Waging Worker Power in Contemporary America: Why do we Need Unions, Anyway?
As wealth inequality reaches an all-time high, the United States is experiencing levels of inequality on par with those of the 1920s. This phenomenon can largely be attributed to wage stagnation: after all, the Federal minimum wage is $7.25 and has not been raised in over ten years. It’s no coincidence that during October 2021, a record number of workers have undertaken mass strike movements to advocate for better working conditions and wages. Workers are motivated to join in striking efforts in order to facilitate changes to the conditions of their employment, such as higher wages. However, in order for workers rights to be properly enforced, labor laws themselves must change. What we are witnessing is a worker power movement which must be secured with changes to existing legislation. This movement, deemed “Striketober” has been a long time coming, as workers struggle to pay their bills with poverty wages. Though United States President Joe Biden has promised to be “the most pro-union president you’ve ever seen,” workers are still struggling to make their voices heard. Striketober may be a good sign for unions: that a decade-long trend of decreased union density (the percentage of workers who are members of unions) may be reversing.
A Decline in Union Density
In 1983, about twenty percent of employed Americans were union members, but in 2019 that number was cut in half, and only ten percent of American workers were union members. This number may be increasing again, however, as workers from Google, Amazon, and even McDonalds are attempting to enter into collective bargaining agreements. Though this trend seems to be on the verge of changing, it’s still somewhat unclear what factors work to protect unionization and ultimately benefit workers. So, I set out to study the relationship between the strength of labor laws and the percentage of employees who are union members. More on this to follow.
The Fair Labor Standards Act
The passage of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act is a prime example of the union density translating to better labor laws. The American Federation of Labor (AFL) made the 8-hour workday a primary goal of their organizing efforts beginning in 1886. By 1936, labor standards, such as the minimum wage and an 8-hour workday had become issues that American workers were talking about. Union leadership in the AFL met with President Roosevelt and Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins to advocate for workers’ rights. They pressed for equity across the board. After meeting with prominent AFL members a year prior, Roosevelt said in 1938 that, “We are seeking, of course, only legislation to end starvation wages and intolerable hours; more desir-able wages are and continue to be the product of collective bargaining.”
The debate on the Bill lasted 2 days, and passed with a 314–97 margin. Though the bill was not as thorough as union leaders had wanted, it was still revolutionary in what it accomplished: on an industry basis, minimum wage would gradually increase, and maximum weekly working hours would decrease. Had it not been for the prevalence of the AFL and their powerful organizing tactics, union leaders would not have had a seat at the table. In 1938, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded over six million union members.
Due to Union membership rates, which were on the rise and continued to increase during the mid-twentieth century, the AFL had increased political power. Therefore, they were able to meet with the highest officer in the United States, the president, to promote worker’s rights. Though the union representatives were not as successful as they had hoped, their presence in the political sphere, catapulted by high union density, allowed them to secure revolutionary measures concerning the rights of working people.
What Union Research Tells Us
Unions have been the subject of plenty of research over the past fifty years. This research, taken together, tells us that:
- Union membership is declining, and has been for the past half century.
2. Unions reduce economic inequality by raising the wages of both union members and those who are not part of a union.
3. Low union density is self-perpetuating: when membership is low, it makes it harder for workers to join an existing union or form a new one.
4. Unions tend to do better (and therefore, wages tend to be higher) when the legal environment is favorable to them (such as in Canada, where the labor laws offer stronger protections for workers.)
Therefore, it may be inferred that as union density increases, labor law strength increases as well. To measure this, I analyzed the nonprofit organization Oxfam International’s Best States to Work Index alongside the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ measure of percentage of employees who are union members. What I found was a statistically significant correlation between union density and labor law strength, even after controlling for Democratic majority legislatures and Southern States:
Ultimately, union density impacts the quality of labor laws in a given state. What causes this, I believe, is that worker power and political participation results in pro-worker legislation being created. Unions have both political and social power. They act as special interest groups for workers: endorsing pro-labor candidates, donating to politicians who act on behalf of their interests, and encouraging union members to vote and organize on behalf of their interests. Essentially, unions facilitate grassroots political progress. They allow people to influence their government and engage politically. These results tell us that workers are stronger together, and that when more people join a union to advocate for their collective rights, labor laws will respond to that association. Therefore, in order to fortify workers rights, we as a society must empower unions and encourage people to take part in them.
