Unions Are Coming...Are We Ready?
Unions may be having a resurgence, but what does the science know about unions?
In the past few years, unionization attempts, both successful and not, have made major headlines. From the failed unionization effort of an Amazon warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama, to the successful unionization effort of multiple Starbucks and Apple stores, as well as the extremely high profile unionization of an Amazon warehouse in Staten Island, new unionization efforts are seemingly everywhere. This follows a sixty-year national downward trend of union membership from a peak of roughly 30% membership in the 1960s to under 10% membership today (see here for a cool map of how these changes differ by state).
Before diving into what I-O psychology can tell us about unions, I want to set the stage from a national policy perspective. In 1935, in response to a global workers’ movement, the U.S. passed the National Labor Relations Act. This formally established the National Labor Relations Board, and guaranteed workers certain rights (e.g., collective bargaining, striking, joining a union). These protections were initially curtailed to some degree by the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which prevented locations from denying workers employment if they didn’t join the union (though they could still be required to pay union fees according to a supreme court case in 1977), and permitted the establishment of a union only if a majority of workers voted for it. This Right-to-Work law, and subsequent interpretations/applications of it, limited the power of unions by (1) requiring that they bargain on behalf of all employees, not just union members and (2) preventing them from collecting dues from non-union members (Harris v. Quinn, 2014; Janus v. AFSCME, 2018). Other cases as the district level have even allowed companies to provide benefits to non-union workers that are not provided to union workers (Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp, 2019). And yet another Supreme Court case ruled that union advocates could be barred from entering company property (in this case agricultural land) and talking to employees about joining a union (Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 2021). All of this is to say, that we are currently in an era where the ability to unionize and the power of unions has been aggressively curtailed by the legal system. With that in mind, let’s turn to the science to see what union membership means for employees.
From a purely descriptive perspective, union members make roughly 17% more than non-union employees, public sector jobs are more likely to be unionized than private sector jobs, men are more likely to be in a union than women (though this gap has significantly decreased in the past 40 years), Black workers are more likely to be in a union (11.5%) than White (10.3%), Hispanic (9.0%) or Asian (7.7%) workers, and people between the ages of 45 and 54 (are most likely to be in a union) (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022).
There has not been much recent I-O research published in our top journals on union participation or its outcomes, although there was a small boom in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. Much of the research focuses on who participates in unions and why. For example, a recent study (McKay et al., 2019) looked at six different levels of (non)participation in unions and found that, largely, the longer individuals were in a role within the organization, the more likely they were to be an active member of the union. Similarly, a sense of responsibility also predicted active membership versus non-membership.
Other studies focus on the predictors and outcomes of commitment to the union. For example, one study (Fullagar et al., 2004) found that people who were high in union commitment were more likely to still be participating in a union and be committed to it 10 years later, but mere membership was not a predictor of these outcomes. People are more likely to be committed to their union if they perceive that their union supports them (Redman & Snape, 2005), which comes, at least in part, in whether their union helps them achieve economic outcomes like improved wages and benefits (Tetrick et al., 2007). Fuller Jr and Hester (2001) also found that, in addition to helping people achieve economic outcomes, people were more likely perceive support from their union if the union created a sense of interactional justice (do people feel like they’re being treated well as people) and, to a lesser degree, procedural justice (do people feel like the decision making was fair). Union leadership appears to play a key role in people’s perceptions of the union, and thus in tern attitudes towards the union itself (Hammer et al., 2009). And this commitment and loyalty, in turn results in pro-union behavior like volunteering time to help the union itself, or to directly help other union members (Tan & Aryee, 2002).
On the other hand, people are less likely to participate in a union if they feel supported by the organization’s management, don’t have a positive attitude toward unions in general, and don’t think others in the workplace have positive attitudes towards unions (Goeddeke Jr., & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2010). Additionally, another study (Monnot et al., 2011) found that while union commitment increases an individual’s likelihood of engaging in union behaviors that don’t directly interfere with the organization’s outcomes as well as those that do (like striking), organizational commitment reduces the likelihood that an individual will engage in a strike or similar behaviors, but not other union behaviors. This suggests people recognize the union and the organization as two distinct, but related entities and can have commitment to one or both, and that results in different behavioral outcomes.
In sum, unions are useful tools for workers, and workers who feel like they gain both financial and other forms of support from unions, in a just and fair way, are more likely to actively participate in unions. Also, unions are particularly attractive if the organization fails to foster commitment to it and provide the needed support. Lastly, union leaders set the stage for members attitudes towards the union.
From a practical perspective, unions can and should be about so much more than just collective bargaining and strikes. They should create a social network of support for employees particularly if they aren’t supported by the organization. Certainly, it’s important that unions fulfill their primary purpose of fighting for higher wages and better benefits and conditions for workers, but they can also help workers meet other needs, like those for belonging and purpose. In a country that has stripped unions of a lot of their power, it is important that unions show their worth to employees, and that goes beyond securing higher wages.
From a research perspective, we just need more research on unions! How does union membership affect wellbeing outcomes? How does it impact union members’ families? How does it affect the dynamics between members and non-members? How does it affect the dynamics between management and front-line staff? As I-O psychologists, we’ve shied away from union research, even in our research that focuses on occupational health. But the tides may be changing as pro-union sentiment rises, and we I-O psychologists are poised well to empirically explore the benefits (and potential drawbacks) of unions.
-Keaton