Precarious Work,Young Workers,and Union-Related Attitudes: Distrust of Employers,Workplace Collective Efficacy,and Union Efficacy

Abstract

This study examined the effects of precarious work characteristics on U.S. workers’ attitudes about three union-related issues using the 2009 Young Worker Survey. Union-related criteria included distrust in employers to treat employees fairly, collective efficacy (rather than individual) in solving workplace problems, and union efficacy in terms of whether union members are better off (or worse off) than nonunion workers. The results suggest that precarious work is much more a problem for younger workers (aged 18-34 years) than for older workers (aged 35 years and above). Consistent with prior studies, we find that young workers tend to hold more positive views of unions, although they are not uniformly more “pro-union” about all three union-related criteria. Further analysis indicates that what may be seen as youth effects on union attitudes are in part precarious work effects that can be confounded due to the strong relation between youth and precarious work.

Keywords

precarious work worker attitudes union attitudes unions youth

For some time, employees, employers, and researchers have recognized a shift in the arrangement of work. After years in which employers and employees retained a degree of consistency and loyalty in their relationship, many employees are finding secure or ongoing employment harder to obtain. The relatively secure employment opportunities that existed for many workers post World War II have started to change, and the quality of jobs available has decreased across many sectors (Lichtenstein 2010). Alternative work arrangements such as contingent, temporary, and part-time work have increased. Indeed, rather than employees securing standard employment, “94 percent of the net employment growth in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work,” (Katz and Krueger 2016, 7). However, this trend is not entirely recent; the forces leading to this increase have been building since the mid 1970s (Kalleberg 2009; Wallace and Kwak 2017), and for decades, employees have experienced a decline in job security (Farber 2010). These changes in work arrangement are increasingly creating work that is precarious in nature.

Precarious work is “work that is uncertain, unstable, and insecure and in which employees bear the risks of work (as opposed to businesses or the government) and receive limited social benefits and statutory protections” (Kalleberg and Vallas 2017, 1, emphasis in original). Although some employees have accepted and to some degree embraced these new work arrangements (e.g., Lane 2011; Pugh 2015), many employees experience negative consequences, including substandard working conditions (e.g., Hall 2006), decreased subjective well-being (e.g., Burchell 2011), and increased stress resulting from continually seeking better employment opportunities (e.g., Lewchuk, Clarke, and de Wolff 2008). Scholars have proposed several causes for the increase in precarious work. For example, the increased power of financial institutions (e.g., Tomaskovic-DeveyLin 2011), globalization (Bronfenbrenner and Luce 2004), and the digital revolution (Schor et al. 2016) have been discussed. Another often proposed cause for the increase in precarious work, and closely related to the focus of our study, is the decline in unionization (e.g., Milkman 2013; Western and Rosenfeld 2011).

Union contracts often include provisions requiring minimum payments for “call-ins,” or “reporting pay” in the event of shutdowns, and requirements for premium overtime payments in excess of statutory requirements. Such provisions shift risk to employers and encourage more careful planning in labor’s use, resulting in greater stability. In addition, union contracts provide superior benefits including pensions, health insurance, and greater amounts of paid nonworking time such as vacations, holidays, and sick days (Bennett and Kaufman 2007; Budd 2018; Freeman and Medoff 1984, 49-51). At least some of these engender greater security and predictability as well as perceptions of job adequacy (e.g., adequate wages, benefits, and psychosocial characteristics; Bass and Grzywacz 2011). Protections against arbitrary and capricious discipline and seniority rights in layoffs and recalls also shift risk to employers and provide stability and security to workers. Apart from union contracts, unions have historically sought to reduce the precarious nature of work through their support for legislation that provides benefits, protection against unjust dismissal, and other workplace rights.¹

Consequently, it is easy to see why union decline and declining collective bargaining contract coverage are associated with increasing incidence of precarious work, often as a result of employer efforts to make labor more of a variable rather than fixed cost. Recent official figures estimated private sector union contract coverage at 7.2 percent (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] 2019), roughly one-fifth of the level that prevailed in the 1950s-1960s, a time Kalleberg (2009) identified as relatively secure for workers. Empirical studies have linked declines in specific benefits such as health care coverage and pensions to union decline, controlling for other influences (Budd 2007). As mentioned previously, although there are some other important causes of precarious work, union contract coverage, or its absence, is arguably one of the most important determinants from a worker’s perspective.

Despite the apparent association between union decline and the increase in precarious work, little research has quantitatively investigated the relationship from the perspective of employees. This is particularly true of employees in the United States, where union density is lower than almost all Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2019) countries and where unions have been under attack from various entities, including politicians (e.g., Jost 2011) and mostly conservative think-tanks such as American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC; e.g., Hurd and Lee 2014). The political and business environment in which unions operate varies dramatically across countries, and it is important to understand how precarious work and related attitudes toward labor union perspectives also may differ between countries. The prevalence, history, and conditions of precarious work vary dramatically by country (Kalleberg and Vallas 2017) and thus gaining greater understanding of the American context is needed. In our study, we investigate the relationship between precarious work and attitudes toward labor unions, and the relationship with a subgroup of the workforce often disproportionately exposed to precarious work—young workers.

Previous Research and Hypotheses

Younger Workers and Union Attitudes

The entry of younger workers into the workforce may be somewhat more difficult than in previous generations due to increased globalization as well as various economic, political, and labor market concerns (García-Pérez and Muñoz-Bullón 2011; Hodder and Kretsos 2015). Prior research (e.g., Hodder and Kretsos 2015) on younger workers and union attitudes suggested that younger workers may be more receptive to union membership. Given the short amount of time spent in the workplace, younger workers have less “investment” at risk for possible job loss and less loyalty to employers. They also tend to have attained higher levels of education and perceive unions as a form of protection in labor disputes. However, despite reasons for younger workers to exhibit positive union attitudes, prior research also cited resistance to unionism due to perceived union inefficiency as reasons that younger workers may exhibit negative attitudes (Haynes, Vowles, and Boxall 2005; Waddington and Kerr 2002).

Although the existing research on younger workers and union attitudes may portray seemingly contradicting assertions regarding whether younger workers have positive or negative union attitudes (Hodder and Kretsos 2015; Waddington and Kerr 2002), we should consider that multiple facets of unions (e.g., structural factors and systematic obstacles), rather than unions themselves, are perhaps being assessed. Existing research has noted younger workers’ propensity to work in situations where unionization is difficult to achieve or where turnover is high due to continued educational pursuits or youthful job and career exploration (Bielski Boris et al. 2013; Dufour-Poirier and Laroche 2015). Lower union participation for these reasons is indicative of structural factors that have more to do with younger workers’ stage of life than their union attitudes (Dufour-Poirier and Laroche 2015). Systematic obstacles, such as political ideology and accessibility/approachability of local union representatives, are inherently individual perceptions that also influence younger workers’ union attitudes. Both structural factors and systematic obstacles are aspects of unionism that may alter the way younger workers perceive unions but are separate from their overall attitudes about unions themselves (Bryson et al. 2005; Dufour-Poirier and Laroche 2015). Thus, the younger workers–union attitudes relationship is somewhat complex. That is, younger workers may indeed have favorable attitudes about unions themselves, but may also encounter obstacles that influence whether those attitudes result in union membership. This possibility is consistent with evidence showing lower union density rates among younger workers (e.g., U.S. Department of Labor, BLS 2019) and more positive attitudes toward unions among younger workers (e.g., Marschall 2013).

