Abstract
US unions have often been characterized as ‘exceptional’ in their weakness and conservatism compared to their Western European counterparts. American organized labor is associated with a ‘business unionism’ philosophy that assumes American workers are only pragmatic and materialistic, seeing their unions as vehicles for improving the terms and conditions of employment at their workplaces. Such an analysis omits the potential power of a belief that unions work to improve society. Applying an experimental vignette design based on a survey of over 1000 employed persons, this article examines whether ‘workplace instrumentality’ is the only motivation for workers to support unions. The authors consider the likelihood of voting yes in a union representation election to test the efficacy of two less studied predictors – perceiving unions as positively influencing society and perceiving them as facilitating workers’ voice in union policies and practices. Logistic regression shows that the most influential beliefs associated with union support were that unions improve terms and conditions of employment for represented workers (‘union instrumentality’), that unions positively influence society (‘prosocial unionism’), and that unions offer workers substantial influence on union policies and practices (‘worker say’). Researchers and union organizing campaigns should consider devoting greater attention to the social benefits of unionism and to union democracy.
US unions still matter. Studies document that unions affect not only wages but also ‘nearly every other measurable aspect of the operation of workplaces’ (Freeman and Medoff, 1984: 19; see also Bennett and Kaufman, 2004). Despite decades of membership density decline, unions remain an important influence in many employment settings, representing nearly 15 million US members and more than 1.8 million workers covered by collective bargaining agreements without being members (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). Moreover, nationally-representative polls consistently show large and growing proportions of nonunion workers – typically one-third to one-half – would vote for union representation (Freeman, 2007: 82–84; Kochan et al., 2019). Not surprisingly then, union representation and the basis for individual worker support for unions remain central topics for the social sciences, with implications for fairness, equality, social justice, and a host of other critical outcomes.
Fundamentally, a worker’s decision to support or oppose a union comes down to beliefs about the union and the likely impact of unionization, beliefs that certainly involve the worker’s own situation and workplace, but importantly, we contend, also their beliefs about unions’ larger role in society. Such a contention would be unsurprising in Europe (Budd, 2018: 206; see also Klandermans, 1986; Wheeler and McClendon, 1991), but in the US, the notion of ‘American exceptionalism’ points to American unions as engaged solely in ‘business unionism,’ or ‘pure and simple unionism’ designed to service a narrow self-interest group – union members (Fantasia and Voss, 2004). Yet, recent history shows that US unions and workers may not be so exceptional after all. As Fantasia and Voss (2004: 175) noted, US ‘[l]abor has begun to conjure up an entirely different vision . . . dealing in a central way with matters of social justice.’
This article focuses on workers’ beliefs about unions and how these influence their support for unions, which we measure as a ‘yes’ vote in a union representation election. Key questions for voters in such elections include the following: Will a union improve pay, benefits, and working conditions? Will supporting a union help build a better society? What will important referents, such as friends and family, think? If the union is voted in, will workers have a voice in union policies and practices or will they have just created another ‘boss’? Answers to these kinds of questions motivate workers to support or oppose unions. By focusing on underlying beliefs about unions and assessing their importance in an experimental context, we hope to clarify the relative importance of various beliefs and draw inferences about how workers perceive the nature of unions.
Although prior studies have generated many insights, a common limitation arises from reliance on cross-sectional survey data, providing a tenuous basis for causal inference (Schwab, 2005: 54–65). Such studies are not without merit: cross-sectional data can sometimes provide the basis for causal inferences, perhaps most obviously when relatively objective and immutable traits are posited as predictors of attitudes or future intentions. Nevertheless, causal inferences are often suspect on the basis of reverse or spurious causality. Regarding reverse causality, can we rule out the possibility that participants hold an already-formed voting intention, and therefore responses about beliefs or attitudes reflect psychological rationalization? Regarding spurious causality, might responses to questions about beliefs and union voting intentions both reflect the influence of some unmeasured third variable, such as ideology?
