Do To Productivity? A Meta-Analysis.” Unpublished.

Farber, Henry S. 2002. “Are unions still a threat? Wages and the decline of unions, 1973-2001.” Princeton University, Working Paper. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University.

Farber, Henry S. 2003. “Nonunion wage rates and the threat of unionization.” Industrial Relations Section, Princeton University, Working Paper No. 472. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University.

Foster, Ann C. 2000. Union-nonunion wage differences, 1997. Compensation and Working Conditions . Spring, pp. 43-46.

Foster, Ann C. 2003. Differences in union and nonunion earnings in blue-collar and service occupations. Compensation and Working Conditions Online . Posted June 25. < http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030623ar01p1.htm >

Freeman, Richard B. 1980. Unionism and the dispersion within establishments . Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 3-23.

Freeman, Richard B. 1981. The effect of unionism on fringe benefits. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 489-509.

Freeman, Richard B. 1982. Union wage practices and wage dispersion within establishments. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 3-21.

Freeman, Richard B. 1991. “How much has de-unionization contributed to the rise in male earnings inequality?” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 3826. Cambridge, Mass.: NBER.

Freeman, Richard B. and James L. Medoff. 1981. The impact of the percentage organized on union and nonunion wages. The Review of Economics and Statistics . Vol. 63, No. 4 (Nov.), pp. 561-72.

Freeman, Richard and James Medoff. 1984. What Do Unions Do? New York: Basic Books.

Freeman, Richard B. and Kleiner, Morris M. July 1999. Do unions make enterprises insolvent? Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Vol. 52, pp. 27-50.

Freeman, Richard and Joel Rogers. 1999. What Workers Want . Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR Press.

Gottesman, Michael H. 2000. “Whither Goest Labor Law: Law and Economics in the Workplace.” In Samuel Estreicher and Stewart J. Schwab, eds., Foundations of Labor and Employment Law . New York: Foundation Press, pp. 128-130.

Gundersen, Bethney. 2003. “Unions and the well-being of low-skill workers.” George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University. Ph.D. dissertation.

Hirsch, Barry T. 1997. “Unionization and Economic Performance: Evidence on Productivity, Profits, Investments, and Growth.” In F. Mihlar, ed., Unions and Right-to-Work Laws . Vancouver B.C.: The Frazer Institute, pp. 35-70.

Hirsch, Barry T. 2003. Reconsidering union wage effects: Surveying new evidence on an old topic. Journal of Labor Research. Forthcoming.

Hirsch, Barry T., J. Michael DuMond, and David A. Macpherson. 1997. Worker’s compensation recipiency in union and nonunion workplaces. Industrial and Labor Relations Review . Vol. 50, No. 2 (January), pp. 213-36.

Hirsch, Barry T. and Edward J. Schumacher. 1998. Unions, wage, and skills. Journal of Human Resources . Vol. 33, No. 1 (Winter), pp. 201-219.

Hirsch, Barry T. and Edward J. Schumacher. 2000. “Private sector union density and the wage premium: Past, present, and future.” Department of Economics, East Carolina University, Working Paper No. 0015.

Hirsch, Barry T. and Edward J. Schumacher. 2002. Unions, wage, and skills. Journal of Labor Economics . 2002 forthcoming.

Hirsch, Barry T. and David A. Macpherson. 2003. Union Membership and Earnings Data Book: Compilations from the Current Population Survey. Bureau of National Affairs.

Hansen, Fay. 1998. Union membership and the union wage differential. Compensation and Benefits Review . Vol. 30, No. 3 (May/June), pp. 16-21.

Kuttner, Robert. 2003. Welcome to the amazing jobless recovery. Business Week Online . Economic Viewpoint: July 28.

Lewis, H. Gregg. 1963. Unionism and Relative Wages in the United States . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lewis, H. Gregg. 1986. Union Relative Wage Effects: A Survey Chicago . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mishel, Lawrence R. 1982. “The structural determinants of union bargaining power.” University of Wisconsin, Madison. Ph.D. dissertation.

Mishel, Lawrence and Paula B. Voos, eds. 1992. Unions and Economic Competitiveness. Economic Policy Institute. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2003. “OSHA Facts.” OSHA, Department of Labor. < http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/oshafacts.html >

Pierce, Brooks. 1999a. Using the National Compensation Survey to predict wage rates. Compensation and Working Conditions . Winter.

Pierce, Brooks. 1999b. “Compensation inequality.” Office of Compensation and Working Conditions, Department of Labor, Working Paper No. 323.

Siskind, Frederic B. 2002. “20th Century OSHA Enforcement Data: A Review and Exploration of Major Trends.” Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Labor. < http://www.dol.gov/asp/media/reports/osha-data/toc.htm >

Trejo, Stephen J. 1991. The effects of overtime pay regulation on worker compensation. American Economic Review . Vol. 81, No. 4 (September), pp. 719-40.

Wandner, Stephen A. and Andrew Stettner. 2000. Why are many jobless workers not applying for benefits? Monthly Labor Review . June, pp. 21-32.

Weil, David. 1991. Enforcing OSHA: The role of labor unions. Industrial Relations . Vol. 30, No. 1 (Winter), pp. 20-36.

Weil, David. 2001. Assessing OSHA performance: New evidence from the construction industry. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management . Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 651-74.

Weil, David. 2003. “Individual rights and collective agents: The role of old and new workplace institutions in the regulation of labor markets. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 9565. Cambridge, Mass.: NBER. < http://www.nber.org/papers/w9565 >

Wenger, Jeff. 2001. Divided We Fall: Deserving Workers Slip Through America’s Patchwork Unemployment Insurance System. Briefing Paper, Economic Policy Institute. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

See related work on Collective bargaining and right to organize | Unions and Labor Standards

See more work by Matthew Walters and Lawrence Mishel

Sign up to stay informed

New research, insightful graphics, and event invites in your inbox every week.

See related work on Collective bargaining and right to organize and Unions and Labor Standards

Track EPI on Twitter

Why Employees Need Unions? Essay

Introduction, ethical issue, why unions are more important, promotions and discharge, union criticisms, works cited.

Primarily, under normal social scenario, people consider ethics a life value. In many occasions, ethics encompasses individual, faction or societal politics at the expense of meeting organizational values. These values must represent fairness to all members and social harmony. Unlike individualism, ethics provides a platform of collective organizational responsibility whether in communal or business levels.

In ethics, people learn how to relate with each other and perform duties either independently or jointly. Personal, group or communal ethics is necessary for social development. If a society decides to perform a communal activity, ethics is necessary among its members, in order to meet their expectations. In the past, there were no groups and instead, people liked to work as individuals.

At the dawn of civilization, workers realized deprivation of their rights by their employers. A union was necessary to avert this scenario. Unions can be either of trade or of labor groups. A union is an assemblage of people with the same targets. Workers can join hands to push for better working conditions.

Instead of collective responsibility, these workers can elect members who will bargain on their behalf. Additionally, union leaders can negotiate wage increase, abhorring of some work rules, enact hiring and complaint policies, defend unnecessary contact termination and ensure safety at workplaces. These are some of the reasons that make unions important business collaborates hence; successful business management. (Weil 20-26).

During the industrial revolution age, people had little skills hence could not perform some tasks, which required professionalism. Therefore, employers used this opportunity to exploit workers. Employers underpaid and mistreated their employees. There was no ethics in them, as they enjoyed doing it while maximizing their profits. At the dawn of civilization, European workers decided to form unions to fight for their rights.

Though disorganized until the end of 19 th century, the unions fought to work in fewer hours and wage increase. Thus, unions became fundamental in organizing and protecting employee rights. Through them, workers could voice out their demands in order to maintain job dignity and security. Thus, to promote business ethics, unions are very important. Successful business opportunities take employee interests at heart. If unions exercise their freedoms without employer restraints, that business is bound to succeed.

In today’s business ethics, unions are important business collaborators. For instance, unions situate didactic standards at workplaces, provide technical knowledge to employees, bargain for superior working environments, parley salary increase, and improve the welfare of unionized members.

Research has indicated that, workers in a union enjoy higher wages and other benefits than non-union workers. For instance, many countries do not have job breaks. Interestingly, these countries enacted legal laws prohibiting employee vacations. Under this scenario, the state has the right to terminate contracts in case of absenteeism or any other simple mistake. Within a union, members can negotiate for vacations and even take a leave.

In the present society, unions are paramount more than they were long time ago from industrial revolution age. With the current economic tumult, some employers are resisting unions, terming them too demanding. To discourage members from joining unions, employers use anti-union campaign strategies, intimidations, firing of union members, half-truths and innuendo, and routine responses wherever workers opt to form unions.

Unfortunately, when employees work on individual grounds, they are bound to fail. However, unions have greater influence and can effect many changes. This is because; unions speak for the minority and safeguard the interests of workers under law. Additionally, they ensure fair treatment from employers. Many employers do recognize the ethicalness behind paying employees superior wages and other benefits.

This is because; companies that project on long term opportunities could want to maximize their profits through a skilled work force. Thus, meeting employee expectations ensure workers remain to work for an organization with satisfaction. These business opportunities value an organized workforce, which on employee experience to increase productivity. (Hirsch and Schumacher 201-219).

Traditionally, on social ethical grounds, the role of enterprises towards employees has been to pay an equal amount of wages for the work done. This has really changed over the recent years. There is unprecedented rise of political, social, and moral philosophies at workplaces. Yet, the question on the roles of an employer to employee remains unanswered.

In 1935, the Wagner Act prohibited employers from firing workers because of union status. Later, in 1964, the Civil Rights Act prohibited all Americans from exercising racial, sex, national, age and creed discriminations. There were major law alterations, which gave civil service workers, job protections especially against unnecessary contract terminations. (Freeman and Kleiner 27-50).

Currently, there is debate in America on whether employment at will suits American workers. The answer is, absolutely no. Some businesspersons believe that, it is immoral to employ new working policies, other than ‘employment at will’.

To them, employees have no rights beyond employment acts and therefore, view them as business hindrances. This is what separates successful and unsuccessful business enterprises. Those that respect employee rights and value humanity are triumphant, while those that reject policy changes, experience business downfall.

Organizational conducts such as payments, firing, hiring, and promotions determine business success or failure. This is the reason why unions do exist. In the past, organizational conduct has been wanting, especially when these policies appeared to infringe employee rights. Unions play an important part in ensuring that, these conducts adhere to humanity and working laws. (Freeman and Meddoff 1-21).

Hiring process is one organizational conduct that has serious flaws. Although sometimes it is not easy to determine the level of skills in a person, there should be an efficient and transparent hiring process. So far, unions have been beneficial, in drafting hiring policies, which characterize justice and equality. Good hiring processes include screening, testing and then interviewing recruits. Under screening, employees with most skills qualify for a detailed and accurate job description.

Unions assist employers in recruitment because; inequalities arise due to improper hiring processes, which attract civil strikes. Any form of discrimination is unethical and affects the entire workforce. Consider a recruiting organization marred with sex, race, ethnic and religion discriminations rather than professionalism. This is one of the roles of unions in ensuring, fair and justice prevails in the hiring process. Testing should be feasible and unswerving to epitomize fairness.

Unions bargain for fair promotions in organizations. Many organizations rely on inbreeding, or seniority or nepotism in promoting workers rather than using personal qualifications. This is an ethical issue, which has paralyzed many workforces. People without experience and qualification can assume high responsibility and those with qualification denied the chance.

This creates discouragement in the workforce hence, business failure. Additionally, unions protect workers from unnecessary contract terminations. Whenever an employee makes a mistake, there is a fair hearing process to determine a just outcome. (Hirsch and Schumacher 212-216).

Collective bargaining of workers’ wages is a sole prerogative of unions. In fact, research indicates that, unionized workers receive better pay as compared to non-union members. Moreover, some strong unions insist on qualification rather than discriminations. Fortunately, some employers dictated by common sense, may decide to increase the wages of lowly paid workers, especially in this period of economic downturn. (Mishel and Matthews 1-10).

Despite these important union roles, there are some people and entrepreneurs who believe unions are unnecessary. For example, some people accuse unions of partisan interests especially in benefitting a section of workers.

Job seekers fail to secure their dream jobs because, some unions characterize with racism, sexism and other discriminations. Organizations blame unions for unemployment because; the increase in wages means, some workers are bound to loose jobs. Overall, employers are opposed to unions and in some situations; many workers loose their jobs because of unionization. (Kramarz 1-6).

Unions are vital to workers’ job security and in many instances; they improve the lives of the citizenry. Through unions, countries continue to register an expanded economy and social stability. Some infringing laws do not exist today, courtesy of unions. In terms of wages, unions continue to fight for workers’ pay increase relative to the amount of work done.

