Right to work, ‘for More’
If the whole idea of joining a union is new, or if your employer has “provided training” to discourage you from joining a union, you may want to consider some facts.
More Workers Join IAM
The International Association Of Machinists & Aerospace Workers represents more Members at more airlines than any other union. We know your jobs, your issues, and there’s a good chance we already know your employers. Go where there’s strength in numbers – the IAM.
Earn More
- Unions Raise Wages—Especially for Minorities and Women
- Union Pay Is Higher in Nearly All Occupational Groups
- Unions Workers Have Better Health Care and Pensions
- Workers’ Incomes Are Lower in States Where Workers Don’t Have Union Rights
- Unions Are Good for Business, Productivity, and the Economy
Unions Raise Wages, Especially for Minorities and Women
Union membership helps raise workers' pay and narrow the income gap that disadvantages minorities and women. Union workers earn 30 percent more than nonUnion workers, according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Their median weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary work were $863 in 2007, compared with $663 for their nonUnion counterparts.
The Union wage benefit is even greater for minorities and women. Union women earn 33 percent more than nonUnion women, African American Union Members earn 37 percent more than their nonUnion counterparts, for Latino workers, the Union advantage equals 51 percent and for Asian American workers, the Union advantage is 4 percent.
MEDIAN WEEKLY EARNINGS OF FULL-TIME
WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS, 2007
Union Pay Is Higher in Nearly All Occupational Groups
In nearly every occupational category, Union Members earn more than nonUnion workers. By comparing the wages of workers within occupational groups, the Union difference is most clear
EARNINGS BY OCCUPATION, 2007
FULL-TIME WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS' MEDIAN WEEKLY EARNINGS
| Union | NonUnion | Difference | |
| Management, professional and related occupations | $996 | $996 | 0% |
| Management occupations | 1,172 | 1,160 | 1.0% |
| Business and financial operations occupations | 934 | 950 | -1.6% |
| Professional and related occupations | 987 | 942 | 4.8% |
| Computer and mathematical occupations | 1,188 | 1,231 | -3.5% |
| Architecture and engineering occupations | 1,179 | 1,221 | -3.4% |
| Life, physical and social science occupations | 1,147 | 1,036 | 10.7% |
| Community and social services occupations | 920 | 732 | 25.7% |
| Legal occupations | 1,180 | 1,148 | 2.8% |
| Education, training and library occupations | 959 | 742 | 29.2% |
| Arts, design, entertainment, sports and media occupations | 1,000 | 807 | 23.9% |
| Health care practitioner and technical occupations | 1,005 | 906 | 10.9% |
| Service occupations | 666 | 421 | 58.2% |
| Health care support occupations | 502 | 446 | 12.6% |
| Protective service occupations | 954 | 610 | 56.4% |
| Food preparation and serving-related occupations | 502 | 379 | 32.5% |
| Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations | 551 | 407 | 35.4% |
| Personal care and service occupations | 585 | 420 | 39.3% |
| Sales and office occupations | 717 | 587 | 22.1% |
| Sales and related occupations | 648 | 643 | .1% |
| Office and administrative support occupations | 726 | 560 | 29.6% |
| Natural resources, construction and maintenance occupations | 973 | 617 | 57.7% |
| Construction and extraction occupations | 976 | 597 | 63.5% |
| Installation, maintenance and repair occupations | 975 | 709 | 37.5% |
| Production, transportation and material moving occupations | 759 | 540 | 40.6% |
| Production occupations | 761 | 552 | 37.9% |
| Transportation and material moving occupations | 757 | 523 | 44.7% |
Union Workers Have Better Health Care and Pensions
Union workers are more likely than their nonUnion counterparts to be covered by health care and receive pension benefits, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. In March 2007, 78 percent of Union workers in the private sector had jobs with employer-provided health insurance, compared with only 49 percent of nonUnion workers. Union workers also are more likely to have retirement and short-term disability benefits.
As the chart below illustrates, 81 percent of Union workers participate in pension plans versus 47 percent of nonUnion workers. Sixty-seven percent of Union workers participate in defined-benefit pension plans, compared with 15 percent of nonUnion workers. (Defined-benefit plans are federally insured and provide a guaranteed monthly pension amount. They are better for workers than defined-contribution plans, in which the benefit amount depends on how well the underlying investments perform.)
Note: Defined-benefit pensions are a subset of all pensions. Disability refers to short-term disability benefits. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits in Private Industry, March 2007. August 2007. Prepared by the AFL-CIO.
Workers' Wages Are Lower in States Where Workers Don't Have Union Rights
In states that have laws restricting workers' rights to form strong Unions, the average pay for all workers is lower. So-called "right to work" for less laws that limit workers' rights to collectively bargain contracts (including wages and benefits) are a bad deal for all workers. In 2006, average pay in so-called "right to work" states was 13.1 percent lower than in states where workers have the freedom to form strong Unions.
Percentage of Workers in Unions, 2007 (left) | Annual Average Pay, 2006 (right)
Note: "Right to work" states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Includes workers covered by unemployment insurance and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs; U.S. Census Bureau. Prepared by the AFL-CIO.