Many studies have examined motivations for union support and opposition, and they typically emphasize US workers’ pragmatism – their orientation to how the union might improve wages, benefits, working conditions, and job satisfaction. But they tend to give short shrift to two potentially key influences: the perception that unions function to improve the lives of non-members, or ‘prosocial’ reasons, and the perception that unions listen to members’ voice, or ‘union democracy’ reasons. Understanding workers’ motivations for supporting unions matters more than ever, as worker activism – both via unions and outside their purview – has been proliferating. What factors motivate workers to turn to unions and what motivates unionized workers to push their demands? The answers could have profound implications for the future of unions.
We use an experimental vignette study to take a closer look at not only the ‘tried and true’ predictors but also at the roles played by two additional factors: a belief that unions work on behalf of all working people and the belief that one’s voice matters in union affairs (in other words, union democracy). Does the belief that unions add to the social good deserve a spot on the list of commonly-offered reasons for voting yes, alongside other factors? Does the belief that one’s voice matters within the union also play a role?
Theory and hypotheses on union support and voting intentions
The literature on union support and on voting intentions in representation elections is voluminous, but fortunately, scholars have undertaken reviews and summaries that allow us to identify patterns (e.g., Barling et al., 1992: 30–69; Budd, 2018: 195–236; Clark, 2009: 32–50; Godard, 2008; Klandermans, 1986; Wheeler and McClendon, 1991). These reviews largely concur that the determinants of union support center on perceived benefits, workplace social pressure, job dissatisfaction, and general attitudes and beliefs about unions. We address each determinant in turn.
Research consistently has shown that union instrumentality – the belief that unions are effective in improving workers’ pay, benefits, working conditions, and other job aspects (e.g., Kochan, 1979) – is an important motivation for voting yes in union representation elections (e.g., Premack and Hunter, 1988; Wanous and Reichers, 1998: 99–100). Indeed, the overall picture of US workers painted by the voting intentions research centers on just such a pragmatic approach to unionization decisions (e.g., Kochan, 1979: 27), where the emphasis lies squarely on workers’ self-interest. Freeman (2007: 84), upon reviewing several worker surveys, succinctly stated this view: ‘The workers who want unions want them to deal with workplace problems that they believe management does not resolve adequately or fairly.’
When workers experience frustration, perceived injustice, or dissatisfaction, they are triggered to search for an alternative – such as joining a union – that will improve the situation. Theorists draw on cognitive dissonance theory, wherein dissatisfaction or injustice motivates a search to end the dissonance caused by the gap between expectations and outcomes. In the workplace context, such resolution can mean union formation or other forms of union support (Budd, 2018; Klandermans, 1986; Wheeler and McClendon, 1991). While not a complete explanation, this psychology does play a role in explaining motivations. Most research in this area focuses on job dissatisfaction and reports that it motivates a ‘yes’ vote in a representation election (Budd, 2018). Kelly’s mobilization theory (1998) shifted the emphasis to the perception of injustice rather than job dissatisfaction, and argued that it, more than dissatisfaction, impels workers to support collective action.
As for general union attitude (or general attitude), most research shows that an approving orientation would positively influence a vote and that a negative orientation would have the opposite effect (Budd, 2018: 205). Measures typically gauge affect and encompass a wide range of attitudes and beliefs about unions, including views of unions’ macroeconomic effects, of union leaders’ honesty and autocracy, of unions’ possibly excessive power over employers, their political influence, and the extent to which workers and unions share values (see McShane [1986] for a more extensive review of general union attitudes). Such items more closely represent affect than beliefs, and so are less relevant for our purposes, as affect is more of an outcome than a belief, akin to what Montgomery (1989: 266–267) termed ‘emotional residue,’ which is ‘affect that was originally determined by beliefs [that] may become separated from those beliefs and remain influential long after the beliefs are forgotten.’ For Montgomery, beliefs are the causal influence, a stance we tend to agree with, but one that is difficult to support with cross-sectional research. Other scholars discuss general union attitude using varied terms, including ‘interactionist theories’ that link attitudes to networks where one has interactions, e.g., one’s ‘occupational community’ (Klandermans, 1986: 190–191), ‘political/ideological beliefs’ (Wheeler and McClendon, 1991), and ‘value rationality’ (Sverke and Kuruvilla, 1995). In these cases, as well, the concept describes a very general congruence, for example of unspecified ‘values,’ which provides a weak basis for understanding causality. Thus, conclusions based on observing a positive relationship between general union attitude and union support tell us little more than that people with positive feelings toward unions will support them, which cannot help us understand causal influences on support or its specific manifestations – namely commitment, membership, pro-union voting, or participation.