Additionally, unions do collective bargaining with employers on behalf of employees, especially on the amount of time employees should work, organization rules and conditions, and other organizational decision making processes. If employers fail to yield to union demands, unions can mobilize their members to strike, boycott or campaign against employee abuses. Perhaps these are the major reasons why employees need unions.

Freeman, Richard, Kleiner, Morris. Do unions make enterprises insolvent? Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 52.1: (1999): 27-50.

Freeman, Richard, Medoff, James. What Do Unions Do? New York: Basic Books, 1984. Print.

Hirsch, Barry, Schumacher, Edward. Unions, wage, and skills. Journal of Human Resources . 33.1 (1998): 201-219.

Kramarz, Francis. Outsourcing, Unions, and Wages: Evidence from data matching imports, firms, and workers. 2006. Web. < http://www.eco.uc3m.es/temp/agenda/wage102006.pdf >

Mishel, Lawrence, Matthew, Walter. How unions help all workers. 2003. Web. < https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/ >

Weil, David. Enforcing OSHA: The role of labor unions. Industrial Relations . 30. 1: (1991): 20-36.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, April 1). Why Employees Need Unions? https://ivypanda.com/essays/concepts-of-unions/

"Why Employees Need Unions?" IvyPanda , 1 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/concepts-of-unions/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Why Employees Need Unions'. 1 April.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Why Employees Need Unions?" April 1, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/concepts-of-unions/.

1. IvyPanda . "Why Employees Need Unions?" April 1, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/concepts-of-unions/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Why Employees Need Unions?" April 1, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/concepts-of-unions/.

• Plea Bargaining: Charge Bargain and Sentence Bargain
• Bargain Hotel and 5-Star Hotel Comparison
• Collective Bargaining in Education
• Plea Bargain: Benefits and Pitfalls
• Why Google Was Wrong Firing James Damore
• Importance of Unions in Enhancing Fair Wages for Workers
• Managing Union vs. Non-Union Employees
• Industrial Relations. Australian Collective Bargaining Plan
• Plea Bargaining: Advantages and Disadvantages
• Firing Police Officer for Violation of Code of Ethics
• The Employment Discrimination Against Muslims at Work Places
• Managing Diversity in Work Places
• Increasing Diversity in the Workplace
• Managing Conflict and Workplace Relationships
• Strategies of Workplace Diversity Management

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Labor unions and the u.s. economy.

By Laura Feiveson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Microeconomics

Today, the Treasury Department released a first-of-its-kind report on labor unions, highlighting the evidence that unions serve to strengthen the middle class and grow the economy at large. Over the last half century, middle-class households have experienced stagnating wages, rising income volatility, and reduced intergenerational mobility, even as the economy as a whole has prospered. Unions can improve the well-being of middle-class workers in ways that directly combat these negative trends. Pro-union policy can make a real difference to middle-class households by raising their incomes, improving their work environments, and boosting their job satisfaction. In doing so, unions can help to make the economy more equitable and robust.

Over the last century, union membership rates and income inequality have diverged, as shown in Figure 1. Union membership peaked in the 1950s at one-third of the workforce.  At that time, despite pervasive racial and gender discrimination, overall income inequality was close to its lowest level since its peak before the Great Depression, and was continuing to fall.  Over the subsequent decades, union membership steadily declined, while income inequality began to steadily rise after a trough in the 1970s. In 2022, union membership plateaued at 10 percent of workers while the top one percent of income earners earned almost 20 percent of total income.

Figure 1: Union Membership and Inequality

While the overall U.S. economy has grown over the past few decades, the rise in inequality can be a proxy for the experience of many middle-class households. The income of the median family rose only 0.6 percent per year, in contrast to average personal income per household which rose 1.1 percent per year, as seen in Figure 2.  And, notably, other markers of middle-class stability have deteriorated since the 1970s. Income has become more volatile, [1] the amount of time spent on vacation has fallen, [2] and middle-class Americans are less prepared for retirement. [3] Intergenerational mobility has declined—90 percent of children born in the 1940s earned more than their parents did at age 30, while only half of children born in the mid-1980s did the same. [4]  

Figure 2: Income and Wage Growth since the 1960s

So, how could unions help? Treasury’s report shows that unions have the potential to address some of these negative trends by raising middle-class wages, improving work environments, and promoting demographic equality. Of course, unions should not be the only solution to these structural trends. But the evidence below and in the report suggests that unions can be useful in building the economy from the middle out.

Wages 

One of the most oft-cited benefits of unions is the so-called “union wage premium”—the amount that union members make above and beyond non-members.  While simple comparisons of the wages of union workers and nonunion workers find that union workers typically make about 20 percent more than nonunion workers, [5] economists turn to other types of analysis to capture causal effects of unions on wages. The first approach controls for many worker and occupation characteristics with the goal of comparing the wages earned by two similar workers that differ only in their union status. The other empirical approach is “regression discontinuity analysis,” which compares the wages in workplaces which just barely passed a vote to unionize against wages in workplaces that barely failed to pass the unionization vote. All in all, the evidence from these two approaches points to a union wage premium of around 10 to 15 percent, with larger effects for longer-tenured workers. [6]

Work environments

Worker wellbeing is greatly affected by non-wage benefits. Some benefits, such as healthcare benefits and retirement benefits, are a part of the compensation package and have substantial monetary value. Other features of the work environment, like flexible scheduling or workplace safety regulations, may not have direct monetary value but could still be highly valued by workers. For example, one study estimated that the average worker is willing to give up 20 percent of wages to avoid having their schedule frequently changed by their employer on short notice. [7] Another study, co-authored by Secretary Yellen, found that 80 percent of people who like their jobs cite a non-wage reason as the primary cause of their satisfaction and, conversely, 80 percent of people who dislike  their jobs cite non-wage reasons to explain their dissatisfaction. [8]

There is strong evidence that unions improve both fringe benefits and non-wage features of the workplace. Figure 3 shows how much more likely it is for a union worker to be offered certain amenities than a nonunion worker. While these simple comparisons reflect correlations only, studies that use more robust empirical approaches find the same: unions have had a large hand in improving work environments on many dimensions and, in doing so, raise the wellbeing of workers and their families. [9]

Figure 3: Fringe Benefits and Amenities

Workplace Equality

The diverse demographics of modern union membership mean that the benefits of any policy that strengthens today’s unions would be felt across the population.Union membership is now roughly equal across men and women. In 2021, Black men had a particularly high union representation rate at 13 percent, as compared to the population average of 10 percent. [10]  

Unions promote within-firm equality by adopting explicit anti-discrimination measures, supporting anti-discrimination legislation and enforcement, and promoting wage-setting practices that are less susceptible to implicit bias. As an example of egalitarian wage-setting practices, single rate or automatic progression wage structures contribute to lower within-firm income inequality compared to firms that make individual determinations. [11] These types of practices, and others like publicly available pay schedules, benefit women and vulnerable workers who can be less likely to negotiate aggressively for pay raises. 

Empirical studies have confirmed that unions have, indeed, closed race and gender gaps within firms. For example, one study finds that the wage gap between Black and white women was significantly reduced due to union measures. [12] Another study provides evidence of how collective bargaining has reduced gender wage gaps amongst teachers. [13]

The positive effects of unions are not limited to union workers. Nonunionized firms in competition with unionized workplaces may choose to raise wages, change hiring practices, or improve their workplace environment to attract workers. [14] Unions can also affect workplace norms by, say, lobbying for workplace safety improvements, or advocating for changes in minimum wage laws. [15] The empirical evidence finds that these positive spillovers exist. Each 1 percentage point increase in private-sector union membership rates translates to about a 0.3 percent increase in nonunion wages. These estimates are larger for workers without a college degree, the majority of America’s workforce. [16]  

Unions may also produce benefits for communities that extend beyond individual workers and employers by enhancing social capital and civic engagement. Union members vote 12 percentage points more often than nonunion members, and nonunion members in union households vote 3 percentage points more often than individuals in nonunion households. [17] In addition, union members are more likely to donate to charity, attend community meetings, participate in a neighborhood project, and volunteer for an organization. [18]

Increased unionization has the potential to contribute to the reversal of the stark increase in inequality seen over the last half century. In turn, increased financial stability to those in the middle or bottom of the income distribution could alleviate borrowing constraints, allowing workers to start businesses, build human capital, and exploit investment opportunities. [19]  Reducing inequality can also promote economic resilience by reducing the financial fragility of the bottom 95 percent of the income distribution, making these Americans less sensitive to negative income shocks and thus lessening economic volatility. [20] In short, unions can promote economy-wide growth and resilience.

All in all, the evidence presented in Treasury’s report challenges the view that worker empowerment holds back economic prosperity. In addition to their effect on the economy through more equality, unions can have a positive effect on productivity through employee engagement and union voice effects, providing a road map for the type of union campaigns that could lead to additional growth. [21] One such example found that patient outcomes improved in hospitals where registered nurses unionized. [22]

The Biden-Harris Administration recognizes the benefits of unions to the middle class and the broader economy and has taken actions, outlined in Treasury’s report, to empower workers. There have been promising signs: union petitions in 2022 rose to their highest level since 2015, [23] and public opinion in support of unions is at its highest level in over 50 years. [24] The evidence summarized here and in Treasury’s report suggest these burgeoning signs of strengthening worker power are good news for the middle class and the economy as a whole. 

[1] Dynan, Karen, Douglas Elmendorf, and Daniel Sichel. 2012. “The Evolution of Household Income Volatility.” The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 12 (2).

[2] Van Dam, Andrew. 2023. “The mystery of the disappearing vacation day.” The Washington Post, February 10, 2023.

[3] Johnson, Richard W., and Karen E. Smith. 2022. “How Might Millennials Fare in Retirement?” Urban Institute , September 2022.

[4] Chetty, et al. (2017).

[5] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2023. Table 2.: Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by union affiliation and selected characteristics. Last modified January 19, 2023.

[6] For example: Gittleman, Maury, and Morris M. Kleiner. 2016. "Wage effects of unionization and occupational licensing coverage in the United States."  ILR Review  69 (1): 142–172; Kleiner, Morris M., and Alan B. Krueger. 2013. “Analyzing the Extent and Influence of Occupational Licensing on the Labor Market.” Journal of Labor Economics 31 (2): S173–S202; DiNardo, John, and David S. Lee. 2004. “Economic Impacts of New Unionization on Private Sector Employers: 1984–2001.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 119 (4): 1383–1441; Frandsen, Brigham R. 2021. “The Surprising Impacts of Unionization: Evidence from Matched Employer-Employee Data.” Journal of Labor Economics 39 (4): 861–894.

[7] Mas, Alexandre, and Amanda Pallais. 2017. "Valuing alternative work arrangements."  American Economic Review  107 (12): 3722–59.

[8] Akerlof, George A., Andrew K. Rose, and Janet L. Yellen. 1988. "Job switching and job satisfaction in the US labor market."  Brookings Papers on Economic Activity  1988 (2): 495–594.

[9] Knepper, Matthew. 2020. “From the Fringe to the Fore: Labor Unions and Employee Compensation.” The Review of Economics and Statistics  102 (1): 98–112.

[10] Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and author’s calculations using BLS data, accessed through IPUMS. Data reflect 2022 values. Sample is employed 16+ year olds. Excludes workers represented by, but not a member of, unions.

[11] See, e.g., Card (1996) and Freeman (1982). Freeman, Richard B. 1982. "Union wage practices and wage dispersion within establishments." ILR Review 36 (1): 3–21.

[12] Rosenfeld, Jake, and Meredith Kleykamp. 2012. “Organized Labor and Racial Wage Inequality in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology 117 (5): 1460–1502.

[13] Biasi, Barbara, and Heather Sarsons. 2022. "Flexible wages, bargaining, and the gender gap."  The Quarterly Journal of Economics  137 (1): 215–266.

[14] Fortin, Nicole M., Thomas Lemieux, and Neil Lloyd. 2021. "Labor market institutions and the distribution of wages: The role of spillover effects."  Journal of Labor Economics  39 (S2): S369–S412; Taschereau-Dumouchel, Mathieu. 2020. "The Union Threat."  The Review of Economic Studies  87 (6): 2859–2892.

[15] The impact of changes in government policy arising out of union advocacy is not the focus of this paper; however, Ahlquist (2017) suggests that advocacy plays an important role in unions’ impacts on the labor market. Spillovers and “threat effects” within the labor market, however, are discussed in this paper. Ahlquist, John S. 2017. “Labor Unions, Political Representation, and Economic Inequality.” Annual Review of Political Science 20 (1): 409–432. 