Thus, while we acknowledge that workers, young and old, may have reasons to oppose unionism, we agree with Bryson et al. (2005) that lower union density and participation among younger workers is not necessarily indicative of low demand for collective bargaining and unionization among them. The manner in which younger workers are socialized into the union influences their levels of union commitment and union participation. Fullagar et al. (1995) found that individual socialization (i.e., organic and informal introduction to the union and its members through unstructured interactions and experiences) was much more effective for increasing union participation and commitment than institutionalized and/or collective socialization techniques. They subsequently noted that these levels of union participation and union commitment were maintained over time (Fullagar et al. 2004).

Despite some evidence of less favorable union attitudes among younger workers, there is ample evidence that younger workers hold more favorable attitudes toward unions than do older workers (e.g., AFL-CIO 2009; Madland and Teixeira 2009; Maniam 2017; Marschall 2013). Marschall stated that

Millennials² tend to be pro-union. They view unions as an important institution that plays a role in empowering workers and helping to see that workers gain a fair share of gains in productivity. They tend to believe that working people should join together to affect their working conditions . . . [Young workers] support the idea that employees will be more successful at resolving workplace problems as a group. (Marschall 2013, 1)

Madland and Teixeira (2009) noted that younger workers in a 2007 Pew Center poll were distinctly more likely than older workers to agree that unions are needed to protect working people. They also noted that another poll found a warmer “thermometer” (more positive) score for unions among younger workers than for any other age group. More recently, Maniam (2017) reported that younger workers were considerably more favorable toward unions than were older workers, with 75 percent of those aged 18-29 years having a more favorable view of unions than of business corporations, as compared to only 50 percent for those aged 50-64 years. Maniam (2017) reported similarly pro-union views about unions per se among younger workers as compared to older workers. Together, these studies suggest that younger workers will have more supportive attitudes regarding unions than older workers. Thus, we propose

Hypothesis 1: Younger workers have more favorable union attitudes than do older workers.

Precarious Work and Union Attitudes

As described earlier, in agreement with Kalleberg and Vallas (2017), we identify precarious work as “work that is uncertain, unstable, and insecure and in which employees bear the risks of work (as opposed to businesses or the government) and receive limited social benefits and statutory protections” (p. 1, emphasis in original). However, we fully acknowledge that scholars have conceptualized the term “precarious work” at different levels and in different contexts. Building on earlier work (e.g., Gallagher 2008; Kalleberg 2009), Kalleberg and Vallas’ review acknowledges the difficulties that have arisen due to a lack of consensus in what is precarious work.

In an effort to clarify the construct, Campbell and Price (2016) argued that researchers use the term in five different levels (i.e., precariousness in employment, precarious work, precarious workers, the precariat as a social class, and precarity spilling into other domains of social life). They argued that some of these levels easily overlap (e.g., precariousness in employment and precarious work), yet others are more difficult to connect (e.g., precarious work and precarious workers). Campbell and Price argued that although many scholars maintain some employees choose to work part-time or be employed in precarious work and thus they are not precarious workers, the work is still precarious. We agree and argue that individuals can assess the attributes of their jobs and assess the work as precarious, regardless of the reason for employment in such jobs (e.g., experiencing precarious work is not precluded by freely choosing to work in the job).

Gomez, Gunderson, and Meltz (2002) suggested that job attributes underlie the possible confounding of youth-precarious work influences. That is, to some extent, preferences attributed to youthfulness may in fact be reactions to job conditions such as precarious work that are more likely to be faced by young workers. We suggest that the prevalence of precarious work offers reasons to suggest that workers, particularly young ones, may view unions as an ally rather than a foe. Dufour and Hege (2013) investigated how diversity influences unions with regard to its membership, representatives, and accessibility and found that younger workers are much more likely to view unions as a way to improve precarious work, especially when the goals of the union were closely aligned with the needs of precarious workers, when unions were continuously active (i.e., not only during periods of contract negotiation and dispute) and when younger workers perceived a sense of belonging in the union. Thus, with regard to precarious work, younger workers’ union attitudes comprised the complexities that are created by goal alignment between unions and young workers, younger workers’ accessibility to union representatives, and the inclusion of younger workers in union activities in addition to the nature of the work itself.

More generally, the premise that the nature of work affects worker attitudes and employment relations outcomes has deep roots in employment relations research (see Fiorito and Gallagher 1986; Godard 2008 for reviews). Although earlier work focused on job characteristics (e.g., manual vs. intellectual) and perceptions of “work itself” (e.g., task identity, task variety, etc.), propositions and findings from such studies seem likely to apply to more recent conceptions of precarious work. In essence, this is a generalization of the oft-noted job dissatisfaction-pro-union voting relationship (e.g., Godard 2008), but with the focus shifting from affect (job dissatisfaction) to underlying job content and context.

The general proposition that less desirable job characteristics stimulate pro-union attitudes extends to characteristics such as those associated with precarious work. That is, the effects of precarious work facets such as part-time status, insecurity, unpredictability, low pay, and inadequacy of benefits will result in workers’ greater desire for voice and union representation. As Freeman and Medoff (1984, 19) noted long ago, in addition to wage effects “unions alter nearly every other measurable aspect of workplaces and enterprises.” Collective bargaining agreements routinely deal with precarious work facets and attempt to shift risk and insecurity to employers through provisions calling for minimum hours, call-in pay, health insurance, pensions, sick leave, provisions requiring just cause for discipline and discharge, explicit criteria for layoffs, and a host of other provisions. The concept of union instrumentality, although typically emphasizing union ability to boost pay and benefits, also encompasses concepts of fairness and working conditions, as suggested by Budd’s (2018, 205) reference to union instrumentality as the idea that “a union will be instrumental (successful) in improving the workplace.” Consistent with this view, Godard (2011, 493) identified several workplace characteristics that may indicate workplaces more amenable to organizing, including poor job quality, insecurity, a lack of layoff protections, and low pay levels. In sum, both theory and evidence suggest a precarious work-union-related attitude connection, which is stated formally as follows:

Hypothesis 2: Precarious work is associated with more favorable union attitudes.

In this study, we investigate the role of youth and precarious work on union attitudes. Do characterizations of young workers’ pro-union views hold up to closer scrutiny, that is, when other likely influences on union views are held constant? Are various indicators of precarious work that reflect broader samplings of the precarious work domain—not just the few indicators identified as such in past research—generally associated with pro-union views? A final question is whether effects of youth and precarious work are interactive or if instead they are simply distinct main effects that sometimes are confounded due to correlation between being a younger worker and experiencing precarious employment. It is reasonable to imagine that younger workers, who we predict will be more favorable to unions, would be increasingly so when faced with precarious work. That is, young workers in jobs with less desirable characteristics (e.g., inadequate benefits, substandard working conditions) are more likely to possess favorable union attitudes than will young workers employed in less precarious work, which is stated formally as follows:

Hypothesis 3: Age and precarious work interact such that precarious work is more salient in predicting union attitudes for younger workers than for older workers.

Although we argue that younger workers are more likely to favor labor unions than are older workers, there are potential reasons to question the interpretations regarding pro-union tendencies among younger workers. Godard (2008) suggested that three main factors dominate conventional explanations for union support (e.g., voting intentions in union representation elections). These three factors, in order of their relative importance, are union instrumentality perceptions, general beliefs about unions, and job dissatisfaction. This echoes Kochan’s (1979) conclusion nearly three decades earlier. Godard reviews several additional factors that have been considered influential on union attitudes, including both beliefs and individual characteristics. He found that age and other individual demographic characteristics were generally unhelpful in explaining union attitudes: “Although most studies control for age, only a few have found it to matter” (Godard 2008, 385). Others have described results for age effects on union attitudes as “somewhat mixed” (Wheeler and McClendon 1991, 64). Godard suggested that individual characteristics such as age tend to serve as markers or proxies for “internal” determinants of union attitudes such as beliefs about work and unions. Consistent with this view, Godard noted that studies tend to show dramatic reductions in individual characteristics’ effects when “internal” determinants such as beliefs are added to regression models (Godard 2008, 386).