Unions Are Good for Business, Productivity and the Economy
According to Professor Harley Shaiken of the University of California-Berkeley,[1] Unions are associated with higher productivity, lower employee turnover, improved workplace communication, and a better-trained workforce.
Prof. Shaiken is not alone. There is a substantial amount of academic literature on the following benefits of Unions and Unionization to employers and the economy:
- Productivity
- Competitiveness
- Product or service delivery and quality
- Training
- Turnover
- Solvency of the firm
- Workplace health and safety
- Economic development
Productivity
According to a recent survey of 73 independent studies on Unions and productivity: “The available evidence points to a positive and statistically significant association between Unions and productivity in the U.S. manufacturing and education sectors, of around 10 and 7 percent, respectively.”[2]
Some scholars have found an even larger positive relationship between Unions and productivity. According to Brown and Medoff, “Unionized establishments are about 22 percent more productive than those that are not.”[3]
Product/ Service Delivery and Quality
According to Professors Michael Ash and Jean Ann Seago,[4] heart attack recovery rates are higher in hospitals where nurses are Unionized than in non-Union hospitals.
Another study looked at the relationship between Unionization and product quality in the auto industry.[5] According to a summary of this study prepared by American Rights at Work:
“The author examines the system of co-management created through the General Motors-United Auto Workers partnership at the Saturn Corporation…The author credits the Union with building a dense communications network throughout Saturn's management system. Compared to non-represented advisors, Union advisors showed greater levels of lateral communication and coordination, which had a significant positive impact on quality performance.”
Training
Several studies in have found a positive association between Unionization and the amount and quality of workforce training. Unionized establishments are more likely to offer formal training.[6] This is especially true for small firms. There are a number of reasons for this: less turnover among Union workers, making the employer more likely to offer training; collective bargaining agreements that require employers to provide training; and finally, Unions often conduct their own training.
Turnover
Professor Shaiken also finds that Unions reduce turnover. He cites Freeman and Medoff’s finding that “about one fifth of the Union productivity effect stemmed from lower worker turnover. Unions improve communication channels giving workers the ability to improve their conditions short of ‘exiting.’”[7]
Solvency
Labor’s enemies assert that Unions drive employers out of business, but academic research refutes this claim. According to Professors Richard Freeman and Morris Kleiner, Unionism has a statistically insignificant effect (meaning no effect) on firm solvency.[8] Freeman and Kleiner conclude “Unions do not, on average, drive firms or business lines out of business or produce high displacement rates for Unionized workers.”
Workplace Health and Safety
Employers should be concerned about workplace health and safety as a matter of enlightened self-interest. According to an American Rights at Work summary of a study by John E. Baugher and J. Timmons Roberts:
“Only one factor effectively moves workers who are in subordinate positions to actively cope with hazards: membership in an independent labor Union. These findings suggest that Union growth could indirectly reduce job stress by giving workers the voice to cope effectively with job hazards.”[9]
Economic Development
Unions also play a positive role in economic development. One good example is the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, “an association of 125 employers and Unions dedicated to family-supporting jobs in a competitive business environment. WRTP Members have stabilized manufacturing employment in the Milwaukee metro area, and contributed about 6,000 additional industrial jobs to it over the past five years. Among member firms, productivity is way up--exceeding productivity growth in nonmember firms.”[10]
Footnotes and credits:
[1] Harley Shaiken, The High Road to a Competitive Economy: A Labor Law Strategy, Center for American Progress, June 25, 2004, pp. 7-8. http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/Unionpaper.pdf
[2] Christos Doucouliagos and Patrice Laroche, “The Impact of U.S. Unions on Productivity: A Bootstrap Meta-analysis,” Proceedings of the Industrial Relations Research Association, 2004. See also, by the same authors, “What Do Unions Do to Productivity: A Meta-analysis,” Industrial Relations, Volume 42 Issue 4 October 2003:
[3] Charles Brown and James L. Medoff, “Trade Unions in the Production Process.” Journal of Political
Economy, vol. 86, no. 3 (June 1978): 355–378.
[4] Michael Ash and Jean Ann Seago, “The effect of registered nurses' Unions on heart-attack mortality,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Apr. 2004), pp. 422-442.
[5] Saul A. Rubinstein, “The Impact of Co-Management on Quality Performance: The Case of the Saturn Corporation.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 53, No. 197 (January 2000).
[6] Harley J. Frazis, Diane E. Herz and Michael W. Horrigan, “Employer-Provided Training: Results from a New Survey.” Monthly Labor Review (May 1995): 3–17.
[7] Harley Shaiken, cited earlier, quoting Richard Freeman and James Medoff, What Do Unions Do? New York, Basic Books, 1984.
[8] Richard B. Freeman and Morris M. Kleiner, “Do Unions Make Enterprises Insolvent?” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 52, no. 4 (July 1999): 510–527.
[9] John E. Baugher and J. Timmons Roberts, “Workplace Hazards, Unions and Coping Styles.” Labor
Studies Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Summer 2004).
[10] Annette Bernhardt, Laura Dresser, and Joel Rogers, “Taking the High Road in Milwaukee: The Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership.” Working USA, Vol. 5, Issue 3 (January 31, 2002).