Our approach differs. We seek to unpack two features of the ‘general union attitude’ construct: ‘prosocial motivations’ and ‘worker say’ (union democracy) beliefs. Both are fairly specific in their meanings and implications, providing a clearer basis for causal inference. Prosocial motivations are ‘positive social acts carried out to produce and maintain the well-being and integrity of others’ (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986: 710). Scholarly perspectives (e.g., Flanders, 1970; McKersie, 2019) and recent developments question the emphasis on the instrumental motivations of US workers’ union preferences described above and suggest the importance of prosocial motivations. Analyzing the roughly 60-year decline of US unions, Godard (2009: 101) concluded that some blame lies in ‘a narrow economistic form of unionism lacking broader institutional legitimacy.’ Citing the need to develop alliances with other groups and the need for unions to be more of a social movement, Fantasia and Voss (2004: 131) suggested a ‘vision of labor [that is] entirely different than the one conjured up by business unionism. Unions need to be seen as dealing with questions of social justice that extend well beyond the unionized workforce, rather than advocating only for a narrow interest group.’ Heery (2018: 663) contended that British unions have taken steps in this direction, corroborating Kelly’s (1998) ‘fusion thesis’ whereby ‘unions and civil society organizations . . . work in concert.’ Similar US trends have appeared, with an increase in union collaboration with other social movements to promote civil rights, gender equality, and immigration reform (Fine et al., 2018). Other US manifestations include the emergence of ‘Bargaining for the Common Good’ (McCartin, 2016) and teachers’ strikes in Los Angeles, Chicago, and elsewhere. In an example of both, teachers in St. Paul, Minnesota, spent a decade building a partnership with the community and succeeded in winning more than wage hikes; their strike led management to agree to contract terms that allowed teachers to visit students’ homes to encourage parent–teacher rapport and that fostered school-based teams to fight the disproportionate suspension of students of color. In short, such efforts have been successful because of the collaboration of teachers’ unions, parent organizations, and community groups, which fought to improve schools for students and not just for teachers (Greenhouse, 2019: 296).
Only a handful of empirical studies have directly addressed this orientation as a motivation for union support. Fiorito (1992) found that US workers who believed unions worked for legislation to help all workers were more likely to indicate a pro-union voting intent. Kirmanoğlu and Başlevent (2012) examined data on thousands of European workers from 28 nations, focusing on the role of personal values in membership. They found evidence supporting a ‘social interest argument’ (2012: 693): that is, prosocial values were positively linked to membership. More recently, a review by Fiorito et al. (2018) and an empirical study using survey data (Fiorito and Padavic, in press) suggested that prosocial motivations may be an underappreciated influence on union voting intent and other forms of union support in the US. Another recent study of African-American workers’ motivations highlighted the greater importance of prosocial motivations in their positive assessment than in whites’ (Gumber and Padavic, 2020).
Reviews and summaries stress a primary role for attitudes toward unions as reflecting beliefs about union effects. This leads directly to our first two hypotheses:
H1: Perceived union instrumentality (‘instrumental unionism’) is positively related to pro-union voting intentions.
H2: Perceived prosocial union effect (‘prosocial unionism’) is positively related to pro-union voting intentions.