Cumulatively, the evidence suggests that younger workers hold more favorable attitudes, but that attributing this relation to youth per se may be a mistake. Rather, the apparent “youth effect” may reflect confounding to some degree. That is, correlation between youth and other influences such as precarious work conditions can suggest a stronger youth-pro-union attitude relationship than one finds when controlling for other influences.

Data, Measures, and Methods

Hart Research Associates conducted the Young Worker Survey (YWS) on behalf of the AFL-CIO in 2009. The survey design provides data for a stratified sample of U.S. workers.³ Subjects were initially selected via random-digit dialing. Telephone interviews were completed with 1,156 respondents from a wide variety of industries, occupations, and regions. The questionnaire included a “split-form” design with two forms. As such, not all questions were asked of each respondent. Consequently, the available sample in many analyses is considerably smaller, depending on the particular items used.

The sampling strategy focused on providing data to contrast younger worker (aged 18-34 years) views with those of older workers (aged 35 years and above). There was deliberate oversampling of younger workers, who constitute about 52 percent of respondents. Sample weights reflecting the sampling strategy suggest that this proportion in a random sample should be about 34 percent. Weighted and unweighted age distributions for respondents employed by others (not self-employed) are shown in Table 1, along with comparative data from the U.S. Department of Labor.

Table 1.

Unweighted and Weighted 2009 YWS Sample Age Distributions (N = 915) and BLS Age Distribution Figures from the 2009 Current Population Survey.

YWS age group (years)	YWS unweighted percent	YWS weighted percent	YWS weighted percent in BLS groups	BLS percent	BLS age group (years)
18-24	17.3	10.1	10.0	13.8	16-24
25-29	15.0	11.2
30-34	17.6	10.8	22.0	22.5	25-34
35-39	6.7	12.2
40-44	8.2	10.8	23.0	22.5	35-44
45-49	11.2	15.2
50-54	12.0	13.8	29.0	23.3	45-54
55-59	5.7	6.6
60-64	4.0	5.8	12.4	14.1	55-64
65 and above	2.4	3.6	3.6	3.6	65 and above

U.S. Department of Labor, BLS (2010) figures for 2009 include self-employed persons and employed persons aged 16-17 years. These persons are excluded from our Young Worker Survey tallies and subsequent analyses. YWS = Young Worker Survey; BLS = Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Apart from the over-sampling of younger workers, the data are broadly representative of the U.S. workforce in 2009, with the following provisos: Screening questions were used to exclude those who were not sure of their employment status (full- or part-time employed vs. unemployed), not sure of whether they expected to work within the next year if presently unemployed, and those who were principal owners of the company where they worked. Due to the nature of our criteria, we also expressly excluded persons who were not employed by a company or organization (i.e., self-employed and not employed respondents). Also, the YWS excluded persons under the age of 18 years.

The sample offers considerable potential for generalization. As indicated in Table 1, the weighted percentages representing the age distribution in our YWS subsample match up fairly closely with official figures from the U.S. Department of Labor, BLS (2010). Comparisons for other variables indicate a similar correspondence. For example, the percentages of workers in the YWS and BLS data who were identified as black or African American (10.5% and 11.3%, respectively), Hispanic or Latino (12.0% and 14.9%, respectively), and female (48.1% and 49%, respectively) matched up fairly well. There are some discrepancies which may reflect slight definition or question wording variations, different age group inclusion (e.g., 16 years and above in the BLS and 18 years and above in the YWS), and our exclusion of self-employed workers. Despite minor limitations, the sample has potential to illuminate some important issues on precarious work and attitudes regarding employers and unions.

Dependent Variables

Three dependent variables from the YWS are examined, each representing a distinct aspect of what are arguably union-related attitudes. The three variables are as follows:

Distrust of Employers, from the question “Generally speaking, how much would you say that you trust employers to treat employees fairly—do you trust them a great deal, quite a bit, just some, or not much at all?” A “not sure” response was also allowed if volunteered. We coded the responses such that 1 = trust a great deal, 2 = quite a bit, 3 = just some, and 4 = trust not much at all. We treated “not sure” responses as missing data.⁴

Collectivism Efficacy, from the question “Do you think that employees are more successful in getting workplace problems resolved with their employer when they bring these problems up as a group or when they bring them up as individuals?” Possible responses were “more successful as a group” and “more successful as individuals,” with “makes no difference” and “not sure” accepted as volunteered responses. We recoded the responses so that 3 = “more successful as a group,” 2 = “makes no difference,” and 1 = “more successful as individuals.” Again, responses of “not sure” were coded as missing data.

Union Efficacy is based on responses from the question “Overall, do you think that employees who have a union are better off or worse off than employees in similar jobs who do not have a union?” Responses were recoded such that 3 = “unionized employees better off,” 2 = “makes no difference,” and 1 = “unionized employees worse off.” Volunteered responses of “not sure” were coded as missing data.

Budd argued that union organizing campaigns

try to create a social climate in the workplace that supports collective rather than individual action while highlighting reasons why employees should be dissatisfied with their jobs [e.g., unfairness], how the union will be effective in improving their jobs [i.e., union efficacy], and that unions in general are a positive societal force. (2018, 206)

Thus, our three union-related attitudes relate to varying degrees to the first three of the four issues that Budd references in summarizing the focus of union organizing campaigns.

Younger Worker Status

There is no precise definition of “younger worker,” but we follow the scheme suggested by the YWS sampling design and used in previous reports (e.g., AFL-CIO 2009; DeSilver 2016). We thus define membership in this category as ages 18-34 (coded as 1) years, with those 35 years and above considered older workers (coded as 0). This provides a roughly even split of the sample at an age that is not atypical for delineating younger and older workers.

Precarious Work Items and Variables

The YWS data offer several possible indicators of precarious work in respondents’ employment. All are self-reports, but the items vary from relatively objective and specific matters (e.g., part-time vs. full-time status) to relatively subjective and vague matters (e.g., perceived need for unspecified job improvements). Some items are indicators of recognized forms of underemployment (e.g., working outside one’s chosen profession), but at least in broader conceptions these may also constitute indications of precarious work (Kalleberg 2009). Table 2 lists the items which we identified as potential indicators of precarious work.^5,6

Table 2.

Precarious Work Items From the Young Worker Survey.

Precarious work item	Original item	Coding for this study
Part-time	Are you currently employed either on a full-time or part-time basis?	0 = full-time, 1 = part-time
Income inadequacy	When it comes to your financial situation today, would you say that your income (1) is enough to allow you to pay your bills and put some money aside in savings and investments, (2) is enough only to keep up with your bills, and (3) is less than you really need to keep up with your monthly bills?	3 = less than needed, 2 = only enough for bills, 1 = enough for bills and put some aside
Job inadequacy	Thinking about your overall job situation, including things such as wages, benefits, and working conditions, would you say that things are fine as they are, small improvements are needed, some improvements are needed, or a lot of improvements are needed?	4 = a lot of improvements needed, 3 = some improvements needed, 2 = small improvements needed, 1 = fine as they are
No overtime rate^a	Paid time and a half for overtime	0 = yes, 1 = no, not provided
No sick days^a	Paid sick days	0 = yes, 1 = no, not provided
No family leave^a	Paid family leave	0 = yes, 1 = no, not provided
No vacation^a	Paid vacation time	0 = yes, 1 = no, not provided
No paid retirement	Do you have a pension or retirement plan at your job? (IF “YES,” ASK:) Does your employer contribute to this plan, or just the employees?	0 = ER contributes, 1 = no ER contribution or no plan
No health insurance	Are you currently covered or not covered by health insurance?	0 = yes, covered, 1 = no, not covered
Overqualified^a	I am overqualified for my current job because I could not find a job appropriate for my skills and training	0 = does not apply to me, 1 = applies to me
Working outside profession^b	I am currently working a job outside my chosen profession because I could not find a job in my field	0 = does not apply to me, 1 = applies to me
Insufficient hours^b	I am currently working fewer hours per week than I want to be working	0 = does not apply to me, 1 = applies to me

Form A only. ^bForm B only.

