2013
DOI: 10.1111/socf.12038
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Abstract: Using both a new data set of labor union appearances in congressional hearings and archival data on union organizational resources, this article analyzes factors that determine whether a labor union will be represented in congressional hearing testimony in a given year. Consistent with the expectations of resource mobilization theory, organizational resources are important predictors of participation in congressional hearings. For example, membership is an important predictor of testimony in hearings, as is th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Interest organizations, labor unions, and experts represent 9.2%, 4.3%, and 3.2% of all nongovernmental witnesses, respectively. This lack of representation by issue groups and unions is a first data point that the composition of hearings tilts toward globalization advocates (Albert, 2013).…”
Section: Findings On Invitations and Supportmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interest organizations, labor unions, and experts represent 9.2%, 4.3%, and 3.2% of all nongovernmental witnesses, respectively. This lack of representation by issue groups and unions is a first data point that the composition of hearings tilts toward globalization advocates (Albert, 2013).…”
Section: Findings On Invitations and Supportmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These topics, such as "civil rights" or "environment," can be indicators of movement influence on Congress, and scholars have analyzed when social movement activity may lead to Congress holding more hearings on particular topics (Johnson, Agnone, and McCarthy 2010;King, Bentele, and Soule 2007), but these data do not show whether or which SMOs were consulted at those hearings. Others have collected data on when SMOs testify before Congress, but these data are limited to single movements (Albert 2013;Ganz and Soule 2019;Goss 2020) or shorter time periods (Grossmann 2012). Others have collected multimovement data but have focused on movement activity rather than state outcomes (Earl et al 2004;Minkoff 1993).…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our data draw heavily on existing lists of SMOs (Amenta et al 2009;Earl et al 2004;Gamson 1975;Goldstein 2008;Minkoff 1993;Southern Poverty Law Center 2022). Ours is not the first data describing SMOs before Congress (Albert 2013;Ganz and Soule 2019;Goss 2020;Grossmann 2012), but it is the most extensive, providing a broad comparative look at SMO representation across both organizations and movements over the entire twentieth century.…”
Section: Original Articlementioning
confidence: 99%
“…unions' organizational resources are also important predictors of union participation in Congressional hearings (Albert 2013).…”
Section: Participation In the Democratic Political Arenamentioning
confidence: 99%