Our third hypothesis directly reflects the role of subjective norms – the idea that one’s intentions and behavior are influenced by social concerns and specifically by a desire to comply with the expectations of important referents (Budd, 2018; Klandermans, 1986). Scholars have long noted the importance of social influences on union attitudes and intentions, including the desire to ‘stand well with one’s co-workers’ (Bendix, 1956: 314; Mayo, 1933), and more recent empirical work has included measures to capture union identification (Blader, 2007), group-level beliefs about unions (Martinez et al., 2011), and normative pressures from various referent groups (Montgomery, 1989; Youngblood et al., 1984). Accordingly, we predict:
H3: Perceptions that co-workers, friends, and family favor union representation (‘referents favor union’) are positively associated with a pro-union vote.
Perceived control has been understudied as a predictor in union voting intention studies, although it has been shown to be highly influential in the related domain of union activism (Fiorito et al., 2015). A recent study found that workers are interested in having a ‘voice’ in workplace matters both personal (e.g., safety, respect, and protection from harassment and discrimination) and organizational (e.g., technology use and organizational values) and that they look to unions as a vehicle for expressing this voice (Kochan et al., 2019: 16). While that analysis centered on workers’ desire to have a say in their workplace, scholars have also pointed to how union democracy is essential for union effectiveness, legitimacy, mobilization, and workplace democracy (e.g., Baccaro et al., 2019; Gall and Fiorito, 2016: 192–193). As Gumbrell-McCormick and Hyman (2019: 105) observed, ‘If it is impossible to involve and empower workers within their own trade unions, it is scarcely plausible to suggest that work itself can be democratized, and the legitimacy of unions as a voice for democratization is undermined.’
This logic leads us to our fourth hypothesis. The ultimate objective in forming a union is to create an institution that gives workers a say, a notion that is directly reflected in a measure that assesses whether workers believe their voices will be influential in the union itself. Thus, we predict:
H4: The perception that workers have a strong voice in determining union policies and practices (‘worker say in union’) is positively related to a pro-union vote.
Our final hypothesis concerns a key background factor. Job dissatisfaction, frustration, or perceived injustice is an important background factor or triggering mechanism spurring worker searches for alternatives. Although the dissatisfied or frustrated worker may not conclude that union representation is the solution, numerous studies have found a direct relationship between job dissatisfaction and union support (Budd, 2018: 204–205; Wheeler and McClendon, 1991: 59–61). Accordingly, we expect:
H5: Job dissatisfaction is positively related to pro-union voting intentions.
Methodology
Data
We contracted with Qualtrics for a sample of at least 1000 complete responses to an online survey from a target population of people age 18 and over, employed by someone else, and residing in the US. Self-employed persons were included if they were also employed by someone else (0.6% of the sample), as were those responding ‘not sure’ about whether they worked for someone else (6.1%). A gender quota of 50% men was established after we noticed a gender imbalance in early responses. Questionnaires were available in English and Spanish, and our request to Qualtrics was that 13% of the sample be from Spanish-speaking households (representing the national figure; US Census Bureau, 2015). Just over 3000 persons initiated the survey by clicking on a provided link, with 1021 ‘passing’ the screening questions and the quality check questions (described in the Appendix available online) for a response rate of about 34%.
Procedure
We used an experimental vignette methodology (EVM). As is the case in all experimental designs, external validity presents a challenge while internal validity is heightened, and thus EVM stands in contrast to nonexperimental studies, which maximize external validity but typically cannot substantiate causality (Aguinis and Bradley, 2014: 351). The methodology relies on presenting scenarios that allow the researcher to assess dependent variables – often intentions and attitudes – and independent ones that the researcher manipulates.