Control Variables

The data also provide several potential control variables for demographic and other possible correlates of the outcomes examined, including union membership, parental and household union membership, occupational group, years of schooling completed, gender, race/ethnic self-identification, and various other job and employer characteristics. This list is indicative of the range of individual and workplace characteristics often used in studies of union attitudes (see Godard 2008 for a review or Kochan et al. 2019 for a recent example), subject to measure availability in the YWS data. Although we cannot rule out the possibility of omitted variables bias, the available controls do provide a reasonably extensive set of predictors typical of those used in similar studies (e.g., Kochan et al. 2019). Some of these controls could be and have been interesting subjects for hypothesis tests, but these variables are not the focus of our hypotheses. Table 3 provides an overview of all the variables used in our analysis (less the individual precariousness items presented in Table 2).

Table 3.

Variable Descriptions.

Variable name	Description and coding^a
Distrust of employers	4-point scale for distrust of employers; recoded from question on trust (see text) such that for the Distrust measure, 1 = minimum distrust and 4 = maximum distrust
Collectivism efficacy	3-point scale for group versus individual efficacy in solving workplace problems; 1 = more successful as individuals, 2 = makes no difference, and 3 = more successful as a group
Union efficacy	3-point scale for union efficacy; 1 = unionized employees are worse off, 2 = makes no difference, 3 = unionized employees are better off
Youth (young worker)	1 = age 18-34 years, 0 = age 35 years and above
Precarious work	Summative scale from standardized values of precariousness items in Table 2 (α = .60-.73)^b
Female	1 = female, 0 = male
Hispanic	1 = Hispanic or Spanish-speaking background or Hispanic racial self-identification; 0 otherwise
Black	1 = black racial self-identification, 0 otherwise
Schooling	Last year of schooling completed; 1 = grade school, 2 = some high school, 3 = high school graduate, 4 = some college, no degree, 5 = vocational training, 2-year college, 6 = 4-year college/bachelor’s degree, 7 = some postgraduate work, no degree, 8 = 2-3 years postgraduate work/master’s degree, 9 = doctoral/law degree
Occupation	1 = blue collar, 2 = white collar, 3 = professional/managerial
Public	1 = public sector employee; 0 = otherwise
Employer size	1 = 1-10 employees, 2 = 11-25, etc., 9 = more than 5,000
Union member	1 = respondent is a union member; 0 otherwise
Union household	1 = not union member but other person at residence is union member; 0 otherwise
Union parent	1 = parent(s) is or was a union member; 0 otherwise
Best for employees	Rating on 1-10 scale as to the importance of the goal: “Have employers do what’s best for their employees instead of always putting the financial bottom line first.”
Sharing	Rating on 1-10 scale as to the importance of the goal: “Place more value on shared responsibility, instead of people looking out only for themselves.”
Democratic party preference	1 = mostly Republican, 2 = leaning Republican, 3 = completely independent, 4 = leaning Democratic, 5 = mostly Democratic

Responses of “not sure,” refusals, etc. were coded as missing data. ^bFor five precarious work items available for both survey forms (A and B), α = .60. With five additional items available only in the survey’s “Form A” (10 in total), α = .73. With two additional items only in “Form B” (seven in total), α = .71.

Results

Before turning to results for our hypotheses, we present findings from our data relating to the relationship between age and precarious work. Youthfulness and precarity have been strongly associated in the literature, as described earlier, but often on the basis of limited sampling or case studies. We seek to provide a more broadly based documentation of the age–precarious work relation from our nationally representative sample employing a number of items that provide a reasonably extensive sampling of the precarious work construct domain. We then turn to results bearing more directly on our hypotheses via multivariate regression models.

Precarious Work and Youth

Results from the YWS confirm that precarious work measures and youth are often closely intertwined. Bivariate results in the form of t-tests presented in Table 4 show that for all but four of the 12 items considered as possible precarious work indicators, a significant negative t-statistic result across the younger-older worker divides, meaning older workers are relatively less likely to experience a precarious work situation. For most items, zero-one coding is used so the proportions shown are readily interpretable, that is, 15 percent of older workers work part-time, versus 24 percent of younger workers, and this difference is statistically significant (p < .01).

Table 4.

Precarious Work Differences for Younger versus Older Workers.

Precarious work item	Older workers mean	Younger workers mean	t-test for difference
Part-time	0.15	0.24	t = −3.41*** (880 df, S)
Income inadequacy	1.70	1.85	t = −2.95*** (910 df, S)
Job inadequacy	2.48	2.37	t = 1.64 NS (906 df, S)
No overtime rate	0.49	0.42	t = 1.51 NS (432 df, S)
No sick days	0.21	0.37	t = −3.86*** (411 df, S)
No family leave	0.40	0.50	t = −1.99** (397 df, S)
No vacation	0.15	0.28	t = −3.40*** (401 df, S)
No paid retirement	0.35	0.57	t = −6.68*** (874 df, P)
No health insurance	0.10	0.27	t = −6.99*** (907 df, P)
Overqualified	0.16	0.20	t = −1.02 NS (427 df, S)
Working outside profession	0.13	0.22	t = −2.49** (447 df, S)
Insufficient hours	0.23	0.29	t = −1.53 NS (459 df, S)
Precarious work scale, both forms	−0.57	0.60	t = −5.70*** (856 df, S)
Precarious work scale, form A	−1.32	0.80	t = −3.93*** (341 df, S)
Precarious work scale, form B	−0.48	0.99	t = −3.69*** (433 df, S)

NS = not significant at .10 level or better. df = degrees of freedom. P indicates pooled variance form of the t-test; S indicates Satterthwaite form due to unequal variances across groups.

Statistically significant at the .05 level. ***Statistically significant at the .01 level (two-tailed tests).

The income adequacy and job adequacy assessments are on ordinal scales and less easily interpretable, but the difference for job inadequacy is not significant, while that for income inadequacy is significant and in the expected direction: Younger workers are more likely to indicate that their income is inadequate. The last three rows of figures in Table 4 present results for the composite scales for precarious work, and all three show significant differences with young workers having more precarious work characteristics. One notable exception to the pattern of youth experiencing more precarious work characteristics, a “disconfirming” result, arises for the no-overtime-rate indicator. Young workers are less likely to report that they do not receive time-and-a-half pay for overtime. A possible explanation is that young workers may be less likely to hold jobs considered exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act⁷ coverage that requires premium pay for overtime. Although not disconfirming, the nonsignificant result for the job inadequacy item may reflect that the item did not reference any specific form of shortcoming in one’s job. Quite possibly, older and younger workers both find job inadequacies—needs for improvement—but perhaps in different job aspects.

Youth and Union-Related Attitudes and Membership

Table 5 provides t-tests for differences between younger workers and older workers on our three dependent variables, Distrust of Employers, Collectivism Efficacy, and Union Efficacy, and for five control variables. Three of the control variables capture union background (Union Member, Union Household, and Union Parent). The last two control variables in Table 5 capture ideological orientations based on questions about importance assigned to goals. The first of these refers to belief that an important goal is for employers to do what is best for employees rather than focusing on the financial bottom line (Best for Employees). The second reflects importance assigned to the goal of sharing responsibility instead of people looking out only for themselves (Sharing Responsibility).⁸ Exact item wordings appear in Table 3.

Table 5.

Youth and Union-Related Attitudes and Membership.