[16] Note: Rosenfeld, Denice, and Laird (2016) do not interpret their estimates causally. Their approach suffers from many of the CPS’s sample size limitations. Although the CPS ostensibly reports quite detailed occupational codes, Rosenfeld, Denice, and Laird estimate regressions with only four occupational codes and 18 industry codes. This data limitation greatly increases the risks that the regression-adjusted approach cannot control for selection effects into unionization. 

[17] This 12-percentage-point union voting premium largely reflects socioeconomic factors associated with individuals who join a union. However, when comparing members with non-members who exhibit similar characteristics, there remains a union voting premium of 4 percentage points. Freeman, Richard B. 2003. “What Do Unions Do…to Voting?” National Bureau of Economic Research , working paper no. 9992.

[18] Zullo, Roland. 2011. “Labor Unions and Charity.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 64 (4): 699–711. 

[19]  Aghion, P., E. Caroli, and C. Garcia-Penalosa. 1999. “Inequality and Economic Growth: The Perspective of the New Growth Theories.” Journal of Economic Literature 37 (4): 1615–60.

[20]  Kumhof, Michael, Romain Rancière, and Pablo Winant. 2015. “Inequality, Leverage, and Crises.” American Economic Review 105 (3): 1217–45.

[21] Doucouliagos, Christos, Richard B. Freeman, and Patrice Laroche. 2017. The Economics of Trade Unions: A study of a Research Field and Its Findings . London: Routledge.

[22] Dube, Arindrajit, Ethan Kaplan, and Owen Thompson. 2016. “Nurse unions and patient outcomes.”  ILR Review  69 (4): 803–833.

[23] National Labor Relations Board. 2022. “Election Petitions Up 53%, Board Continues to Reduce Case Processing Time in FY22.” Press release. October 6, 2022.  https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/election-petitions-up-53-board-continues-to-reduce-case-processing-time-in .

[24] McCarthy, Justin. 2022. “U.S. Approval of Labor Unions at Highest Point Since 1965.” Gallup , August 30, 202 2.

Labor Union News, Analysis, and Tools

• UnionTrack Blog

How Unions Build Strength Through Community Engagement

by Ken Green · Published October 29, 2019 · Updated October 29, 2019

Ken Green CEO/Founder UnionTrack, Inc

Now, maybe more than ever before, labor unions need all the support they can get to defend themselves and build up memberships. 

The current political climate has been devastating for workers’ rights. Anti-union legislation like right-to-work laws , blows to collective bargaining and the spread of misinformation about unions is making it extremely difficult for unions to do what they are built to do — advocate for and bargain on behalf of workers.

To combat the onslaught of anti-unionism and take the labor movement into the future, labor leaders are searching for ways to build up support from advocates and allies. One grassroots strategy they are focusing on is engaging their local communities. “We must engage our communities and all their diversity,” says Kenneth Rigmaiden , general president of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT).

Why is a high level of engagement with local communities so important to labor unions? Because when unions and communities work together, good things happen.

Unions and Local Communities Have a Symbiotic Relationship

Unions need communities to enhance their memberships and support their endeavors. As the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’ (IBEW) Civic and Community Engagement Department emphasizes, community engagement is the cornerstone of improving the union’s standing in local neighborhoods. The public, in turn, needs unions to boost working and economic conditions in their communities. 

To help foster this relationship, unions must reach out and build a presence in local communities. 

American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten stresses that unions can no longer focus solely on themselves or the four walls of the workplace to improve wages and working conditions. She emphasizes the need for unions to build power through community partnerships, saying “Community must become the new ‘density’ of American unionism.”

That’s because “communities are the lifeblood of movements,” writes Douglas Williams , a graduate teaching assistant at the University of Alabama who researches the labor movement and labor policy. 

Communities can elect the pro-labor candidates to community leadership positions. Communities can rally around striking workers when they stand in solidarity on a picket line. As such, engaging community advocates should be a primary focus of labor leaders in their efforts to build union strength, Williams says.

On the other side of the equation, community members have an interest in a union’s accomplishments. Communities need unions to improve economic conditions by boosting workers’ wages and benefits through collective bargaining. Stronger unions means stronger communities. When unions secure wins for their members, they also make gains for nonunion workers in the community. 

“Union members are stewards of the public good, empowering the individual through collective action and solidarity,” explains Andy Stern , president emeritus of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

“Being a member of a union has greater implications than working for oneself, or one’s workplace, to gain benefits for yourselves,” says the Independent Education Union of Australia (IEU) WA Branch . “Being ‘union’ also means extending the idea of fairness and solidarity to the community.”

By engaging the community, unions can demonstrate how their efforts benefit everyone, not just union members. That concept is the underlying reason why the recent teacher strikes were so successful. 

The Teacher Strikes Were a Case Study in Community Engagement

Before teachers in West Virginia started their statewide strike in 2018, they reached out to community stakeholders to explain their actions, garner support, solicit advice, and plan for potential hardships to teachers and students. 

“The teachers felt that it was time to meet with parents and community residents to ask how public schools could better serve West Virginia’s children,” writes Eleanor J. Bader , an English teacher at Kingsborough Community College in Brooklyn, New York.

Those efforts resulted in individuals and businesses in the community preparing packed lunches for the kids during the strike and organizing groups to provide child care for working families, who needed somewhere for their kids to go during the day. 

The teachers also took advantage of the power of social media to engage the public by communicating their messages and the progress of their strikes. “Educators communicating online played a key role in forming grassroots groups that are storming statehouses and holding demonstrations,” writes AP reporter Melissa Daniels . That constant flow of information kept the public connected to the mission of the teacher strikes. 

This community-based approach to the strikes helped earn the teachers the support they needed to withstand nine days of organized action. Community engagement bought the teachers the time they needed to secure key victories. It was a strategy that carried across to strikes in other states over the last couple of years.

3 Ways Unions Can Become Visible Community Partners

Building community relationships is a process that demands a concerted effort from labor leaders and union members. Effectively engaging with the public means unions must demonstrate a visible commitment to the communities they represent.

1. Organizing Community Outreach Committees 

A big part of engaging the community is talking to people in the community and volunteering to assist where needed. For unions to be visible, they need to have members on the ground making connections and participating in community service projects. 

One of the best ways to organize these efforts is to recruit member volunteers to a community service or outreach committee. United Autoworkers Union (UAW) local 2209 in Fort Wayne, Indiana, has a very active Community Services Committee that participates in a variety of community projects as a way to stay engaged with the community.

This benefits both parties, says the local’s president, Brian Hartman . “Community service can change lives. And it goes both ways — we help others, but also gain so much back in return.” That’s an approach to community engagement that other unions would do well to follow. 

2. Publicizing Local Union Activities

Once a union has built up consistent participation in the community, an important part of keeping locals engaged is promoting the good work the union is doing in the community. 

While it may seem like boasting, publicizing the charitable deeds and volunteer activities of union members is a key element of community engagement. In doing so, unions actively demonstrate their involvement with local causes. 

One of the best tools for publishing this activity is social media. “When used to connect and promote dialogue with the public, social media tools can help to galvanize your community and develop trusting relationships,” Indah Budiarti at Public Services International Asia Pacific writes.

Social media isn’t the only option for promoting union activities in the community. A blog on the union’s website, yard signs positioned at project sites at which the union volunteered and media spotlights are all options for showcasing what the union is doing within a community.

This type of self-promotion is important in engaging with locals. “As you build your relationships with people online, you will find that people will start to promote your cause voluntarily, defend you in online forums, send you information you’d never find out otherwise, and participate in future campaigns,” says Alex White , secretary at UnionsACT.

3. Getting Involved in Politics

Local politics can have a heavy impact on unions. The last thing any union wants to face is heavy anti-labor leaders in local government. That’s why political organization and involvement are crucial to unions. Unions need sympathetic voters to go to the polls to elect pro-labor candidates.

One common voter-engagement tactic for unions is canvassing. Canvassing during an election is a popular way for unions to accomplish three things simultaneously: 

• Engage locals to build relationships. 
• Promote a pro-union voting agenda.
• Increase voter turnout. 

These interactions are impactful because they foster a sense of community and connection between unions members and locals. 

And that’s what community engagement is all about — building a connection between a union and its community. UnionTrack ENGAGE can help unions in their community engagement efforts by facilitating communication between leaders and members, as well as between volunteers on community service committees.  

Images by: Nina Strehl , Sheila Fitzgerald/©123RF.com, Wavebreak Media Ltd/©123RF.com

You may also like...

How Teachers Unions Are Shaping the 2020-2021 School Year

July 21, 2020

 by Ken Green · Published July 21, 2020 · Last modified July 20, 2020

Best Practices for Creating an Organizing Committee To Unionize Your Workplace

January 11, 2022

 by Ken Green · Published January 11, 2022 · Last modified January 31, 2022

The Next Generation: 19 Young Labor Leaders to Know

March 12, 2019

 by UnionTrack Team · Published March 12, 2019 · Last modified March 14, 2019

• Next story  Roadmap for Unionizing: First Steps When Organizing Your Coworkers
• Previous story  How Unions Could Shape the 2020 Presidential Election

Why ENGAGE ® ?

Our power lies in our collective voice. Both sides know that when unions are strong, all workers win. And unions are strongest when they too, are engaged and communicating with the loud, clear voices of their members.

The threats to working people are real. And we are their last line of defense.

What is ENGAGE?

UnionTrack ENGAGE is serious, next-generation labor union software. Combining the best of union dues payment software, union member communications software, grievance tracking software - all under a single, modern, web-based system. Designed specifically for both officers and members alike to leverage the power of today's connected devices to create the most advanced labor union management software package available today.

We fight for unions, because we are union.

Related Solutions

Click the logo below to learn how ENGAGE ® can transform your union.

PREMIUM CONTENT FOR LABOR LEADERS

Survey: A Turning Point For Unions - Why Now Is A Critical Time For Union Outreach

Union Organizing In A Digital Era - A Guide For Union Leaders

Communication Technology - A Guide For Union Leaders

Other Union News

Labor Topics

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Prev Med Rep
• v.24; 2021 Dec

Labor unions and health: A literature review of pathways and outcomes in the workplace

J. paul leigh.

a Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States

b Center for Poverty and Inequality Research, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States

c Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States

Bozhidar Chakalov

Associated data.

• • Unique literature review links economic and epidemiologic studies on unions.
• • Unions raise wages, decrease inequality, and thereby likely improve health.
• • Unions decrease discrimination and affect other determinants of health.
• • Unions improve workplace safety and health and decrease job-related fatalities.
• • Unions are an underappreciated social determinant of health.

Extensive economic research demonstrates correlations between unions with wages, income inequality, health insurance, discrimination, and other factors. Corresponding epidemiologic literature demonstrates correlations between income, income inequality, insurance, discrimination, and other factors with health. The first purpose of this narrative review is to link these literatures and identify 28 possible pathways whereby labor unions might affect the health of workers. This review is restricted to effects within workplaces; we do not consider unions' political activities. This review covers studies from the US, Europe, and Canada from 1980 through April 1, 2021. Pathways are grouped within five domains informed by the CDC 5-domain model of social determinants of health and the traditional 3-domain model of occupational medicine. Linked pathways include wages, inequality, excessive overtime, job satisfaction, employer-provided health insurance (EPHI), and discrimination. Second, we identify studies analyzing correlations between unions directly with health outcomes that do not require links. Outcomes include occupational injuries, sickness absence, and drug overdose deaths. Third, we offer judgments on the strength of pathways and outcomes --- labeled “consensus,” “likely,” “disputed” or “unknown” --- based on literature summaries. In our view, whereas there are four “consensus” pathways and outcomes and 16 “likely” pathways and outcomes for unions improving health, there are no “consensus” or “likely” pathways for harming health. The strongest “consensus” pathways and outcomes with salubrious associations include EPHI, OSHA inspections, dangerous working conditions, and injury deaths. Fourth, we identify research gaps and suggest methods for future studies. Unions are an underappreciated social determinant of health.

1. Introduction

Economic research is extensive pertaining to correlations between unions on the one hand and lower income inequality, higher wages, less overtime, less discrimination, more employer-provided health insurance and additional factors on the other. Epidemiologic research is extensive on correlations between health with the same or similar factors. It is somewhat surprising how separate these two literatures are. Only a few economic studies address how unions directly affect health, but these are limited to two outcomes: sickness absence and occupational injury. And whereas epidemiology has an entire subfield for occupational epidemiology, we found only a handful of studies (discussed below) addressing the direct associations between unionization and health. The authoritative text on occupational epidemiology no longer contains a chapter on unions ( Levy et al., 2017 ). The authoritative text on social epidemiology ( Berkman et al., 2014 ) does not mention unions in its 39-page index. The first purpose of this narrative review is to link the economic and epidemiologic literatures. Second, we review the few studies on direct correlations between unions and health outcomes. Third, we offer judgments on whether the links and correlations represent effects of unions on health. Fourth, we make suggestions for future research.