We presented each subject with a scenario in which five cues (also called stimuli or conditions) were presented, each of which reflected one of our hypothesized influences on union voting intentions. The survey was described as seeking to improve understanding of employee views of work-related issues. The randomly-generated vignette each participant viewed referred to aspects of a worker’s (‘Chris’) job and an upcoming union representation election at that workplace. Examples below illustrate the two extreme cases, the first representing all the conditions expected to favor a pro-union vote, and the second representing all the conditions favoring an anti-union vote:
Most of Chris’ co-workers, friends, and family think that having a union at Chris’ workplace would be a good thing. Chris thinks that workers will have a lot of say on the union’s policies and practices. The union is well known for being a positive force in society. Chris is very dissatisfied with the way things are done at work. The union has a good reputation for improving pay and fairness on the job. Most of Chris’ co-workers, friends, and family think that having a union at Chris’ workplace would be a bad thing. Chris thinks that workers will have little say on the union’s policies and practices. The union is well known for being a negative force in society. Chris is very satisfied with the way things are done at work. The union has a poor reputation for improving pay and fairness on the job.
Participants were instructed to ‘very carefully’ read the vignette and answer questions about it. The level of each cue (i.e., positive or negative) was randomly generated and its order randomly assigned. Following presentation of the vignette, the subject was asked to indicate how Chris would vote, using a five-point Likert-style scale (‘definitely vote against the union,’ ‘probably vote against the union,’ ‘not sure,’ ‘probably vote for the union,’ and ‘definitely vote for the union’). Participants were not allowed to backtrack, that is, to return to the vignette to check for cue values. After responding to the ‘Chris voting question,’ participants were asked five questions to assess their perceptions of the vignette cues, e.g., ‘Chris’ job satisfaction is . . . low, high, or not sure.’ Again, participants were not allowed to backtrack.
Results
Table 1 presents ordered logistic regression results for Pro-Union Vote and indicates support for all five hypotheses. The strongest support arises for the Worker Say in Union and Instrumental Unionism variables. Both are positive and statistically significant (p < 0.01), and their odds ratios indicate fairly strong effect sizes (2.55 and 2.08, respectively). We thus can say that a participant who received a positive cue (= 1) for Worker Say in Union, compared to one who received a negative cue (= 0), is roughly two-and-a-half times more likely to choose a more pro-union vote category. For Instrumental Unionism, the odds for a similar comparison roughly double.
Ordered logistic regression results for pro-union vote, N = 1021.
Note: Intercept terms not shown. Par. est. = parameter estimate.
Fairly strong support is shown for Prosocial Unionism as well (p < 0.01), with an odds ratio of 1.71. Support is also found for Job Dissatisfaction (p < 0.05) and Referents Favor Union (p < 0.10), but both items show relatively modest odds ratios, 1.27 and 1.23 respectively, and their p-values are higher than those for the other predictors. Collectively, the experimental cues explain about 11% of the variance, according to the pseudo-R2.
Sensitivity of results to further data quality restrictions
It is reasonable to ask how sensitive these results might be to data quality. In other words, how are the results affected by including participants who failed to accurately identify any of the experimental cues or who successfully identified only one or two? These persons apparently failed to pay close attention to the vignette or to the manipulation check questions, exhibited sub-par short-term memory skills, or exhibited a combination of these possibilities. To explore the sensitivity issue, we conducted additional regression analyses with alternative case-inclusion restrictions based on the number of cues correctly identified. Table 2 shows results for all cases and for cases where participants correctly identified three or more, four or more, and all five cues.
Ordered logistic regression results for pro-union vote with alternative samples.
Note: Intercept terms not shown. Par. est. = parameter estimate.
p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10.
Table 2 reflects the combined effects of increasing data quality (as indicated by number of cues accurately identified) and decreasing statistical power as sample size drops. Each model’s R2 increases, in some cases dramatically, as more stringent data quality restrictions are applied: the R2 for the most restrictive sample (R2 = 0.38) is more than three times larger than that for the entire sample. In effect, the inclusion of cases with inaccurate cue recollections creates ‘noise’ in the data. Most results are, however, insensitive to that noise. Results for Instrumental Unionism, Prosocial Unionism, and Worker Say in Union are consistently positive and highly significant (p < 0.01) in all models. Results for Referents Favor Union and Job Dissatisfaction fail to reach statistical significance at conventional levels (p < 0.10 or better) in half of the samples considered. Again, these additional estimates show that results for most hypotheses are insensitive to alternative response quality restrictions (as indicated by accurate cue perceptions).