Variable	Older workers mean	Younger workers mean	t-test for difference
Distrust of employers	2.71	2.58	2.08** (887 df, S)
Collectivism efficacy	2.24	2.28	−0.64 NS (858 df, S)
Union efficacy	2.15	2.30	−2.28** (778 df, S)
Union member	0.22	0.10	4.97*** (827 df, S)
Union household	0.06	0.08	−0.82 NS (887 df, S)
Union parent	0.35	0.29	1.74* (875 df, S)
Best for employees^a	7.71	7.62	0.42 NS (428 df, S)
Sharing responsibility^b	7.92	7.98	−0.30 NS (432 df, S)

NS = not significant at .10 level or better. df = degrees of freedom. P indicates pooled variance form of the t-test; S indicates Satterthwaite form due to unequal variances across groups.

Statistically significant at the .10 level. **Statistically significant at the .05 level. ***Statistically significant at the .01 level (two-tailed tests).

Form A only. ^bForm B only.

The results in Table 5 show that young workers are more trusting in employers to treat employees fairly (less distrustful), neither more or less inclined to favor group or individual approaches to solving workplace problems, and more disposed than older workers to believe that union workers are better off than nonunion workers. The union background variables are all zero-one measures and easily interpretable. Older workers are roughly twice as likely to be union members (22% density) than younger workers (10% density), and this difference is statistically significant. Statistically and practically, older and younger workers do not differ significantly in the likelihood of living in a household where someone else is a union member (6% and 8%, respectively). Older workers appear to be slightly more likely to have or have had a union member as a parent (35% vs. 29% for younger workers), and this difference is statistically significant. Finally, Table 5 shows no statistical difference between older and younger workers in the importance of the goal of having employers do what is best for employees, with the mean scores of 7.71-7.62 on a 1-10 scale indicating strong support for this goal from both cohorts. Similarly, the difference between the cohorts for importance assigned to the goal of sharing responsibility instead of people looking out for themselves was small (means of 7.92 vs. 7.98) and not statistically significant.

Table 6 reports means, standard deviations, and correlations for the study variables. Not surprisingly, the three union-related attitude variables correlated positively (.20 ≤ r ≤ .25, p < .01). Each of these also correlated positively with the precariousness indices, albeit to varying degrees (.04 ≤ r ≤ .35), with all of these except those for the Collectivism Efficacy with Precariousness Indices for the two subsamples statistically significant at the p < .05 level or better.

Table 6.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
1. Distrust	2.67	.95	1
2. Collectivism efficacy	2.25	.94	.20	1
3. Union efficacy	2.19	.94	.25	.20	1
4. Precariousness index (Forms A and B)	−.20	3.11	.23	.09	.16	1
5. Precariousness index (Form A)^a	−.70	5.30	.35	.05	.22	.19	1
6. Precariousness index (Form B)^b	−.02	4.26	.15	.04	.11	.17	—	1
7. Youth	.32	.48	−.07	.02	.08	.18	.19	.17	1
8. Female	.48	.51	.03	.03	.17	.12	.08	.14	.01	1
9. Hispanic	.12	.33	.05	.06	.12	.09	.06	.11	.09	−.01	1
10. Black	.11	.32	.07	−.07	.15	.10	−.01	.12	.02	.11	−.13	1
11. Schooling	4.93	1.88	−.04	−.03	−.03	−.29	−.19	−.31	−.11	−.01	−.12	−.05	1
12. Occupation	2.08	.87	−.07	−.07	−.06	−.25	−.22	−.27	−.10	.25	−.11	−.08	.48	1
13. Public	.30	.47	−.02	.09	.16	−.07	−.17	−.02	−.05	.08	.03	.13	.11	.05	1
14. Employer size	5.86	2.84	.06	.07	−.04	−.32	−.40	−.28	−.11	−.08	.03	−.02	.15	.15	.13	1
15. Union member	.18	.39	.07	.07	.24	−.10	−.14	−.07	−.15	−.03	.09	.03	.05	−.08	.37	.23	1
16. Union household	.07	.26	.03	.02	.03	.07	.12	.03	.03	.08	−.04	−.06	−.04	.07	−.01	−.10	−.13	1
17. Union parent	.33	.49	.01	.07	.09	−.06	−.07	−.03	−.05	.01	−.01	−.01	.04	.03	.11	.14	.17	.14	1
18. Democratic party preference	3.09	1.53	.14	.16	.35	.17	.20	.13	.05	.20	.06	.30	−.02	−.03	.09	−.01	.10	−.01	.04	1
19. Best for employees^a	7.68	2.25	.25	.18	.23	.12	.15	–	−.02	.06	.20	.08	−.15	−.06	.52	.05	.08	−.04	−.01	.20	1
20. Sharing responsibility^b	7.94	2.31	.07	.13	.18	.12	–	.15	.01	.17	.03	.10	−.10	−.09	.05	−.09	−.02	.03	.01	.21	—	1

Note. Pairwise deletion for missing data was used due to the Form A/B structure of the data. Correlations in bold text are significant at p < .05 or better. N ranges from 318 to 915.

Form A only. ^bForm B only.

Regression Results

Table 7 presents ordered logistic regression results that address the hypotheses. Some of the strongest effects on the three union-related attitudes arise for the Precarious Work Index (combining five items from Table 2 that are available in both Forms A and B). The Precarious Work Index—see Table 4 and associated discussion—is positive and significant for all three dependent variables, for Distrust of Employers, Collectivism Efficacy, and Union Efficacy. Those experiencing more precarious work are less likely to trust employers to be fair, more likely to believe that group approaches work better than individual approaches in resolving workplace problems and that union members are better off than nonunion workers. A youth effect appears for the Distrust of Employers criterion, but indicates that young workers are more prone to trust employers to treat employees fairly. No Youth effect is evident for the Collectivism Efficacy criterion, but a positive effect—consistent with H1—is found for Union Efficacy. Thus, there is limited support for H1 (positive effect for youth on union-related attitudes), but consistent support for H2 (positive effect for precariousness on union-related attitudes). These model specifications also include a hypothesized interaction effects based on theory and previous research (H3). In the full-sample results in Table 7, there is no support for a youth-by-precarious work interaction for any of the three union-related attitude criteria.

Table 7.

Weighted Ordered Logistic Regression Results Parameter Estimates/Wald Chi-Squares and Summary Statistics Form A and Form B Combined Sample.

Independent variables	Dependent variables
Independent variables	Distrust of employers	Collectivism efficacy	Union efficacy
Precariousness index	0.20/38.15***	0.08/5.01**	0.10/6.79***
Youth (young worker = 1)	−0.42/7.73***	−0.01/0.00	0.33/3.03*
Female	−0.07/0.20	0.02/0.01	0.59/10.70***
Hispanic	−0.26/1.49	0.17/0.49	0.61/5.33**
Black	−0.00/0.00	−0.96/12.91***	0.71/4.30**
Schooling	0.03/0.04	−0.04/0.68	0.06/1.23
Occupation	−0.13/1.88	0.04/0.16	−0.17/2.03
Public	−0.33/4.10**	0.35/3.52*	0.22/1.13
Employer size	0.11/16.00***	0.05/2.44	−0.02/0.46
Union member	0.27/1.79	0.13/0.34	1.47/30.92***
Union household	0.21/0.62	0.00/0.00	0.35/1.25
Union parent	−0.03/0.05	0.23/1.90	0.46/6.35**
Democratic party preference	0.13/7.52***	0.23/17.03***	0.36/36.96***
Interaction term
Precariousness × youth	−0.01/0.03	−0.06/0.96	0.01/0.03
R ²	.12	.07	.25
Max. rescaled R²	.12	.08	.28
Likelihood ratio chi-square	87.44***	46.87***	176.38***
N	710	676	615

Note. Intercept parameters not shown.