Unions have been at the forefront of recent debates surrounding income inequality, stagnant wages, “deaths of despair,” and protection and adequate pay for essential workers during the covid-19 pandemic. Income inequality in the US is now at historic levels not seen since the beginning of the Great Depression ( Keshner, 2019 ). Inflation-adjusted US wages have been stagnant or falling for middle- and low-wage workers for over 40 years ( Mishel et al., 2015 ). Epidemiologic studies find income inequality harms the population’s health ( Kawachi and Kennedy, 2002 ). Kristol and Cohen (2017) estimate that 44% of the increase in wage inequality in US private sector jobs from 1988 to 2012 was attributed to the decline in unionization. “Deaths of despair” refer to the 20-year increase in deaths due to drug overdoses, alcoholism, and suicides primarily among middle-aged Americans ( Case and Deaton, 2020 ). These deaths have been cited as causes of the stunning recent annual drops in US life expectancy even before covid ( Devitt, 2018 ). The last time there were drops in US life expectancy was in 1918 during the Spanish Flu pandemic. “Deaths of despair” have been partially attributed to decades-long erosion of the numbers of unionized, well-paying, blue-collar jobs in the US ( Case and Deaton, 2020 ). A similar phenomenon is threatening the UK and the decline of unions is again being cited as one cause ( Joyce and Xu, 2019 ). Deaths, 2021 , Blanchflower, 2019 suggest that “deaths of despair” and falling wages since the Great Recession contributed to the election of Donald Trump and votes for Brexit. Many researchers and commentators view unions as playing pivotal roles in reducing income inequality, wage stagnation, “deaths of despair”, and especially in improving treatment of essential workers ( Case and Deaton, 2020 , Kapos, 2020 , Mishel et al., 2015 , Nunn et al., 2019 ).

Many people view the 1950s as a time when America was “Great” for the American worker. The economy was growing rapidly, wages were increasing at all economic levels, and unemployment was low. It was also a time that private-sector labor unions were at their zenith of power in the US. Approximately 33% of the workforce was unionized in the 1950s and the vast majority was in private, not public unions ( Mayer, 2014 ). Private-sector unionization began a steady decline in the 1960s to arrive at the 2019 level of 6%, matching that from the 1910s in the US ( Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020 ).

It is beyond the scope of this review to discuss the numerous factors causing these sharp declines in private-sector unions ----declines in some manufacturing industries such as autos and steel with historically high unionization rates likely played roles--- but one factor for which there is near unanimous agreement deserves a brief mention: politics. Countries such as France, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Germany, among others, also experienced declines in manufacturing but experienced no or only modest declines in the percent of the workforce covered by union contracts; the political climate in these countries is cited as largely responsible ( Rosenfeld, 2014 ). There are unique examples from the US. The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act allowed states to pass so-called “right-to-work” (RTW) laws that permitted workers in unionized workplaces to opt-out of joining and paying dues, i.e. to free ride. RTW laws have had negative effects on unions’ abilities to organize ( Ellwood and Fine, 1987 ). By 2017, 27 states had adopted these laws. As another example, President Reagan fired all striking air traffic controllers in 1981 thereby signaling that his administration did not support unions. Beginning in the 1980s, organized business began aggressively opposing unions ( Rosenfeld, 2014 ). But this 40-year decline is poised for change. Public approval for unions, 64% in 2019, is near a 50-year high, with the highest approval among people < 35 years old; and politicians have noticed ( Jones, 2019 ).

Public-sector unions followed a different path. In 1959, Wisconsin became the first state to allow state workers to unionize; most other states subsequently followed. By the late 1970s, the percent of all public workers in unions rose to approximately 33%. Unlike private-sector unionization, public-sector unionization did not decline but rather has stabilized around 33–34% since the 1980s in the US. In 2019, approximately 7.1 million workers were in public-sector and 7.5 in private-sector unions ( Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020 ). Private- and public-sector unionization combined was 10.3% of the workforce in 2019.

In 2019, for both private and public-sector unions combined, African Americans (11.2%) had higher union membership rates than white non-Hispanics (10.3%), Hispanics (9.1%) or Asians (8.9%) ( Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020 ) in the US. People in the 45–64 age bracket had the highest rates of all age brackets (12.7%) ( Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020 ). The rate for full-time workers (11.2%) was roughly double that for part-time workers (5.5%). Among all 16.4 million workers represented by unions, 14.6 million were members and 1.8 million were not members but were nevertheless covered by union contracts ( Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020 ). In 2017, women comprised approximately 47% of private-sector union members and 58% of public-sector members ( Wolf and Schmitt, 2018 ). Although we are not aware of statistics on occupations by gender by sector, data on educational attainment suggests that female union members are more likely to hold higher disproportionate shares of both low- and high-status occupations in the public than private sector. Approximately 14% of public-sector union members have less than a high school degree and 34% have more than a college degree; the percentages for private-sector union members are 9% and 11% ( Wolf and Schmitt, 2018 ). In part, this reflects public schools in which cafeteria workers and janitors are not required to have high school degrees, but teachers are required college degrees.

We identify 28 possible pathways involving linked economic and epidemiologic literatures and seven health outcomes involving studies on the direct effects of unions on health. Each of these 28 economic and epidemiologic sets of studies as well as those for health outcomes studies merit their own literature review. This study, however, will not conduct 63 separate literature reviews (28 economic, 28 epidemiologic, and 7 direct). This review is restricted to effects within workplaces. We do not consider unions’ political activities involving, for example, minimum wages, universal basic income, or universal health insurance.

Unique literature search strategies were followed. Three leading labor economics texts (and references therein) formed the primary sources for the 28 economic pathways ( Ehrenberg and Smith, 2015 , Kaufman and Hotchkiss, 2003 , McConnell et al., 2017 ). Google scholar searches identified the prominent epidemiologic and public health studies for the 28 epidemiologic pathways as well as four of the seven direct effects (self-rated health, drug overdoses, mortality, food insecurity). Donado’s (2015) literature review and subsequent studies citing Donado were used as the basis for our search involving the fifth and sixth direct effects: fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries. Brown and Sessions’ (1996) literature review and subsequent studies citing Brown and Sessions formed the basis of our search involving the final direct effect: work absences. The appendix provides greater detail for the search strategies for injuries and absences. For all strategies, papers were excluded if they had no direct data-based estimate of effects of unions on pathways or pathways on health. Additional exclusions were for editorials, news stories, blogs, testimony, legal briefs, undergraduate papers, and thought pieces. All searches included 1980 through April 1, 2021. Most studies were from the US, but some were from Europe and Canada. No studies were drawn from economically developing nations. Whereas the subjects of this review ---workers--- are sometimes viewed only through the lens of occupational medicine, the effects of unions are far-reaching and best viewed also through the lens of public health as shown in the model below.

This review follows a straightforward format. First, we present a model for analyzing direct effects of unions on the health of workers covered by collective bargaining contracts. Second, we review the economics literature pertaining to possible health pathways that are prevalent in unionized versus non-unionized workplaces. Third, we review the epidemiological literature pertaining to whether these likely pathways have health or behavior associations in working and other populations regardless of union status. Fourth, we consider the relatively few (mostly economic) studies on direct associations between union status and health outcomes. The paper closes with a summary, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

2. Model of effects of unions on health

Table 1 presents a model for union pathways with domains on the left side and pathways on the right. The model is informed by the literature on the Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) and Occupational Medicine. Healthy People 2020 posits five domains for the SDoH: 1) Economic Stability, 2) Education, 3) Health and Health Care, 4) Neighborhood and Built Environment, and 5) Social and Community Context ( Centers for Disease Control, 2020 ). The leading textbook on Occupational Medicine posits three domains: Physical and Mechanical, Biological and Chemical, and Psychosocial ( Levy et al., 2017 ). For relevance in the union and workplace context, a subcategory of Neighborhood and Built Environment---pollution--- can be combined with Physical, Mechanical, Biological and Chemical to form what may be labeled Environment and Work Organization. There is overlap between portions of Social and Community Context with Psychosocial which may be labeled simply Psychosocial. The pathways are gleaned from three leading labor economics texts as well as economics literature on differences between union and non-union workplaces for which there are corresponding epidemiologic studies. The first author has been teaching classes and researching subjects in labor economics and social epidemiology since 1980. Pathways are more fully described in the next section.

Model for Effects of Unions on Health of Workers.

The arrangement of pathways in the five domains is straightforward but some require comment. Excessive overtime, shift and graveyard work, workers and unemployment compensation, workplace flexibility for individual workers, non-standard and “gig” working conditions, piece-rate pay, and vacation leave are characteristics of the work environment and hence placed into Environment, but they also have economic and psychosocial dimensions. For example, excessive overtime can increase earnings and therefore be considered in Economic Stability. Shift and graveyard work can affect circadian rhythms which, in turn, can affect psychosocial health. In addition, whereas sub-categories for all three Occupational Medicine domains are well represented in the pathways, some subcategories for SDoH are not. Quality of housing and level of violence in the neighborhood are subcategories within Neighborhood and Built Environment. It is unlikely that workers within their workplaces are associated with housing or neighborhood violence in the same way that they are associated with, for example, wages or working conditions. The SDoH domains and subcategories are used as a guide, not the ultimate arbiter of which pathway to include in which domain.

The pathways included in Table 1 are more numerous than any other list appearing in the literature of which we are aware. Future researchers will no doubt imagine others. It is likely that other imagined pathways will fall into one of the five domains, however, thereby underscoring the utility of the model.

Table 1 describes pathways for workers at the workplace. This review will not extend to effects of unions on society at-large; they are simply too numerous. For example, teachers’ unions might promote health classes for their students; police unions might support members who kill African Americans; national unions might support environmental laws; effects of labor unions on national levels of employment or housing availability --- two important determinants of health--- are largely unknown. Nevertheless, two broad effects will be addressed: economy-wide wage levels and income inequality. The first part of Table 2 , labeled I, applies to union versus non-union workplaces; part II applies to society at-large, combining union with non-union workplaces.

Possible health pathways.

3. Associations between unions and possible pathways; Columns 1–3 Table 2 .

The first column in Table 2 identifies pathways. Columns 2 and 3 pertain to predominantly economic literature on unions; columns 4 and 5 pertain to predominately epidemiologic literature regardless of union status. Column 2 provides references for the judgments. Column 3 provides our judgments regarding the findings in the literature. For some pathways, there is consensus. For example, all studies with which we are aware find unionized establishments have more OSHA inspections (pathway #11). For other pathways, such as “job security,” (pathway #4) findings are disputed. We created a category, “likely”, which indicates that judgment leans to one side. Finally, we use “unknown” for pathways for which there are two or fewer studies. We use these words to describe our judgments of findings, not the findings themselves. The reader should have high confidence that when we describe findings as “disputed” that there are at least two (probably many more) studies with inconsistent findings. Our “likely” judgment means that while there may be inconsistent findings, we believe the evidence leans in a consistent direction. In general, readers should have more confidence in “consensus”, “disputed” and “unknown” judgments than “likely” ones. We sought to make Table 1 self-explanatory. Nevertheless, several pathways require additional comments.

The lion’s share of economic research has addressed private, not public unions. It is likely that all conclusions and judgments drawn in Table 1 also apply to public unions albeit to a lesser degree. For example, considering pathway #1, whereas private unions generate a 20% wage advantage over private non-union workplaces, public unions generate a 10% advantage ( McConnell et al., 2017 ). When the same conclusions and judgments cannot be drawn for public unions, we will so indicate.

Wages and within-firm wage inequality are the first and second pathways and there is consensus: unions increase wages --- especially for low-wage workers--- and reduce within-firm inequality compared to non-union workplaces. A leading labor economics textbook estimates a 15% union wage for private-sector and government-sector unions combined ( McConnell et al., 2017 ). This wage advantage represents a transfer from capital (business owners) to labor ( Mishel, 2012 ). Mishel (2012) estimates that unionized workers are 53.9 % more likely to have employer-provided pensions (pathway #3).