Discussion and conclusions
Three of the five hypotheses received strong support and two received weak-to-moderate support. Perceptions of instrumental unionism (H1), prosocial unionism (H2), and beliefs that workers will have substantial voice in union policies and practices (H4) were all positively and strongly predictive of pro-union voting intentions. Job dissatisfaction (H5) and the views of salient referents – friends, family, and co-workers – on the desirability of union representation (H3) yielded more modest results that also were less robust in the face of sample restrictions.
In the case of union instrumentality perceptions, much evidence supports a positive relationship with union voting intentions, and our results reinforce what is known. There is indeed a strong element of self-interest in support for unions. But that is only part of the story. Results for the prosocial unionism measure and for the worker say in union measures underscore this and are more novel. We address each in turn.
Only two prior empirical studies have examined the effects of measures similar to our prosocial unionism, and both relied on cross-sectional surveys that provide a more limited basis for causal inference (Fiorito, 1992; Fiorito and Padavic, in press). The results reported here show a fairly strong influence for prosocial unionism – roughly comparable to that for instrumental unionism. And they do so in a research design that provides a strong basis for causal inference. These results clearly support the inference that prosocial motivations – indicated by beliefs that unions act as a positive force in society – play a substantial role in worker support for unions. Workers who support unions, e.g., who vote for them, are indicating support not only for their own terms and conditions of employment but also for social justice and a better society. This underscores the potential of Kelly’s ‘fusion thesis,’ whereby unions can form viable alliances with social movements, such as those supporting immigrant rights, women’s rights, anti-racism, a living wage, environmentalism, and gender equity in order to effect social change (Heery, 2018; Kelly, 1998). Such coalitions provide an empowered ‘united front for progressive social change [and] the union movement is then better positioned to recruit new members, extend its range of influence, and modernize its image and broaden its social purpose’ (Kaufman, 2018: 592). As McCartin (2016: 133) asserted, ‘[M]ilitancy and collective action are most likely to succeed when their practitioners can credibly claim that they are advancing the common good rather than their own special interests.’ Drawing on prosocial themes may be useful in organizing workers in sectors where unions have made little headway, and movements such as Fight for $15 might gain even greater traction by seeking coalitions and highlighting non-wage goals.
Results for the worker say in union condition were among the strongest and were the most persistent across subsamples. Although few studies of union representation have considered this notion, which is a form of the ‘perceived control’ concept in Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior, our results suggest that further attention is warranted. Admittedly, if we define perceived control narrowly – e.g., ‘can I cast a secret ballot?’ – the concept becomes trivial and important effects are unlikely. If we operationalize the concept more broadly, as here, however, it demonstrates that it is in fact important in workers’ thinking about voting for union representation. Indeed, expectations of worker say in union policies and practices may be part of why more nebulous general attitude measures ‘work’ as predictors of union support. When workers’ ‘say in the union’ is subsumed under a broad general attitude measure, however, its importance is obscured in the murky ‘emotional residue’ of general attitude. Worker support for unions is also support for industrial democracy and a more democratic society. These results underscore and extend linkages that scholars have long asserted between union democracy, industrial democracy, and democracy in society at large (Baccaro et al., 2019; Gumbrell-McCormick and Hyman, 2019; Sojourner, 2013) as well as linkages between union democracy and union effectiveness: ‘[U]nion democracy is . . . desirable in itself but . . . more significant as an instrumental resource of legitimacy for the purposes of collective mobilization’ (Gall and Fiorito, 2016: 192–193).
Results for job dissatisfaction were mixed and of somewhat less importance than instrumental unionism, prosocial unionism, and worker say in the union. Others have noted that perceived injustices (or grievances) are not the sole basis for mobilizing union support (Gahan and Pekarek 2013; Holgate et al., 2018), a finding our study confirms. As Clark (2009: 33–34) noted, even satisfied workers may see the potential for improvements as a reason to support unions, a position that upholds the role of rational choice and more integrative perspectives (e.g., Wheeler and McClendon, 1991) and that implies a weaker job dissatisfaction–union voting linkage.