Statistically significant at the .10 level. **Statistically significant at the .05 level. ***Statistically significant at the .01 level (two-tailed tests for coefficients).

Results for control variables shown in Table 7 vary across the three union-related attitudes. Distrust of Employers appears to be lower among public sector employees, but higher among employees of large firms. Collectivism Efficacy is lower among black workers, but higher among public sector workers and workers leaning toward a Democratic Party preference. Finally, female, Hispanic, and black workers perceive higher Union Efficacy, as do union members, those who have/had a union parent and those with a Democratic Party preference.

We also examined comparable models for each of the two Form A/Form B subsamples. As noted earlier, this permits use of additional precarious work items in summative scales with more items and greater reliability. These results are presented in Appendix Tables A1 -A3, presenting in order the Form A sample results, Form B sample results, and summary of results across all three samples (combined, Form A, and Form B samples). The most persistent result is the positive effect of precarious work on Distrust of Employers. Workers understandably seem to hold employers responsible for precarious work characteristics, and those experiencing precarious work distrust employers to be fair as a consequence. The positive effect of precarious work on Collectivism Efficacy in the full sample is not supported in either subsample. The positive effect of precarious work on Union Efficacy seen in the combined sample is supported in the Form A subsample, but not in the Form B sample. Weaker results in the subsamples may reflect lower statistical power.⁹

Youth effects also differ slightly between the combined sample and the Form A/Form B subsamples. The combined sample’s significant negative effect for youth on Distrust of Employers is borne out in the Form A sample, but fails to achieve significance in the Form B sample (p = .15). The youth effect on perceptions of Collective Efficacy fails to achieve statistical significance in the combined sample and both subsamples. Finally, there is a significant positive effect of youth on Union Efficacy perceptions in the combined sample and in the Form B sample, but not in the Form A sample.

Discussion

Our study provides much-needed insight into an important and growing workplace problem. As mentioned earlier, traditional work arrangements wherein a worker achieves stability and security, perhaps after initial explorations of career alternatives, are much less the norm than in times past (Kalleberg 2009; Katz and Krueger 2016; Wallace and Kwak 2017).¹⁰ Precarious work, especially for young workers, poses mounting concerns and also raises questions about consequences for young worker attitudes toward work, employers, and unions. We cannot know what the future holds for a particular cohort of young workers, or whether effects reflected in our results will persist as a particular cohort ages. Nonetheless, despite much research exists regarding the effects of precarious work, very few studies have investigated the employee view on how precarious work relates to attitudes toward unionism in the American employment environment.

Our main findings with respect to youth, precarious work, and unions are as follows. First, workers experiencing more precarious work are less likely to trust employers to treat employees fairly (Distrust of Employers), may be more prone to think group approaches to solving work problems are better than individual approaches (Collectivism Efficacy), and may be more inclined to think union workers are better off (Union Efficacy). The results on group approaches and union efficacy are not uniform across all samples, but these effects do hold in the full sample with strong statistical significance (p < .05 or better).

Second, younger workers seem more likely to trust employers to be fair. An interesting question is whether distrust increases with age, and more importantly work experience that accumulates with age, or if instead this reflects a generational difference reflecting better treatment of employees in more recent times (see Kaufman 2008). The sharp younger-older worker contrasts in precarious work characteristics strongly suggests the former. Younger workers also seem more prone to believe union workers are better off than nonunion workers (Union Efficacy) in an unconditional comparison (Table 5), but less clearly when other factors are controlled, where the full-sample and subsample results are mixed (cf. Table 7 and Appendix Tables A1 -A3). An interesting question here is whether younger workers see greater union efficacy as a positive thing about unions, or if instead they see union workers to enjoy privileges denied to equally deserving others. Quite possibly, it is some of both.

Third, there is little evidence in our results to support interaction effects between youth and precarious work. Youth and precarious work effects seem to operate independently, but of course the two are not easily distinguished because precariousness is much more pronounced in younger workers’ jobs (see Table 4).

Limitations and Future Directions

We should note that certain factors limit our ability to draw conclusions about interrelations between precarious work, youth, and union attitudes. While the YWS data provide considerable and interesting information about younger and older workers and their views on many aspects of work and its precariousness, there are some limitations regarding attitudes about unions. This raises the possibility of omitted variables bias, although our set of predictors is fairly extensive and roughly comparable to those used in similar studies (e.g., Kochan et al. 2019). Many variables are single items and hence possibly offer limited reliability and validity. However, Wanous and Hudy (2001) demonstrated that single items can be reasonably reliable and useful. Naturally, the AFL-CIO has its own questions of interest and posed or approved questions it regarded as useful for its own purposes. Responses to more questions regarding attitudes about union instrumentality, the social value of unions, general attitudes toward unions, and similar matters could be helpful in future research. Also, items regarding subjects’ support for unions such as voting intentions in union representation elections or in a more general sense (e.g., “I would prefer to have union representation on my job” or “I would like to join a union”) could be useful.

A further limitation arises from the cross-sectional nature of the data. This is fine for providing a snapshot as of July 2009 (when the survey was conducted), and in fact, Hart Research reported comparisons with a similar survey 10 years earlier (Hart Research Associates 2009) and the AFL-CIO reported on a 2010 follow-up survey to the 2009 YWS to assess change (and reported “not much” change; AFL-CIO 2010, 1). None of these data allows tracking individuals over time, however, and thus for our purposes, the problem remains that only cross-sectional data are available. Consequently, any causal inferences are limited, depending on one’s willingness to assume or accept an alleged logical precedence, for example, flowing from (perceived) work characteristics to attitudes about workplace problems, employer trustworthiness, and perceived union effects. We can say confidently that in our data and with these measures included, precariousness is associated with certain union-related attitudes. Our statements about causal relations are more speculative. Of course, presumably more objective matters such as one’s age are clearly exogenous to attitudes about jobs, employers, and unions. Cross-sectional data also raise concerns about common method variance (CMV), for example, the possible inflation of correlations due to mood states. Interestingly, Lance et al. (2010) report that common method variance is less a factor than indicated by previous reviews, and its effects are roughly offset by measurement error. That is, the correlation inflation due to the former is “almost completely offset” by the correlation attenuation due to the latter (Lance et al. 2010, 435). Nonetheless, the actual degree of CMV in our data is unknown.

Although offering some illumination on certain aspects of the interrelations among precarious work, youth, and union-related attitudes, this study provides only partial answers and raises some new questions. For example, are unions seen as effective agents in reducing the precarious nature of work? Do such perceptions differ among younger and older workers? While our results suggest that younger workers may think unions are more effective than do older workers, they do not address the possibility of differing perceptions about union efficacy across different job dimensions. Precarious work concerns are more prominent for younger workers, but it is not clear that younger workers see unions as a solution for those concerns. Given the higher likelihood of young workers to hold jobs where precarious work abounds, future research should seek to understand whether young workers view themselves as powerless to effect change over precarious work. Tucker’s (2002) indicators of precariousness show degree of control as an important dimension (along with level of income and benefits, employment security, and degree of union and/or regulatory protections). Our findings that young workers report higher perceptions of union efficacy (i.e., union employees are better off than nonunion employees), but not higher perceptions of collectivism efficacy (i.e., groups are more effective than individuals in solving workplace problems with their employer) are intriguing and deserving of further investigation. The influence of structural factors and systematic obstacles on younger workers’ union attitudes may prove a particularly interesting line of inquiry as researchers seek to understand this phenomenon and to explain this incongruence between perceived union efficacy and perceived collectivism efficacy.

