American Trade Unions and Data Limitations: A New Agenda for Labor Studies

Abstract

Research on the historical level of union density in the United States is based on data or estimates that represent the sum of union members from different organizations. This results in aggregation bias, where the time-trend in union density is consistent with multiple, divergent trends among organizations. Some unions have experienced membership gains in specific industries or regions with distinct strategies that the analysis of aggregate data misses. No longitudinal data set, based on a random sample of unions, exists. We identify sources for the development of such a data set. Case studies suggest that organizational strategy, financial resources, internal politics, worker attitudes, and competition affect membership; further research on geographic and industry conditions is needed. Purposive sampling, poor understanding of aggregation, and models that do not account for the clustering of unions within larger federations or industries have retarded progress in labor studies.

Why We Need a Survey of Unions

“…We are not alone in recognizing the need for improved data, of course. Southworth and Stepan‐Norris (2009) recently offered a similar assessment focused solely on the U.S. They noted many of the same data resources and data deficiencies that we address, while placing particular stress on the need for multilevel analysis to capture their presumption that unions are nested within industries.…”

“…One might argue, then, that a better representation of a national union or its distinct major divisions might come from aggregations of reports by union leaders and staff throughout the union, or even that the appropriate unit of analysis for understanding national unions is not the national union but rather its diverse subunits. This perspective might also require multilevel analysis, which Southworth and Stepan‐Norris (2009) have called for on different grounds. Taking the unit of analysis question a step in a somewhat different direction, Fantasia and Voss (2004, 175) suggested that the “space between unions” occupied by community groups, civil rights groups, and others will be increasingly important in rebuilding the U.S. labor movement as a social movement.…”

“…They noted many of the same data resources and data deficiencies that we address, while placing particular stress on the need for multilevel analysis to capture their presumption that unions are nested within industries. Although we, too, see a place for multilevel analysis, we have difficulty with Southworth and Stepan‐Norris' conception of unions nested in industries given trends toward general union forms. Nonetheless, we share their conclusion that “[i]nadequate data and data collection efforts have set back the study of organized labor .…”

An Analysis of Labor Union Participation in U.S. Congressional Hearings

“…In addition to filling the need for comprehensive data on the whole universe of labor unions noted by Southworth and Stepan‐Norris (), this data set permits analysis of the obstacles facing labor unions in the post‐accord era and the process of legislative advocacy for national membership‐based organizations. Future projects with this data set could consider how network ties between labor unions, as manifested through joint hearing appearances, affect legislative representation.…”

We Can’t Win This on Our Own

“…In this article, we advance labor and social movement scholarship by analyzing the influence of union organizational capacity, external threats, opportunities, and more proximate firm characteristics on union outreach and contributions of labor allies during strike events. 1 We use an original dataset of U.S. strikes between 1993 and 2003 that improves upon existing sources by allowing us to draw union organizational distinctions as well as consider several event-specific features, notably the types of contributions made by allies across a variegated testing ground (Southworth and Stepan-Norris 2009). Our findings provide a more systematic account of the level of coalition activity by unions, the types of resources secured from partners, and new insights into how threat and opportunities can work for (and against) coalition work among social movements more broadly.…”