Pathway #5 involves discrimination for which there are two forms: employment and wages. Historians disagree on the extent of union discrimination against Blacks for the first 60 years of the twentieth century. Some unions and affiliates (e.g. AFL) explicitly excluded Blacks but others (e.g. CIO) welcomed them ( Hill, 1996 ). In addition, some unions, such as the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, were exclusively Black. A recent analysis finds that in the two decades following World War II, Blacks were over-represented in unions and enjoyed a greater union wage advantage than whites ( Farber et al., 2020 ). Explicit discrimination against other minorities, particularly Asians, and women also occurred within some unions in these 60 years but, again, there is no consensus on the extent of that discrimination ( Hill, 1996 ).

Beginning in the 1970s, most studies find less discrimination against either women or minorities than in the labor market at-large with respect to employment ( Leonard, 1985 ). In 2016, 65% of persons covered by either private or public-sector union contracts were either women or minorities ( Bivens et al., 2017 ). Beginning in the 1970s, while there is no consensus, numerous studies indicate less wage discrimination in either private- or public-sector unions ( Bivens et al. 2017 ). Within the public sector, unions raise wages for women more than for men ( Freeman and Leonard, 1987 ). For both public- and private-sector unions combined, Mishel (2012) estimates union wage premiums are higher for Blacks (17%) and Hispanics (23%) than whites (11%).

Even though formal education (pathway #7) is a powerful SDoH, research on the effects of unions on educational attainment is sparse and ambiguous ( Blanchflower, 2006 , Ewer, 2000 ). For example, Blanchflower (2016) finds educational attainment is negatively correlated with private sector membership but positively correlated with public sector membership.

There is consensus that unionized workplaces are more likely to have employer-provided health insurance (EPHI) in the US (pathway #8). One estimate is that unionized workplaces have insurance coverage rates that are 18.3 percentage points higher than those for non-unionized workplaces ( Bivens et al., 2017 ). Buchmueller et al. (2002) find that de-unionization explains about a third of the decline in EPHI coverage between 1983 and 1997 in the US. Mishel (2012) estimates that unionized workers are 3.4% more likely to have paid sick leave (pathway #9).

We distinguish between exposure to dangerous working conditions (pathway #12) versus health and injury outcomes resulting from exposures ( Table 3 ). Exposure can be assessed, for example, with questions to workers such as “does your job ever expose you to….” followed by possibilities including, for example, dangerous chemicals, viruses, bacteria, radiation, fire, electricity, or air pollution ( Leigh, 1982 ). The consensus is that unionized workplaces are more hazardous than non-unionized ones. But there is a question regarding assessing blame: do unions create hazards or vice versa? A leading labor economics text suggests unions are more likely to form in hazardous workplaces and once formed, hazardous conditions are reduced, at least in the private sector; few analyses have addressed the public sector ( Kaufman and Hotchkiss, 2003 ). A thorough discussion of this issue appears in the analysis of Table 3 .

Direct associations between unions and health outcomes.

The consensus is that unions increase the likelihood of OSHA inspections (pathway #13) and, given workers experience injuries or unemployment, unions increase the likelihood of receipt of workers compensation and unemployment compensation benefits (pathway #14). Union members may feel less threatened than non-union members by possible employer retaliation resulting from contacting OSHA or filing workers’ compensation claims ( Weil, 1991 , Hirsch et al., 1997 ).

Both pathways #17 and #18 include shiftwork. Pathway #17 applies to the total amount of shiftwork while #18 applies to worker control over whether to engage in shiftwork. Individual worker-controlled flexibility (#18) includes, for example, the ability to: work at home; have compressed workweeks part of the year; temporarily change start and quit times; alter the pace of work; choose shifts; require predictable hours ( Cotti et al., 2013 , Duncan and Stafford, 1980 , Kaufman and Hotchkiss, 2003 , Keune, 2013 ). Flexibility has implications for family health as it would allow workers more time to take care of sick family members. Whereas unions may decrease the availability of working from home or ability to alter the pace of work, they enlarge the capacity to choose which shift to work and to require predictable work hours, particularly for members with seniority. The effects of unions on individual worker-controlled flexibility are therefore disputed.

Jobs with non-standard work arrangements have also been referred to as alternative, precarious, contingent, gig, freelance, or independent contract (#19). There is no agreed-upon definition, but these jobs are typically temporary, do not have an explicit or implicit contract for on-going employment, and shift some of the risk of business onto workers ( Howard, 2017 ). The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that nearly 14% of the workforce held contingent or alternative jobs in 2017 ( Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018 ). These jobs are disproportionately non-union ( OECD, 2019 ). Unions have been at the forefront of keeping standard jobs from becoming gig jobs as well as helping to change the legal classification of gig work from independent contractor to employee. ( Tronsor, 2018 , CBS News, 2021 ). European unions might have success in their attempts to include gig work in their sectoral bargaining arrangements ( Doherty and Franca, 2020 ).

A systematic review with meta -analysis finds unions correlate with low job satisfaction (pathway #22) but does not find unions cause low satisfaction ( Laroche, 2016 ). One explanation is that union members are encouraged to “speak up”, to express any displeasure with working conditions to management; another is that dissatisfied workers are more likely to join unions. Further evidence for this “speaking up” hypothesis pertains to quit rates which can be viewed as the strongest expression of job dissatisfaction. Most studies find unionization lowers quit rates ( McConnell et al., 2017 ).

Pathway #23 pertains to “job strain” and/or “job control” ( Schnall et al., 1994 ). We are unaware of economic studies comparing union and non-union workers on these dimensions and only one epidemiologic study ( Gillen et al. 2002 ) which, incidentally, finds no union/non-union differences.

Social support at work includes mentoring, cooperative spirit, willingness to share resources, companionship, emotional support, and other factors among co-workers and, when appropriate, supervisors ( Park et al., 2004 ). We are unaware of empirical studies addressing union/non-union differences for social support at work (#24). Nevertheless, it is likely that unions promote this pathway given unions encourage members to attend meetings, voice grievances with one another, and solidarity ( Hagedorn et al., 2016 )

Fairness and justice (#25) encompass many dimensions and these can be in conflict ( Fuller and Hester, 2001 ). For example, does fairness dictate that workers be promoted based on seniority or productivity or some combination of the two? Unions give considerable weight to seniority ( McConnell et al., 2017 ). On the other hand, unions generally have grievance and arbitration procedures that encourage workers to voice complaints and sometimes change work practices. A (dated) survey finds that 83% of American workers believe unions protect them from “unfair practices” by management ( Kochan, 1979 ).

Self-esteem, respect, and stigma (#26) receive enormous attention in the organizational psychology literature but we are unaware of studies exploring union/non-union differences ( Pierce and Gardner, 2004 ). One survey of steelworkers finds union membership satisfies socio-emotional needs such as “approval, self-esteem, affiliation, and respect” ( Fuller and Hester, 2001 ). On the other hand, it could be that unions carry a stigma given some historical connections to organized crime ( Gibney et al., 2018 ).

Pathways #27 and #28 pertain to society at-large. Unions may have effects on wages, benefits, and unemployment throughout the economy depending on effects on non-union workplaces (#27). There are conflicting theories ( McConnell et al., 2017 ). One theory holds that unions raise wages “too high”, forcing employers to cut their unionized workforces. These laid-off workers will flood the labor market in non-union sectors, leading to declines in wages and benefits and increasing unemployment in those sectors. But there are also threat effects according to a different theory: non-union firms might increase wages and benefits to discourage any threat posed by their workers possibly deciding to unionize ( Fortin et al., 2021 ). Finally, there is consensus that unions reduce economy-wide wage and income inequality (#28). Western and Rosenfeld (2011) find de-unionization from 1973 to 2007 explains from 20% to 33% of rising wage inequality in the US. Raphael (2011) finds unionization and inequality associations across 21 OECD countries.

4. Associations between pathways and health regardless of union status; Columns 1, 4, 5, Table 2 .

Epidemiologists and some economists have investigated the pathways in Table 2 independent of union status. Column 4 provides prominent studies and texts and column 5, our judgments. Again, many entries in Table 2 are self-explanatory and do not require additional comment.

Several hypotheses surround higher wages (pathway #1). First, higher wages can improve access to health care as workers are more able to afford it. Women with low incomes will feed and clothe their children before spending on themselves ( Elliot et al., 2015 ). On the other hand, higher wages might allow workers to buy more cigarettes, drugs, or alcohol ( Leigh et al., 2019 ). We are unaware of studies on the effects of pensions on health (#3). Studies find Social Security Supplemental Income benefits (theoretically like pensions) decrease disability in the elderly ( Arno et al., 2011 ). Substantial literature indicates increases in income, especially for low-income people, improves health ( Glymour et al., 2014 ). For example, Davis et al. (2018) query cross-sections of Britons to determine minimum levels of income required to meet basic material needs for food, clothing, shelter, and so on; Gibson et al. (2020) review 27 studies on interventions similar to Universal Basic Incomes and find some health benefits. Discrimination (#5) harms psychological health and increases unhealthy behaviors (e.g. smoking) of women and especially minorities; effects on physiological health are “inconsistent and weak” ( Krieger, 2014 ). Epidemiologic studies typically do not separate employment from wage discrimination.

When compared to “no insurance”, EPHI (pathway #8), improves health of workers and their families ( O’Brien, 2003 ). If the US moves to universal coverage, however, this comparison may become moot. We are not aware of studies that compare health outcomes among similar workers with EPHI versus, for example, Medicaid or individual private insurance. But for the foreseeable future, many employed people in the US will likely not have insurance. Regarding other fringe benefits, Asfaw et al. (2017) find sick leave (pathway #9) reduces flu-related absences because the flu is less likely to spread and Rossin (2011) finds maternity leave (pathway #10) improves child health.

Studies have identified disproportionate shares of workplace hazards and injuries within non-standard jobs (#19) ( Howard, 2017 ). Apouey and Stabile (2019) find that non-standard employment is associated with good mental health due to the job control and flexibility. Piece work and incentive pay (#20) likely harm health ( DeVaro and Heywood, 2017 ). The first economist to suggest harm was Adam Smith: “Workmen …. when they are liberally paid by the piece, are very apt to overwork themselves, and to ruin their health and constitution in a few years” ( DeVaro and Heywood, 2017 ).

Economy-wide increases in either wage or income inequality (#28) likely harm population health. We are not aware of epidemiologic studies addressing only wage inequality (as there are in economics). A plethora of epidemiologic studies, however, have addressed income inequality. Ross et al.(2000) find inequality increases mortality in the US but has no effect in Canada. But Kawachi et al., 2014 , Pickett and Wilkinson, 2009 find reduced inequality improves health across states and nations. Moreover, there is a wealth of epidemiologic literature addressing health effects of income reaching back decades ( Kitagawa and Hauser, 1973 )

5. Direct associations between unions and health outcomes

Table 3 presents pathways, judgments, and studies on the direct associations of unions with various measures of health. There are far fewer of these studies than appear in Table 2 . These studies differ from those in Table 2 in that the dependent variable measures health and the key independent variable measures unions; no links are required between economic and epidemiologic studies. The first two dependent variables in the first two rows summarize literature reviews in the Appendix. All studies recognize the possibility of reverse causality: workplace hazards might result in more unions because unions might be more likely to form in workplaces that have significant hazards. Some studies attempt to remove reverse causality with instrumental variables and/or longitudinal data ( Donado, 2015 ) so that researchers can test whether unions reduce the number of injuries from existing high levels. An additional complicating factor is that unions likely help workers apply for and receive workers’ compensation benefits ( Hirsch et al., 1997 ). Our assessment of the literature in the Appendix is that unions decrease fatal injuries (pathway #29) but findings for non-fatal injuries (#30) are disputed.

There is consensus for the second dependent variable: unions increase reported sickness absence (#31). There is no consensus, however, for explaining the correlation. Most researchers suggest that rather than indicating unions cause sickness, unions encourage workers to take more sick days when they are truly sick. Union workers may not feel as threatened with employer retaliation as non-union workers for taking days off. Finally, seven unique studies in the bottom rows of Table 3 pertain to unions improving self-rated physiological and psychological health, drug overdoses, mortality, and food insecurity.

Table 4 provides a summary of findings. We created five categories for assessments. For a pathway to qualify within either the “Consensus unions improve health” or “Consensus unions harm health” there must have been consensus either in both columns 2 and 4 of Table 2 or within Table 3 . For the two “likely” categories, qualification was broader: either the pathways in both columns 2 and 4 of Table 2 were “likely” or one was “likely” and the other was “consensus”; or the pathway in Table 3 is “likely.” If any pathway garnered a “disputed” or “unknown” judgment in either column 2 or 4 of Table 2 or Table 3 , that pathway was classified as “disputed and unknown” in summary Table 4 .