The union versus collectivism efficacy perceptions among younger workers may relate to younger workers’ concerns and perspectives on union roles in the workplace and society. As noted earlier, Budd (2018, 206) identified four general foci of union organizing campaigns, three of which arguably correspond to the three union-related attitudes we model; the fourth involves the notion of unions as a “positive societal force.” Bielski Boris (2014) found from a qualitative study that young workers were especially concerned with the social justice aspects of unions. Researchers have identified a trend where employees seek to work for and participate in organizations that contribute to positive changes in policy and society (Loughlin and Barling 2001; Tams and Marshall 2011) or that have cause-related orientations (Hall and Chandler 2005). Unions have begun to test innovative organizing approaches (Simms et al. 2018; Tapia and Turner 2018) and should consider, for example, investigating the degree that young workers view or do not view unions as social justice organizations and/or the extent to which young workers identify with the causes that unions support. Doing so might provide interesting insights regarding union membership, collectivism efficacy, and other union-related outcomes that inform these innovative approaches.

Conclusion

Questions regarding how precarious work affects attitudes will undoubtedly continue to arise as researchers examine the phenomenon in other contexts. For instance, trends in technology and growth in alternative work strongly suggest that the issues raised by more precarious work will only grow in importance as more employees experience the effects. Our study is among the first to investigate the effect of precarious work on employee perspectives on unions in the American context and revealed the complicated interrelations that exist between precarious work, youth, and union attitudes. We hope that our findings on how precarious work influences employees’ union-related attitudes provide insight into the discussion and function as a catalyst for future research to further examine these issues.

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A3.

Summary Weighted Ordered Logistic Regression Results Parameters and Summary Statistics.

Dep. Vars. →	All (Forms A and B)			Form A			Form B
Dep. Vars. →	Distrust of employers	Collectivism efficacy	Union efficacy	Distrust of employers	Collectivism efficacy	Union efficacy	Distrust of employers	Collectivism efficacy	Union efficacy
Ind. Vars.
Precarious Work Index	0.20***	0.08**	0.10***	0.21***	0.01	0.08*	0.11***	0.01	0.03
Youth	−0.42***	−0.01	0.33*	−0.69***	0.40	0.30	−0.32	−0.17	0.63**
Controls^a	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Interaction	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
N	710	676	615	296	283	256	339	321	297
R ²	.12	.07	.25	.29	.15	.34	.09	.07	0.29
Maximum rescaled R²	.12	.08	.28	.31	.18	.40	.10	.09	0.32
Likelihood ratio chi-square	87.44***	46.87***	176.38***	103.30***	44.91***	108.24***	32.10***	24.08*	100.13***

Note. See Table 7 and Appendix Tables A1 and A2 for a complete list of independent variables.

Statistically significant at the .10 level. **Statistically significant at the .05 level. ***Statistically significant at the .01 level or better.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Jack Fiorito is the J. Frank Dame professor of Management at Florida State University. His research focuses on unions and worker attitudes. He received his PhD, AM, and BS (Hons) from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and previously served on the faculties of Illinois, Oklahoma State University, and the University of Iowa.

Daniel G. Gallagher is an emeritus professor at James Madison University where he held the CSX Professorship of Management. Professor Gallagher’s research career has focused upon a range of topics including: impasse resolution procedures, negotiations, union commitment, and most recently – the growth of non-standard employment arrangements. He has also completed over 30 years serving as both a mediator and labor arbitrator.

Zachary A. Russell is an assistant professor of Management in the Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Williams College of Business at Xavier University. He received a PhD in Management at Florida State University. His research interests include reputation, labor unions, social influence, organizational politics, and human resource practice implementation.

Katina W. Thompson is an associate professor of Management and Quantitative Methods at Illinois State University. She holds a PhD in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management from Florida State University. Her research interests include underemployment, stress, and attributions.

References

AFL-CIO. 2009. Young Workers: A Lost Decade. Washington, DC: AFL-CIO.

AFL-CIO. 2010. Young Workers: A Lost Decade. One Year Later. Washington, DC: AFL-CIO.

Bass

Brenda L.

Grzywacz

Joseph G.

2011. “Job Adequacy and Work-family Balance: Looking at Jobs as a Whole.” Journal of Family Issues 32 (3): 317-45.

Bennett

James T.

Kaufman

Bruce E.

, eds. 2007. What Do Unions Do? A Twenty-year Perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Bielski

Boris, Monica

. 2014. “Next Up: Union Efforts to Address Young Workers.” Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Labor and Employment Relations Association, Portland, OR, May.

Bielski Boris

Monica

Grabelsky

Jeff

Margolies

Ken

Reynolds

David

. 2013. “Next Up: The Promise of AFL-CIO-affiliated Young Worker Groups.” Journal of Labor and Society 16 (2): 227-52.

Bronfenbrenner

Kate

Luce

Stephanie S.

2004. The Changing Nature of Corporate Global Restructuring: The Impact of Production Shifts on Jobs in the US, China, and around the Globe. Washington, DC: U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

Bryson

Alex

Gomez

Rafael

Gunderson

Morley

Meltz

Noah

. 2005. “Youth-adult Differences in the Demand for Unionization: Are American, British, and Canadian Workers all that Different?” Journal of Labor Research 26 (1): 155-67.

Budd

John W.

2007. “The Effect of Unions on Employee Benefits and Non-wage Compensation: Monopoly Power, Collective Voice, and Facilitation.” In What Do Unions Do? A Twenty-Year Perspective, edited by Bennett

James T.

Kaufman

Bruce E.

, 160-192. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

10.

Budd

John W.

2018. Labor Relations: Striking a Balance. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

11.

Burchell

Brendan

. 2011. “A Temporal Comparison of the Effects of Unemployment and Job Insecurity on Wellbeing.” Sociological Research Online 16 (1): 1-13.

12.

Campbell

Iain

Price

Robin

. 2016. “Precarious Work and Precarious Workers: Towards an Improved Conceptualisation.” The Economic and Labour Relations Review 27 (3): 314-32.

13.

DeSilver

Drew

. 2016. “In the U.S. and Abroad, More Young Adults are Living with their Parents.” Pew Research Center Report. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/24/in-the-u-s-and-abroad-more-young-adults-are-living-with-their-parents/.

14.

Dufour-Poirier

Mélanie

Laroche

Mélanie

. 2015. “Revitalising Young Workers’ Union Participation: A Comparative Analysis of Two Organisations in Quebec (Canada).” Industrial Relations Journal 44 (5-6): 418-33.

15.

Dufour

Christian

Hege

Adelheid

. 2013. “Understanding Diversity in Collective Representation: Common Principles Underlying the Performance of Workplace Representatives in Different Representation Regimes.” Industrial Relations Journal 44 (4): 355-72.

16.

Farber

Henry S.

2010. “Job Loss and the Decline of Job Security in the United States.” In Labor in the New Economy, edited by Abraham

Katharine G.

Spletzer

James R.

Harper

Michael

, 223-62. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

17.

Fiorito

Jack

Gallagher

Daniel G.

1986. “Job Content, Job Status, and Unionism.” In Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations, edited by Lipsky

David B.

Lewin

David

, vol. 3, 261-316. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

18.

Freeman

Richard B.

Medoff

James L.

1984. What Do Unions Do? New York: Basic Books.

19.

Fullagar

Clive J.

Gallagher

Daniel G.

Clark

Paul F.

Carroll

Anthony E.

2004. “Union Commitment and Participation: A 10-year Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (4): 730-37.

20.

Fullagar

Clive J.

Gallagher

Daniel G.

Gordon

Michael E.

Clark

Paul F.

1995. “Impact of Early Socialization on Union Commitment and Participation: A Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Applied Psychology 80 (1): 147-57.

21.

Gallagher

Daniel G.

2008. “Contingent Work Arrangements.” In The Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations, edited by Blyton

Paul

Bacon

Nicolas

Fiorito

Jack

Heery

Edmund

, 471-90. London: Sage.