Results for referent others’ views on unionization were similarly mixed and of less importance than instrumental unionism, prosocial unionism, and worker say in the union. Although previous studies have found a role for similar measures based on the Theory of Planned Behavior’s concept of subjective norms (e.g., Montgomery, 1989), our results suggest that the views of friends, family, and co-workers about unionization are less important for union voting intentions than are one’s own beliefs.
Our contribution is not only substantive but also methodological. An inherent strength of this investigation is its reliance on an experimental design, sometimes regarded as the ‘gold standard’ for establishing causality. An experimental vignette approach allowed us to manipulate the independent variables, thereby ruling out reverse causality and spurious correlation as alternative explanations for the findings. A further strength stems from the randomization of cue values and cue order, which help rule out omitted variable bias as a threat to internal validity and order effects, respectively. For example, while survey participants’ values or ideology might influence views of what ‘Chris’ will do, these views are uncorrelated with the vignette cues, and thus we know that our estimates for experimental cue effects are not biased due to omission of participant values. An added benefit of the randomization is low correlation among independent variables, thereby avoiding the multicollinearity problems that can impede efforts to identify the effects of particular influences (Cohen et al., 2003: 76). Yet experimental studies suffer from inherent weaknesses, particularly in their lack of real-world context, which limits external validity. Union representation elections are generally hard-fought contests in which unions and employers campaign vigorously and, in the case of employers, often illegally, to persuade workers. Job dissatisfaction (or perceived workplace injustice) or social pressures from family, friends, and co-workers can be incredibly intense. These real-world elements are lacking in our experiment. Nevertheless, the sample roughly approximates US wage and salary workers, and the experiment highlights some of the most important influences on workers’ thinking about voting in representation elections.
In conclusion, our study questions the accepted wisdom about motivations for joining unions and has implications for addressing union decline. A considerable literature on union voting intentions stresses that US workers take a pragmatic approach to voting decisions in representation elections, highlighting the roles of job dissatisfaction, instrumentalism, and general union attitude. This study suggests a more nuanced orientation that centers on two additional considerations: we found that the perception of unions as prosocial was quite important, as was the perception that workers will have a say in union policies and practices. Previous studies that subsumed these influences under ‘general union attitude’ obscure the likely causal relationship between beliefs and union support. Finally, our results suggest that both prosocial aspects of unions and worker say in unions are important enough – on a par with union instrumentality perceptions – to qualify the view of the US worker as merely a ‘pragmatic voter’ and of US unions as exceptions to the more prosocial orientation of European unions. These influences warrant more attention from researchers studying union voting intentions and other forms of union support, and they also suggest that union organizers could consider them more fully in crafting their campaigns. We note that our findings are not limited to representation voting implications. Similar influences also affect other forms of union support, such as activism and membership (e.g., Fiorito et al., 2018; Kirmanoğlu and Başlevent, 2012; McClendon et al., 1998), and union leaders should also consider paying greater attention to prosocial motivations and union democracy in their efforts to recruit and activate members.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-eid-10.1177_0143831X21990094 – Supplemental material for Not so exceptional? Prosocial influences on union support among US workers
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-eid-10.1177_0143831X21990094 for Not so exceptional? Prosocial influences on union support among US workers by Jack Fiorito and Irene Padavic in Economic and Industrial Democracy
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We thank Allan Blay, Lorenzo Frangi, Charles Hofacker, Alfred Mele, Carl Schmertmann, Maura Scott, Chad Van Iddekinge, Samantha Paustian-Underdahl, and Gang Wang for helpful discussions regarding various aspects of this project. We are grateful to Arkin Buyukozturk, Andrew Keyes, Nicholas Marangi, and Jill Marquez for research assistance. Any errors are solely the responsibility of the authors.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Author biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