Summary of findings on pathways and outcomes.

*Note: Reported absence is not an outcome; only actual sickness or injury leading to absence is an outcome.

Findings in Table 4 reveal that whereas there are four consensus pathways and outcomes and 16 likely pathways and outcomes for unions improving health, there are no consensus or likely pathways for harming health. We cannot conclude, however, that unions improve health overall because there are 15 disputed and unknown pathways and outcomes and any of these may have powerful harmful effects.

7. Limitations and methodological issues for future research

This study has limitations. First, readers may not agree with our judgments regarding summaries of findings, but they at least have a place to begin to form their own or construct studies to test these pathways. Yet setting aside judgments, we identify 35 pathways and outcomes and cite relevant studies for each. Virtually all “union and health” studies with which we are aware have identified no more than three pathways. Malinowski et al., 2015 , Hagedorn et al., 2016 identify more but they do not link their pathways to the economics literature, nor do they identify as many as in this study. Second, with the exception of effects on economy-wide wages and inequality, we do not include any other possible economy-wide effects such as possible effects on the quality of products (e.g. unionized nurses providing better cardiovascular care ( Ash and Seago, 2015 ) or union support for political public health initiatives such as Obamacare or effects on broader Social Determinants of Health such as housing. With four exceptions ---employer-provided health insurance (EPHI), paid family leave, individual worker-controlled flexibility and wages--- we do not address effects on families. Finally, this review primarily focuses on private-sector unions because, apart from wages, there is little research on possible pathways for public-sector unions.

There are lessons from studies in Table 2 , Table 3 for future research. First, most research has been conducted within the private sector. When public- and private-sector sector unions are analyzed, they are frequently separated. Second, comparison groups must be constructed with an eye to the structure of the relevant labor market. For example, within the private-sector, blue-collar rather than white-collar workers are much more likely to be unionized. The comparison group for private-sector unions, therefore, should be non-unionized blue-collar, not white-collar, workers. Third, there are major gaps in research pertaining to, for example, union/non-union differences in education, job strain, and justice, and effects of pensions on health. Fourth, whatever the health dependent variable might be there is the possibility of reverse causality e.g. hazardous conditions may lead workers to form unions. To address this possibility researchers might use longitudinal data containing people who have joined or left unions over time or instrumental variables or propensity scores.

8. Conclusion

We first link predominately economic with predominately epidemiologic literatures to identify 28 job-related pathways whereby unions might influence the health of workers. Pathways include wages, wage inequality, and discrimination. Second, we report on studies with direct associations between unions and health including occupational injuries and absence from work. We cannot conclude that there is consensus that unions improve or harm overall worker health; we nevertheless find considerably more salubrious than harmful pathways and outcomes. Unions can also have effects outside workplaces; for example, they can help galvanize political support for public health legislation or minimum wages. But such effects are myriad and beyond the scope of this review. Unions are underappreciated institutions for affecting not only worker health, but the health of workers’ families and the public at-large.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101502 .

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following are the Supplementary data to this article:

• Allen S.G. Trade unions, absenteeism, and exit-voice. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 1984; 37 (3):331–345. [ Google Scholar ]
• Apouey B, Stabile M. The effects of self and temporary employment on mental health: The role of the gig economy in the UK INSEAD Working Paper No. 2019/23/EPS. May 28, 2019. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3395144 Accessed February 11, 2020.
• Arno P.S., House J.S., Viola D., Schechter C. Social security and mortality: The role of income support policies and population health in the United States. J. Public Health Policy. 2011; 32 (2):234–250. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aronsson G., Gustafsson K. Vacation –still an issue for worker protection? An empirical study of vacation and recuperation. Int. J. Health Serv. 2005; 35 (1):143–169. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Asfaw A., Rosa R., Pana-Cryan R. Potential economic benefits of paid sick leave in reducing absenteeism related to the spread of influenza-like illness. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2017; 59 (9):822–829. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ash M., Seago J.A. The effect of registered nurses' unions on heart-attack mortality. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 2004; 57 (3):422–442. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barling J., Kellowa E.K. Job insecurity and health: The moderating role of workplace control. Stress Med. 1996; 12 (4):253–259. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benach J., Vives A., Amable M., Vanroelen C., Tarafa G., Muntaner C. Precarious employment: Understanding an emerging social determinant of health. Am. J. Public Health. 2014; 35 (1):229–253. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bender K.A., Sloane P.J. Trade union membership, tenure and the level of job insecurity. Appl. Econ. 1999; 31 (1):123–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkman L.F., Kawachi I., Glymour M.M., editors. Social Epidemiology. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press; New York, NY: 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bivens, J., Engdahl, L., Gould, E., Kroeger, T., McNicholas, C., Mishel, L., Mokhiber, Z., Shierholz, H., Wilpert, M.V., Wilson, V., Zipperer, B. How today’s unions help working people. Economic Policy Institute. August 24, 2017. https://www.epi.org/publication/how-todays-unions-help-working-people-giving-workers-the-power-to-improve-their-jobs-and-unrig-the-economy/#epi-toc-12 Accessed January 23, 2020.
• Blanchflower, D.G.. A Cross-Country Study of Union Membership. IZA Discussion Paper #2016. 2006. SSRN website. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=892338# Accessed May 1, 2021.
• Blanchflower D. Princeton University Press; Princeton, New Jersey: 2019. Not Working: Where Have All the Good Jobs Gone? [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth A.L., Francesconi M. Union coverage and non-standard work in Britain. Oxford Economic Papers. 2003; 55 (3):383–416. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown S., Sessions J.G. The economics of absence: Theory and evidence. J. Econ. Surv. 1996; 10 (1):23–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchmueller T.C., DiNardo J., Valletta R.G. Union effects on health insurance provision and coverage in the United States. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 2002; 55 (4):610–627. [ Google Scholar ]
• Budd J.W., McCall B.P. The effect of unions on the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 1997; 50 (3):478–492. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bureau of Labor Statistics. Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangements Summary. Economic News Release. June 7, 2018. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/conemp.nr0.htm Accessed March 30, 2021.
• Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020. Economic News Release. Union Members Summary. January 22, 2020. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm Accessed January 23, 2020.
• Butler A.B., Grzywacz J.G., Ettner S.L., Liu B. Workplace flexibility, self-reported health, and health care utilization. Work & Stress. 2009; 23 (1):45–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Card D., Mas A., Moretti E., Saez E. Inequality at work: the effect of peer salaries on job satisfaction. Am. Econ. Rev. 2012; 102 (6):2981–3003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Case A, Deaton A. Mortality and morbidity in the 21st century. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Spring 2017: 397-476. https://data.nber.org/mortality-and-morbidity-in-the-21st-century/casetextsp17bpea.pdf Accessed February 11, 2020. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• CBS News. Unions and gig drivers sue to overturn proposition 22. January 12, 2021. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/unions-and-gig-drivers-sue-to-overturn-californias-proposition-22/ Accessed April 20, 2021.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Social Determinants of Health. 2020. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-of-health accessed June 12, 2020.
• Colligan M.J., Cohen A. In: The Psychology of Workplace Safety. Barling J., Frone M.R., editors. American Psychological Association; Washington DC: 2004. Chapter 11: The role of training in promotion workplace safety and health. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper D, Kroeger T. Employers steal billions from workers’ paychecks each year: Survey data show millions of workers are paid less than the minimum wage, at significant cost to taxpayers and state economies. Economic Policy Institute. May 10, 2017. https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-from-workers-paychecks-each-year/ Accessed January 23, 2020.
• Cotti C.D., Haley M.R., Miller L.A. Workplace flexibilities, job satisfaction and union membership in the US workforce. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 2013; 52 (3):403–425. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cylus J., Glymour M.M., Avendano M. Health effects of unemployment benefit program generosity. Am. J. Public Health. 2015; 105 (2):217–323. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Darity W.A. Employment discrimination, segregation, and health. Am. J. Public Health. 2003; 93 (2):226–231. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis A, Hirsch D, Padley M, Shepherd C. A Minimum Income Standard for the UK, 2008-2018: continuity and change. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. July 2018. http://allcatsrgrey.org.uk/wp/download/health_economics/mis_2018_3298_final_report.pdf Accessed March 29, 2021.
• DeFina R., Hannon L. Drug use, de-unionization and drug death rates. Social Currents. 2019; 6 (1):4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dench D., Grossman M. In: Health and Labor Markets, Volume 47 of Research in Labor Economics. Polachek S.W., Tatsiramos K., editors. Emerald Publishing Limited; Bingley, United Kingdom: 2019. Health and the wage rate: Cause, effect, both, or neither? New evidence on an old question; pp. 1–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeVaro J., Heywood J.S. Performance pay and work-related health problems. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 2017; 70 (3):670–703. [ Google Scholar ]
• Devitt, M. AAFP News. CDC data show U.S. life expectancy continues to decline; Suicides, drug overdose deaths named as key contributors. American Association of Family Practitioners. December 10, 2018. https://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20181210lifeexpectdrop.html Accessed February 11, 2020.
• DeVogli R., Ferrie J.E., Chandola T., Kivimaki M., Marmot M.G. Unfairness and health: Evidence from the Whitehall II Study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2007; 61 (6):513–518. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doherty, M., Franca, V. Solving the ‘Gig-saw’? Collective Rights and Platform Work, Industrial Law Journal, 2020. 49 (3) 2020: 352–376.
• Donado A. Why do union workers have more nonfatal occupational injuries? Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 2015; 68 (1):153–183. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dragano N., Siegrist J., Wahrendorf M. Welfare regimes, labour policies and unhealthy psychosocial working conditions: a comparative study with 9917 older employees from 12 European countries. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2011; 65 :793–799. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dollard M.F., Neser D.Y. Worker health is good for the economy: Union density and psychosocial safety climate as determinants of country differences in worker health and productivity in 31 countries. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013; 92 :114–123. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan G.J., Stafford F.P. Do union members receive compensating wage differentials? Am. Econ. Rev. 1980; 70 (3):355–371. [ Google Scholar ]
• Economou A., Theodossiou I. Join the union and be safe: The effects of unionization on Occupational Safety and Health in the European Union. Labour. 2015; 29 (2):127–140. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberg-Guyot J., Mooney S.J., Barrington W.E., Hajat A. Does the Union Make Us Strong? Labor-Union Membership, Self-Rated Health, and Mental Illness: A Parametric G-Formula Approach. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2021; 190 (4):630–641. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberg-Guyot, J., Mooney, S.J., Hagopian, A., Barrington, W.E., Hajat, A. Solidarity and disparity: Declining labor union density and changing racial and educational mortality inequities in the United States. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. e-published ahead of print, December 17, 2019. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajim.23081 Accessed January 16, 2020. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Ehrenberg R.G., Smith R.S. 12th edition. Routledge Publishers; New York, NY: 2015. Modern Labor Economics : Theory and Public Policy . [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliott S., Powell R., Brenton Being a good mom: Low-income, black single mothers negotiate intensive mothering. J. Fam. Issues. 2015; 36 (3):351–370. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellwood D.T., Fine G. The impact of right-to-work laws on union organizing. J. Polit. Econ. 1987; 95 (2):250–273. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ewer P. Trade unions and vocational education and training: Questions of strategy and identity. Labor and Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations at Work. 2000; 10 (3):37–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Faragher E.B., Cass M., Cooper C.L. The relationship between job satisfaction and health: a meta-analysis. Occup. Environ. Med. 2005; 62 :105–112. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farber HS, Herbst D, Kuziemko I, Naidu S. Unions and inequality over the twentieth century: New evidence from survey data. Princeton University Working Paper. Princeton NJ. October 9, 2020. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/kuziemko/files/unions_1october2020.pdf Accessed March 30, 2021.
• Freeman R.B., Leonard J.S. In: Gender in the Workplace. Brown C., Peckman J., editors. Brookings Institution; Washington, DC: 1987. Union maids: Unions and the female workforce; pp. 189–212. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman R.B., Medoff J.L. Basic Books. New York; NY: 1984. What Do Unions Do? [ Google Scholar ]
• Fortin, N.M., Lemieux, T., Lloyd, N. Labor market institutions and the distribution of wages: The role of spillover effects. National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 28375. 2021. https://www.nber.org/papers/w28375 Accessed March 31, 2021.
• Fuller J.B., Hester K. A closer look at the relationship between justice perceptions and union participation. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001; 86 (6):1096–1105. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garen J. Unions, incentive systems, and job design. J. Labor Res. 1999; 20 (4):589–603. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibney R., Masters M., Aybat A., Amlie T. “I know I am but what are you ?” Public perceptions of unions, members, and joining intentions. Soc. Sci. 2018; 7 (9) article 146. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibson M., Hearty W., Craig P. The public health effects of interventions similar to basic income: a scoping review. The Lancet Public Health. 2020; 5 (3):e165–e176. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillen M., Baltz D., Gassel M., Kirsch L., Vaccaro D. Perceived safety climate, job demands, and coworker support among union and nonunion injured construction workers. J. Saf. Res. 2002; 33 (1):33–51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grzywacz J.G., Casey P.R., Jones F.A. The effects of workplace flexibility on health behaviors: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2007; 49 (12):1302–1309. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glymour M., Avendano M., Kawachi I. In: Social Epidemiology. 2nd edition. Berkman L.F., Kawachi I., Glymour M.M., editors. Oxford University Press; New York, NY: 2014. Socioeconomic status and health. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagedorn J., Paras C.A., Greenwich H., Hagopian A. The role of labor unions in creating working conditions that promote public health. Am. J. Public Health. 2016; 106 (6):989–995. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herd P., Schoneni R.F., House J.S. Upstream solutions: Does the supplemental security income program reduce disability in the elderly? Milbank Q. 2008; 86 (1):5–45. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hill H. The problem of race in American Labor History. Rev. Am. History. 1996; 24 (2):189–220. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirsch B.T., Macpherson D.A., Dumond J.M. Workers compensation recipiency in union and nonunion workplaces. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 1997; 50 (2):213–236. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howard J. Nonstandard work arrangements and worker safety and health. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2017; 20 (1):1–10. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holman C.D.A.J., Corti B., Donovan R.J. Association of the health-promoting workplace with trade unionism and other industrial factors. Am. J. Health Promotion. 1998; 12 (5):325–334. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobson N. Dignity and health: A review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2007; 64 (2):292–302. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones, J.M. As Labor Day turns 125, union approval near 50-year high. Gallup News, Politics. August 28, 2019 https://news.gallup.com/poll/265916/labor-day-turns-125-union-approval-near-year-high.aspx?smid=nytcore-ios-share Accessed October 14, 2019.
• Jones, J., Schmitt, J., Woo, N. Women, working families, and unions. Center for Economic and Policy Research. June 2014. Washington DC. http://cepr.net/documents/women-union-2014-06.pdf Accessed Oct 18, 2019.
• Joyce, R., Xu, X. Inequalities in the twenty-first century: introducing the IFS Deaton Review. Institute for Fiscal Studies, UK. May 2019. https://www.ifs.org.uk/inequality/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/The-IFS-Deaton-Review-launch.pdf Accessed October 28, 2019.
• Kapos S. Unions tap into burst of worker angst over coronavirus . Politico .June 15, 2020. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/15/unions-workers-coronavirus-304650 . Accessed September 18, 2020.
• Kaufman B.E., Hotchkiss J.L. 6th edition. South-Western publishers; Mason, Ohio: 2003. The Economics of Labor Markets. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kawachi I., Kennedy B.P. The New Press; New York, NY: 2002. The Health of Nations: Why Inequality Is Harmful to Your Health. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kawachi, I., Subramanian, S.V. Chapter 4. Income Inequality. In Berkman LF, Kawachi L, Glymour MM. Social Epidemiology 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press. New York, NY. 2014.
• Kenkel D., Supina D. The determinants of worksite health promotion behavior. Economics Letters. 1992; 40 (3):345–351. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keshner, A. America’s 1% hasn’t had this much wealth since just before the Great Depression MarketWatch Feb 24, 2019. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-been-almost-a-100-years-since-the-americas-1-had-so-much-wealth-2019-02-11 Accessed November 1, 2019.
• Keune M. Trade union responses to precarious work in seven European countries. Int. J. Labour Res. 2013; 5 (1):59–78. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitagawa E.M., Hauser P.M. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Mass.: 1973. Differential Mortality in the United States: A Study in Socioeconomic Epidemiology. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kivimaki M., Nyberg S.T., Batty G.D. Job strain as a risk factor for coronary heart disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data. The Lancet. 2012. 2012,; 380 (9852):1491–1497. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kochan T.A. How American workers view labor unions. Monthly Labor Review. 1979; 102 (4):23–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krause N., Lund T. In: The Psychology of Workplace Safety. Barling J., Frone M.R., editors. American Psychological Association; Washington DC: 2004. Chapter 13: Returning to work after occupational injury. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krieger N. In: Social Epidemiology. 2nd edition. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I, Glymour MM. ., editor. Oxford University Press; New York, NY: 2014. Chapter 3: Discrimination and health inequities. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kristol T., Cohen Y. The causes of rising wage inequality: the race between institutions and technology. Socio-Economic Review. 2017; 15 (1):187–212. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuoppala J., Lamminpäa A. Work health promotion, job well-being, and sickness absences—a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2008; 50 (11):1216–1227. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laroche P. A meta-analysis of the union–job satisfaction relationship. British Journal of Industrial Relations. 2016; 54 (4):709–741. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leigh J.P. The effects of union membership on absence from work due to illness. J. Labor Res.. 1981; 2 (2):329–336. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leigh J.P. Are unionized blue-collar jobs more hazardous than non-unionized blue-collar jobs? J. Labor Res.. 1982; 3 (3):349–357. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leigh J.P., Leigh W.A., Du J. Minimum wages and health: A literature review. Prev. Med. 2019; 118 :122–134. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leonard J.S. The effect of unions on the employment of blacks, Hispanics, and women Industrial and Labor Relations . Review. 1985; 39 (1):115–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Levy B.S., Wegman D.H., Baron S.L., Sokas R.K. 7th edition. Oxford University Press; New York, NY: 2017. Occupational and Environmental Health. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li L., Singleton P. The effect of workplace inspection on worker safety. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 2019; 72 (3):718–748. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lott B. Social class myopia: The case of psychology and labor unions. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy. 2014; 14 (1):261–280. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malinowski B., Minkler M., Stock L. Labor unions: A public health institution. Am. J. Public Health. 2015; 105 (2):261–271. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer G. Union membership trends in the United States. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Cornell University, Industrial and Labor Relations School, Ithaca, NY. Aug 31, 2004. https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1176&context=key_workplace Accessed February 12, 2020.
• McConnell C.R., Brue S.L., Macpherson D.A. 11th edition. McGraw-Hill; New York, NY: 2017. Contemporary Labor Economics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Minkler M., Salvatore A.L., Chang C., Gaydos M., Liu S.S., Lee P.T., Tom A., Bhatia R., Krause N. Wage theft as a neglected public health problem: An overview and case study from San Francisco’s Chinatown district. Am. J. Public Health. 2014; 104 (6):1010–1020. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishel, L. Unions, inequality, and faltering middle-class wages. Economic Policy Institute. Issue Brief #342. August 29, 2012. https://www.epi.org/publication/ib342-unions-inequality-faltering-middle-class/ Accessed January 27, 2020.
• Mishel, L., Gould, E., Bivens, J. Wage stagnation in nine charts. January 6, 2015. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ Accessed November 21, 2019.
• Monnat, S.M. Deaths of despair and support for Trump in the 2016 election. Pennsylvania State University Department of Agricultural Economics Research Brief, 2021 2016 https://smmonnat.expressions.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/ElectionBrief_DeathsofDespair.pdf Accessed June 27.
• Montgomery M. New evidence on unions and layoff rates. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 1991; 44 (4):708–721. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nissen B., Jarley P. Unions as social capital: Renewal through a return to the logic of mutual aid? Labor Studies Journal. 2015; 29 (4):1–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nunn, R., O’Donnell. J., Shambaugh. J. The shift in private sector union participation: Explanation and effects. The Hamilton Project. Economic Analysis. August 2019. https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/UnionsEA_Web_8.19.pdf accessed October 22, 2019.
• O'Brien E. Employers' benefits from workers' health insurance. Milbank Q. 2003; 81 (1):5–43. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD. Non-standard workers are underrepresented by trade unions: Actual and adjusted ratio of trade union density among non-standard workers relative to standard workers (%), latest available year. OECD Employment Outlook 2019: The Future of Work, OECD Publishing, Paris. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1787/8d5e0fbe-en. Accessed January 31, 2020.
• Park K.-O., Wilson M.G., Lee M.S. Effects of social support at work on depression and organizational productivity. Am. J. Health Behav. 2004; 28 (5):444–455. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park T.-Y., Lee E.-S., Budd J.W. What do unions do for mothers? Paid maternity leave use and the multifaceted roles of labor unions. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 2019; 72 (3):662–692. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pickett K.E., Wilkinson G.R. Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. Allen Lane Publishers; New York, NY: 2009. The Spirit Level. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pierce J.L., Gardner D.G. Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. J. Manage. 2004; 30 (5):591–622. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raphael D. The political economy of health promotion: part 2, national provision of the prerequisites of health. Health Promotion International. 2011; 28 (1):112–132. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeves, A. The health effects of wage setting institutions: How collective bargaining improves health but not because it reduces inequality. Sociology of Health and Illness. 2021. e-published ahead of print. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-9566.13272 Accessed April 20, 2021. [ PubMed ]
• Reeves A., Loopstra R., Tarasuk V. Wage-Setting policies, employment, and food insecurity: A multilevel analysis of 492 078 people in 139 countries. Am. J. Public Health. 2021; 111 (4):718–725. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds M.M., Brady D. Bringing you more than the weekend: Union membership and self-rated health in the United States. Soc. Forces. 2012; 90 (3):1023–1049. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenfeld J. Harvard University Press; Cambridge Mass: 2014. What unions no longer do. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weil D. Enforcing OSHA: The role of labor unions. Industrial Relations. 1991; 30 (1):20–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross N., Wolfson M., Dunn J., Berthelot J.M., Kaplan G., Lynch J. Relation between income inequality and mortality in Canada and in the United States: Cross sectional assessment using census data and vital statistics. Br. J. Med. 2000; 320 (7239):898–902. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rossin M. The effects of maternity leave on children's birth and infant health outcomes in the United States. J. Health Econ. 2011; 30 (2):221–239. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schnall P.L., Landsbergis P.A., Baker D. Job strain and cardiovascular disease. Annu. Rev. Public Health . 1994; 15 :381–411. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stuckler D., Basu S., Suhrcke M., Coutts A., McKee M. The public health effect of economic crises and alternative policy responses in Europe: An empirical analysis. The Lancet . 2009; 374 (9686):315–323. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trejo S.J. Overtime pay, overtime hours, and labor unions. J. Labor Econ. 1993; 11 (2):253–278. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tronsor W.J. Unions for workers in the gig economy: Time for a new labor movement. Labor Law Journal. 2018; 69 (4):181–193. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagstaff A.S., Lie J.A.S. Shift and night work and long working hours-a systematic review of safety implications. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health. 2011; 37 (3):173–185. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Western B., Rosenfeld J. Unions, norms, and the rise in US wage inequality. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2011; 76 (4):513–537. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolf, J., Schmitt, J. A profile of union workers in state and local government. Economic Policy Institute. June 7, 2018. https://www.epi.org/publication/a-profile-of-union-workers-in-state-and-local-government-key-facts-about-the-sector-for-followers-of-janus-v-afscme-council-31/ . Accessed April 20, 2021.

Essay: America needs unions now more than ever

It doesn’t take a scholar to know big corporations, the politicians who take their money and other wealthy interests have rigged our economy, our federal budget and the legislative process to the detriment of working people. For decades, hard-working middle class and working poor Americans have been robbed of the freedom to earn a decent living, maintain a work-life balance, retire with dignity and take a loved one to the doctor or attend a parent-teacher conference without fear of retaliation or losing a job. As corporations and the rich continue to benefit from record wealth while working people find it harder and harder to make ends meet, joining together to form unions gives employees a simple voice at work. When working people have the freedom to join strong unions and negotiate a fair return for their craft, everybody wins - even rich people. Employees can earn a decent living and American productivity increases -  and the promise of earning a decent living wage will perpetuate a belief that an American Dream can still exist in today’s world. By forming strong unions and having the ability to collectively bargain with employers, workers can negotiate fair wages and benefits that support their families and better working conditions. Organized labor also uses its collective voice to advocate for policies that benefit all working people -  like increases to the minimum wage, affordable health care, safer neighborhoods and great public schools for our children. On the eve of 2018, we are calling on all Americans – our families, friends, elected officials and every right-minded citizen – to recommit to the freedom of working people to join strong unions so we can help fix a broken economy and make it work for everyone. On this day and every day afterward, we will be exposing and confronting this rigged system and the politicians and corporations who prop it up. It is time we put working people -  the folks who create the wealth for our country front and center in a national conversation about social and economic justice. Organized working people are the most effective way for Americans to come together and counter the troubling influence that big money and big corporations have on our society. Organized labor is the last line of defense for working people to have a voice in this great democratic experiment called America. Working people and unions are the threads that hold the fabric of our communities together. We will not let you unravel the promise of our American Dream. America needs unions now more than ever. Ove Overmyer is the Western NY Region spokesperson for the Civil Service Employees Association. 