22.

García-Pérez

J. Ignacio

Muñoz-Bullón

Fernando

. 2011. “Transitions into Permanent Employment in Spain: An Empirical Analysis for Young Workers.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 49 (1): 104-43.

23.

Godard

John

. 2008. “Union Formation.” In The Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations, edited by Blyton

Paul

Bacon

Nicolas

Fiorito

Jack

Heery

Edmund

, 377-405. London: Sage.

24.

Godard

John

. 2011. “Uncertainty and the Correlates of Union Voting Propensity: An Organizing Perspective.” Industrial Relations 50 (3): 472-96.

25.

Gomez

Rafael

Gunderson

Morley

Meltz

Noah

. 2002. “Comparing Youth and Adult Desire for Unionization in Canada.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 40 (3): 521-42.

26.

Hall

Douglas T.

Chandler

Dawn E.

2005. “Psychological Success: When the Career is a Calling.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 26 (2): 155-76.

27.

Hall

Richard

. 2006. “Temporary Agency Work and HRM in Australia: Cooperation, Specialisation and Satisfaction for the Good of All.” Personnel Review 35 (2): 158-74.

28.

Hart Research Associates. 2009. AFL-CIO Economy Study. Washington, DC: Peter D. Hart Research Associates.

29.

Haynes

Peter

Vowles

Jack

Boxall

Peter

. 2005. “Explaining the Younger-older Worker Union Density Gap: Evidence from New Zealand.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 43 (1): 93-116.

30.

Hodder

Andy

Kretsos

Lefteris

. 2015. “Young Workers and Unions: Context and Overview.” In Young Workers and Trade Unions, edited by Hodder

Andy

Kretsos

Lefteris

, 1-15. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

31.

Hurd

Richard W.

Lee

Tamara L.

2014. “Public Sector Unions Under Siege: Solidarity in the Fight Back.” Labor Studies Journal 39 (1): 9-24.

32.

Jost

Kenneth

. 2011. “Public-employee Unions: Are the Current Attacks Justified?” CQ Researcher 21 (14): 313-36.

33.

Kalleberg

Arne L.

2009. “Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment Relations in Transition.” American Sociological Review 74 (1): 1-22.

34.

Kalleberg

Arne L.

Vallas

Steven P.

, eds. 2017. “Probing Precarious Work: Theory, Research, and Politics.” In Precarious Work, 1-30. Bingley, UK: Emerald.

35.

Katz

Lawrence F.

Krueger

Alan

. 2016. “The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015.” https://www.nber.org/papers/w22667.pdf.

36.

Kaufman

Bruce E.

2008. Managing the Human Factor: The Early Years of Human Resource Management in American Industry. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

37.

Kochan

Thomas A.

1979. “How American Workers View Labor Unions.” Monthly Labor Review 102 (4): 23-31.

38.

Kochan

Thomas A.

Yang

Duanyi

Kimball

William T.

Kelly

Erin L.

2019. “Worker Voice in America: Is There a Gap between What Workers Expect and What They Experience?” ILR Review 72 (1): 3-38.

39.

Lance

Charles E.

Dawson

Bryan

Birkelbach

David

Hoffman

Brian J.

2010. “Method Effects, Measurement Error, and Substantive Conclusions.” Organizational Research Methods 13 (3): 435-55.

40.

Lane

Carrie M.

2011. A Company of One: Insecurity, Independence, and the New World of White-Collar Unemployment. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

41.

Lewchuk

Wayne

Clarke

Marlea

de Wolff

Alice

. 2008. “Working without Commitments: Precarious Employment and Health.” Work, Employment and Society 22 (3): 387-406.

42.

Lichtenstein

Nelson

. 2010. The Retail Revolution: How Wal-mart Created a Brave New World of Business. New York: Picador.

43.

Loughlin

Catherine

Barling

Julian

. 2001. “Young Workers’ Work Values, Attitudes, and Behaviours.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 74 (4): 543-58.

44.

Madland

David

Teixeira

Ruy

. 2009. New Progressive America: The Millennial Generation. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

45.

Maniam

Shiva

. 2017. “Most Americans See Labor Unions, Corporations Favorably.” Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/30/most-americans-see-labor-unions-corporations-favorably/.

46.

Marschall

2013. “What Do We Know about the Attitudes, Values, Politics and Common Experiences of the Millennial Generation of Young Workers and Students?” Working paper. Washington, DC: AFL-CIO Policy Department.

47.

Milkman

Ruth

. 2013. “Back to the Future? US Labour in the New Gilded Age.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 51 (4): 645-65.

48.

Nunnally

Jim C.

1978. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

49.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 2019. “Trade Union Density.” https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=tud.

50.

Pew Research Center. 2019. “Millennials.” Pew Research Center, Washington, DC. http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/millennials/.

51.

Pugh

Allison J.

2015. The Tumbleweed Society: Working and Caring in an Age of Insecurity. New York: Oxford University Press.

52.

Schor

Juliet B.

Fitzmaurice

Connor

Carfagna

Lindsey B.

Attwood-Charles

Will

Poteat

Emilie Dubois

. 2016. “Paradoxes of Openness and Distinction in the Sharing Economy.” Poetics 54:66-81.

53.

Schwab

Donald P.

2005. Research Methods for Organizational Studies. 2nd ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

54.

Simms

Melanie

Eversberg

Dennis

Dupuy

Camille

Hipp

Lena

. 2018. “Organizing Young Workers under Precarious Conditions: What Hinders or Facilitates Union Success.” Work and Occupations 45 (4): 420-50.

55.

Tams

Svenja

Marshall

Judi

. 2011. “Responsible Careers: Systemic Reflexivity in Shifting Landscapes.” Human Relations 64 (1): 109-31.

56.

Tapia

Maite

Turner

Lowell

. 2018. “Renewed Activism for the Labor Movement: The Urgency of Young Worker Engagement.” Work and Occupations 45 (4): 391-419.

57.

Tomaskovic-Devey

Donald

Lin

Ken-Hou

. 2011. “Income Dynamics, Economic Rents, and the Financialization of the U.S. Economy.” American Sociological Review 76 (4): 538-59.

58.

Tucker

Deborah

. 2002. “Precarious” Non-standard Employment: A Review of Literature. Wellington, New Zealand: Labour Market Policy Group, Department of Labour.

59.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. “Union Members 2009.” USDL News Release 10-0069. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/union2_01222010.pdf.

60.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2019. “Union Members 2018.” USDL News Release 19-0079. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm.

61.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2018. “Contingent Workforce: BLS is Reassessing Measurement of Nontraditional Workers.” https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/696643.pdf.

62.

Waddington

Jeremy

Kerr

Allan

. 2002. “Unions Fit for Young Workers?.” Industrial Relations Journal 33 (4): 298-315.

63.

Wallace

Michael

Kwak

Joonghyun

. 2017. “Bad Jobs in a Troubled Economy: The Impact of the Great Recession in America’s Major Metropolitan Areas.” In Precarious Work. Research in the Sociology of Work, edited by Kalleberg

Arne L.

Vallas

Steven P.

, vol. 31, 125-55. Bingley, UK: Emerald.

64.

Wanous

John P.

Hudy

Michael J.

2001. “Single-item Reliability: A Replication and Extension.” Organizational Research Methods 4 (4): 361-75.

65.

Westerna

Bruce

Rosenfeld

Jake

. 2011. “Unions, Norms, and the Rise in US Wage Inequality.” American Sociological Review 76 (4): 513-37.

66.

Wheeler

Hoyt N.

McClendon

John A.

1991. “The Individual Decision to Unionize.” In The State of the Unions, edited by Strauss

George

Gallagher

Daniel G.

Fiorito

Jack

, 47-83. Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.