Labor Unions and Inequality

Labor Studies

Declining Unions and Worker Sentiment

In 2013, a startling recognition was went relatively unnoticed in the news: the American workforce share that was unionized reached a low that had not been seen in 97 years (Lui, 2013). The number of workers who belong to a union is a mere 11.3% of the labor force -- and is still shrinking (Ahlquist, 2012). The public sector, where unionization seemed to have found a solid fit, dropped from a peak of 35% of the labor force in 1950s to an abysmal low of 6.6% (Lui, 2013). Yet, despite the clarion call activated by these grim statistics, Americans seem blase about the decline of unions, taking the position, as Lui (2013) argues that it doesn't really impact them unless they are (or were) union members. The decline of membership in private sector unions in the United States dropped from 34% for men and 16% for women during 1973 to 8% for men and 6% for women in 2007 (Kristal, 2013). During this same period of time, the level of inequality in hourly wages for employees increased by an astonishing 40%. Western and Rosenfeld (2011) attribute this rising wage inequality to the diminished share of wage distribution to union employees. In their decomposition of the data, Western and Rosenfeld (2011) argued that dispersion would have been even greater had unions not been able to "institutionalize norms of equity" in locales and industries which were highly unionized (p. 3). A fifth to a third of the increase in wage inequality can be accounted for by the effect of declines in organized labor, which is comparable to the effect education has on the evident stratification of wages in America (Western & Rosenfeld, 2011). Lui s (2013) asserts that the decline in unionization is due to deliberate and systematic "efforts to squeeze unions and disperse their power" (p.1). A factor in this is sort of reverse engineering that has individual workers framing their experiences in an atomized manner and while employers and wealthy elite have collectively organized -- in an increasingly blatant manner -- so as to "rig policy in their favor" (Lui, 2013, p. 1). If workers are not dissatisfied by this situation, Lui (2013) argues, it is because they don't see the relation.

The benefits attributed to unionization is unionization are broad, and can be seen in the lift that occurs to nonunion wages as a means to stave off union activism and subsequent organization: a higher prevailing wage is often the result of unionization in a region (Lui, 2013). In addition, unions are said to contribute to the development of a "moral economy" that establishes norms for fair pay and fair treatment for nonunion workers as well as for union workers. For decades, unions have been stalwart and "prominent voices for equality" for all workers, with this peak influence perhaps having been reached in the 1970s when one third of male laborers belonged to unions (Western & Rosenfeld, 2011, p. 4). Lui reports that the peak union membership was 35% in the 1950s. As unions declined, so too did the moral economy and the distributional norms that undergirded the power of unions to attract members, influence the nonunion sector, and influence labor relations (Western & Rosenfeld, 2011, p. 4).

Consider that "workers at non-unionized Walmart constitute in many states the largest bloc of food stamp and Medicaid recipients" (Lui, 2013, p. 2). An increasing number of Walmart workers participate in Our Walmart, which is supported by the United Food and Commercial Workers union, but is not actually a union (Greenhouse, 2013). In December 2014, an administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board ruled against Walmart managers for unlawfully discipline, intimidation, and retaliation of employees (Greenhouse, 2013). To say that the nonunionized workers are not dissatisfied and not alienated would be a gross misstatement. Indeed, the organized workers continue to protest for more full-time jobs, a base wage of $15, and "an end to what it says is illegal intimidation and dismissals" (Greenhouse, 2014).

Seniority: Why and Why Not?

Seniority is an important factor in decisions made about promotions, shift preference, overtime scheduling, layoffs, transfers, and training in both the public and private sector, and variously in unionized and non-unionized environments ("U.S. EEOC," 2014). Few objective performance related criteria exist for determining shift assignments or opportunities for overtime ("U.S. EEOC," 2014). Both of these supervisory decisions can be reduced to a compliment or a condemnation, depending on which side of the decision the employee falls. Moreover, these two conditions offer opportunity for employee recognition that doesn't have an actual cost basis -- that is, if the overtime is truly needed. From a supervisory perspective, seniority can be a vehicle for moving an employee toward greater responsibility and, ultimately, to a promotion. From an employee's perspective, seniority is an objective and consistent measure that surpasses the more subjective perceptions of supervisors. Both employers and employees recognize the difficulty of producing thorough and fair individual performance reviews (Schrank, 2013). Employers have a particular stake in ensuring that their performance appraisals reflect their true ability and capacity, and are not based on their likability or conformity to type, which can be a substantive issue for workers who are much older or younger -- or a different gender -- than their supervisors (Garrick, 2013).

Seniority systems are not required by law, but they are a prominent factor in collective bargaining processes. Indeed, "Strict formal seniority systems are commonplace in virtually all unionized organizations, but they are rare among nonunion employers" (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013). Regardless of whether a workplace is unionized or not, seniority is likely to play an important role in major personnel decisions (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013).