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Labor Unions — Analysis Of Pros And Cons Of Labor Unions

Analysis of Pros and Cons of Labor Unions

• Categories: Labor Labor Unions Workplace

About this sample

Words: 603 |

Published: Feb 8, 2022

Words: 603 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Works Cited

• Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. L. (1984). What do unions do? Basic Books.
• Hurd, R. W. (1989). Work and Labor in Early America. University of North Carolina Press.
• Freeman, R. B., & Kleiner, M. M. (2000). The Impact of New Unionization on Wages and Working Conditions. Journal of Labor Economics, 18(1), 1-25.
• Bronfenbrenner, K. (2015). Union Organizing in the Public Sector: An Analysis of State and Local Elections, 1999-2014. Economic Policy Institute.
• Lipset, S. M., Trow, M. A., & Coleman, J. S. (2001). Union Democracy: The Internal Politics of the International Typographical Union. Free Press.
• Kochan, T. A., Katz, H. C., & McKersie, R. B. (1986). The Transformation of American Industrial Relations. Cornell University Press.
• Eaton, M. (2001). The Unionization of Teachers: A Case Study of the UFT. Monthly Review, 52(2), 42-57.
• Milkman, R. (2013). Unfinished Business: Paid Family Leave in California and the Future of U.S. Work-Family Policy. Cornell University Press.
• Fiorito, J., & Norlander, P. (2004). Labor Relations: Development, Structure, Process. South-Western College Pub.
• Kochan, T. A., Katz, H. C., & McKersie, R. B. (2012). The Transformation of American Industrial Relations (4th ed.). Cornell University Press.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1462 words

1 pages / 1683 words

2 pages / 737 words

2 pages / 1024 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Labor Unions

Unions, organized groups of workers who come together to advocate for their rights and interests in the workplace, have played a crucial role in shaping labor relations and workers' rights throughout history. This essay explores [...]

Unionization is a controversial topic that has been debated for decades. While some argue that unions provide workers with necessary protections and fair wages, others contend that unions can stifle economic growth and lead to [...]

Labor unions have played a significant role in shaping the labor market and ensuring fair treatment for workers. They have been instrumental in advocating for better working conditions, fair wages, and employee rights. In this [...]

In early years, labor unions were created to make reforms in the workplace. They lobbied for better working conditions, a minimum wage, and safety and health laws in the workplace and factories. The labor unions worked for these [...]

Reconciliation is a difficult term, and there is very little agreement on its definition. This is because reconciliation is both a process – a means to achieve a goal and a goal itself – something to achieve. A great deal of [...]

The works of Harold Pinter question the traditional views of language and communication, asking the audience to reconsider the hierarchal relationship between speech/silence, presence/absence, and the role of each opposition in [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Earth Day: How a senator’s idea more than 50 years ago got people fighting for their planet

FILE - Climate activists hold a rally to protest the use of fossil fuels on Earth Day at Freedom Plaza, April 22, 2023, in Washington. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

FILE - Activists display prints replicating solar panels during a rally to mark Earth Day at Lafayette Square, Washington, April 23, 2022. (AP Photo/Gemunu Amarasinghe, File)

• Copy Link copied

Millions of people around the world will pause on Monday, at least for a moment, to mark Earth Day. It’s an annual event founded by people who hoped to stir activism to clean up and preserve a planet that is now home to some 8 billion humans and assorted trillions of other organisms.

Here are answers to some common questions about Earth Day and how it came to be:

WHY DO WE CELEBRATE EARTH DAY?

Earth Day has its roots in growing concern over pollution in the 1960s, when author Rachel Carson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring,” about the pesticide DDT and its damaging effects on the food chain, hit bestseller lists and raised awareness about nature’s delicate balance.

But it was a senator from Wisconsin, Democrat Gaylord Nelson, who had the idea that would become Earth Day. Nelson had long been concerned about the environment when a massive offshore oil spill sent millions of gallons onto the southern California coast in 1969. Nelson, after touring the spill site, had the idea of doing a national “teach-in” on the environment, similar to teach-ins being held on some college campuses at the time to oppose the war in Vietnam.

Nelson and others, including activist Denis Hayes, worked to expand the idea beyond college campuses, with events all around the country, and came up with the Earth Day name.

WHY WAS APRIL 22 CHOSEN FOR EARTH DAY?

A history of the movement by EarthDay.org, where Hayes remains board chair emeritus, says the date of the first Earth Day — April 22, 1970 — was chosen because it fell on a weekday between spring break and final exams and the aim was to attract as many students as possible.

IS EARTH DAY A REAL HOLIDAY?

It’s not a federal holiday. But many groups use the day to put together volunteer events with the environment in mind, such as cleanups of natural areas. You can see a list of events worldwide , or register your own event, at EarthDay.org.

HAS IT HAD AN IMPACT?

It has. The overwhelming public response to the first Earth Day is credited with adding pressure for the U.S. Congress to do more to address pollution, and it did, passing landmark legislation including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. More broadly, it’s seen as the birth of the modern environmental movement. In later years, Earth Day expanded to become a truly global event. It now claims to have motivated action in more than 192 countries.

In 2000, Earth Day began taking aim at climate change, a problem that has grown rapidly more urgent in recent years.

WHAT’S THE THEME THIS YEAR?

This year’s Earth Day is focusing on the threat that plastics pose to our environment, with a call to end all single-use plastic and find replacements for their use so they can quickly be phased down.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org .

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

NPR defends its journalism after senior editor says it has lost the public's trust

David Folkenflik

NPR is defending its journalism and integrity after a senior editor wrote an essay accusing it of losing the public's trust. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

NPR is defending its journalism and integrity after a senior editor wrote an essay accusing it of losing the public's trust.

NPR's top news executive defended its journalism and its commitment to reflecting a diverse array of views on Tuesday after a senior NPR editor wrote a broad critique of how the network has covered some of the most important stories of the age.

"An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America," writes Uri Berliner.

A strategic emphasis on diversity and inclusion on the basis of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, promoted by NPR's former CEO, John Lansing, has fed "the absence of viewpoint diversity," Berliner writes.

NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, wrote in a memo to staff Tuesday afternoon that she and the news leadership team strongly reject Berliner's assessment.

"We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world."

NPR names tech executive Katherine Maher to lead in turbulent era

She added, "None of our work is above scrutiny or critique. We must have vigorous discussions in the newsroom about how we serve the public as a whole."

A spokesperson for NPR said Chapin, who also serves as the network's chief content officer, would have no further comment.

Praised by NPR's critics

Berliner is a senior editor on NPR's Business Desk. (Disclosure: I, too, am part of the Business Desk, and Berliner has edited many of my past stories. He did not see any version of this article or participate in its preparation before it was posted publicly.)

Berliner's essay , titled "I've Been at NPR for 25 years. Here's How We Lost America's Trust," was published by The Free Press, a website that has welcomed journalists who have concluded that mainstream news outlets have become reflexively liberal.

Berliner writes that as a Subaru-driving, Sarah Lawrence College graduate who "was raised by a lesbian peace activist mother ," he fits the mold of a loyal NPR fan.

Yet Berliner says NPR's news coverage has fallen short on some of the most controversial stories of recent years, from the question of whether former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election, to the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19, to the significance and provenance of emails leaked from a laptop owned by Hunter Biden weeks before the 2020 election. In addition, he blasted NPR's coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

On each of these stories, Berliner asserts, NPR has suffered from groupthink due to too little diversity of viewpoints in the newsroom.

The essay ricocheted Tuesday around conservative media , with some labeling Berliner a whistleblower . Others picked it up on social media, including Elon Musk, who has lambasted NPR for leaving his social media site, X. (Musk emailed another NPR reporter a link to Berliner's article with a gibe that the reporter was a "quisling" — a World War II reference to someone who collaborates with the enemy.)

When asked for further comment late Tuesday, Berliner declined, saying the essay spoke for itself.

The arguments he raises — and counters — have percolated across U.S. newsrooms in recent years. The #MeToo sexual harassment scandals of 2016 and 2017 forced newsrooms to listen to and heed more junior colleagues. The social justice movement prompted by the killing of George Floyd in 2020 inspired a reckoning in many places. Newsroom leaders often appeared to stand on shaky ground.

Leaders at many newsrooms, including top editors at The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times , lost their jobs. Legendary Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron wrote in his memoir that he feared his bonds with the staff were "frayed beyond repair," especially over the degree of self-expression his journalists expected to exert on social media, before he decided to step down in early 2021.

Since then, Baron and others — including leaders of some of these newsrooms — have suggested that the pendulum has swung too far.

Author Interviews

Legendary editor marty baron describes his 'collision of power' with trump and bezos.

New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger warned last year against journalists embracing a stance of what he calls "one-side-ism": "where journalists are demonstrating that they're on the side of the righteous."

"I really think that that can create blind spots and echo chambers," he said.

Internal arguments at The Times over the strength of its reporting on accusations that Hamas engaged in sexual assaults as part of a strategy for its Oct. 7 attack on Israel erupted publicly . The paper conducted an investigation to determine the source of a leak over a planned episode of the paper's podcast The Daily on the subject, which months later has not been released. The newsroom guild accused the paper of "targeted interrogation" of journalists of Middle Eastern descent.

Heated pushback in NPR's newsroom

Given Berliner's account of private conversations, several NPR journalists question whether they can now trust him with unguarded assessments about stories in real time. Others express frustration that he had not sought out comment in advance of publication. Berliner acknowledged to me that for this story, he did not seek NPR's approval to publish the piece, nor did he give the network advance notice.

Some of Berliner's NPR colleagues are responding heatedly. Fernando Alfonso, a senior supervising editor for digital news, wrote that he wholeheartedly rejected Berliner's critique of the coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict, for which NPR's journalists, like their peers, periodically put themselves at risk.

Alfonso also took issue with Berliner's concern over the focus on diversity at NPR.

"As a person of color who has often worked in newsrooms with little to no people who look like me, the efforts NPR has made to diversify its workforce and its sources are unique and appropriate given the news industry's long-standing lack of diversity," Alfonso says. "These efforts should be celebrated and not denigrated as Uri has done."

After this story was first published, Berliner contested Alfonso's characterization, saying his criticism of NPR is about the lack of diversity of viewpoints, not its diversity itself.

"I never criticized NPR's priority of achieving a more diverse workforce in terms of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. I have not 'denigrated' NPR's newsroom diversity goals," Berliner said. "That's wrong."

Questions of diversity

Under former CEO John Lansing, NPR made increasing diversity, both of its staff and its audience, its "North Star" mission. Berliner says in the essay that NPR failed to consider broader diversity of viewpoint, noting, "In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans."

Berliner cited audience estimates that suggested a concurrent falloff in listening by Republicans. (The number of people listening to NPR broadcasts and terrestrial radio broadly has declined since the start of the pandemic.)

Former NPR vice president for news and ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin tweeted , "I know Uri. He's not wrong."

Others questioned Berliner's logic. "This probably gets causality somewhat backward," tweeted Semafor Washington editor Jordan Weissmann . "I'd guess that a lot of NPR listeners who voted for [Mitt] Romney have changed how they identify politically."

Similarly, Nieman Lab founder Joshua Benton suggested the rise of Trump alienated many NPR-appreciating Republicans from the GOP.

In recent years, NPR has greatly enhanced the percentage of people of color in its workforce and its executive ranks. Four out of 10 staffers are people of color; nearly half of NPR's leadership team identifies as Black, Asian or Latino.

"The philosophy is: Do you want to serve all of America and make sure it sounds like all of America, or not?" Lansing, who stepped down last month, says in response to Berliner's piece. "I'd welcome the argument against that."

"On radio, we were really lagging in our representation of an audience that makes us look like what America looks like today," Lansing says. The U.S. looks and sounds a lot different than it did in 1971, when NPR's first show was broadcast, Lansing says.

A network spokesperson says new NPR CEO Katherine Maher supports Chapin and her response to Berliner's critique.

The spokesperson says that Maher "believes that it's a healthy thing for a public service newsroom to engage in rigorous consideration of the needs of our audiences, including where we serve our mission well and where we can serve it better."

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.