Labor unions represent United States workers in many industries recognized under US labor law since the 1935 enactment of the National Labor Relations Act. Their activity centers on collective bargaining over wages, benefits, and working conditions for their membership, and on representing their members in disputes with management over violations of contract provisions. Larger labor unions also typically engage in lobbying activities and electioneering at the state and federal level.
Most unions in the United States are aligned with one of two larger umbrella organizations: the AFL–CIO created in 1955, and the Change to Win Federation (Strategic Organizing Center or SOC) which split from the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) in 2005. Both advocate policies and legislation on behalf of workers in the United States and Canada, and take an active role in politics. The AFL–CIO is especially concerned with global trade issues.
The percentage of workers belonging to a union (or total labor union "density") varies by country. In 2022 it was 10.1% in the United States, compared to 20.1% in 1983.[2][3] There were 14.3 million members in the U.S. in 2022, down from 17.7 million in 1983.[2][3] Union membership in the private sector has fallen to 6.0%, one fifth that of public sector workers, at 33.1% (2022).[2][3] From a global perspective, in 2016 the US had the fifth lowest labor union density of the 36 OECD member nations.[4][5]
In the 21st century, the most prominent unions are among public sector employees such as city employees, government workers, teachers and police. Members of unions are disproportionately older, male, and residents of the Northeast, the Midwest, and California.[6] There is a substantial wage gap between union and nonunion workers in the U.S.; unionized workers average higher pay than comparable nonunion workers (when controlling for individual, job, and labor market characteristics); research shows that the union wage gaps are higher in the private sector than in the public sector, and higher for men than women.[7] Private-sector union strength positively affects the wages of nonunion private-sector wages" (when controlling for background conditions, such as industry, the automation risk, offshoring, public-sector union strength, overall employment levels, and other factors); this is called the union spillover effect.[8]
Although much smaller compared to their peak membership in the 1950s, American unions remain a political factor, both through mobilization of their own memberships and through coalitions with like-minded activist organizations around issues such as immigrant rights, environmental protections, trade policy, health care, and living wage campaigns.[9] Of special concern are efforts by cities and states to reduce the pension obligations owed to unionized workers who retire in the future.[10] A study of U.S. elections from 1964 to 2004 found that unions increase voter turnout of both members and nonmembers.[11] Labor unions have a longstanding alliance with the Democratic Party, and union members make up an important part of the party's base.[12] By contrast, the Republican Party has opposed unions and championed various anti-union policies, such as the adoption of right-to-work laws, restrictions on public-sector union collective bargaining, the repeal of prevailing wage laws, and preemption of local minimum wage laws.[13][14]
There is substantial evidence that labor unions reduce economic inequality.[15][16] Research suggests that rising income inequality in the United States is partially attributable to the decline of the labor movement and union membership,[17][18][19]:1 and that this is not only a correlation.[20] Research has also found that unions can harm profitability, employment and business growth rates.[21][22]
Knights of Labor's seal: "An injury to one is a concern to all."
Unions began forming in the mid-19th century in response to the social and economic impact of the Industrial Revolution. National labor unions began to form in the post-Civil War Era. The Knights of Labor emerged as a major force in the late 1880s, but it collapsed because of poor organization, lack of effective leadership, disagreement over goals, and strong opposition from employers and government forces.
The American Federation of Labor, founded in 1886 and led by Samuel Gompers until his death in 1924, proved much more durable. It arose as a loose coalition of various local unions. It helped coordinate and support strikes and eventually became a major player in national politics, usually on the side of the Democrats.
American labor unions benefited greatly from the New Deal policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s. The Wagner Act, in particular, legally protected the right of unions to organize. Unions from this point developed increasingly closer ties to the Democratic Party, and were considered a backbone element of the New Deal Coalition.
Post-WWII
Political cartoon showing organized labor marching towards progress, while a shortsighted employer tries to stop labor (1913)
Pro-business conservatives gained control of Congress in 1946, and in 1947 passed the Taft–Hartley Act, drafted by Senator Robert A. Taft. President Truman vetoed it but the Conservative coalition overrode the veto. The veto override had considerable Democratic support, including 106 out of 177 Democrats in the House, and 20 out of 42 Democrats in the Senate.[23] The law, which is still in effect, banned union contributions to political candidates, restricted the power of unions to call strikes that "threatened national security," and forced the expulsion of Communist union leaders (the Supreme Court found the anticommunist provision to be unconstitutional, and it is no longer in force). The unions campaigned vigorously for years to repeal the law but failed. During the late 1950s, the Landrum Griffin Act of 1959 passed in the wake of Congressional investigations of corruption and undemocratic internal politics in the Teamsters and other unions.[24][25]
In 1955, the two largest labor organizations, the AFL and CIO, merged, ending a division of over 20 years. AFL President George Meany became President of the new AFL–CIO, and AFL Secretary-Treasurer William Schnitzler became AFL–CIO Secretary-Treasurer. The draft constitution was primarily written by AFL Vice President Matthew Woll and CIO General Counsel Arthur Goldberg, while the joint policy statements were written by Woll, CIO Secretary-Treasurer James Carey, CIO vice presidents David McDonald and Joseph Curran, Brotherhood of Railway Clerks President George Harrison, and Illinois AFL–CIO President Reuben Soderstrom.[26]
The percentage of workers belonging to a union (or "density") in the United States peaked in 1954 at almost 35% and the total number of union members peaked in 1979 at an estimated 21.0 million.[27][28] Membership has declined since, with private sector union membership beginning a steady decline that continues into the 2010s, but the membership of public sector unions grew steadily.[28]
After 1960 public sector unions grew rapidly and secured good wages and high pensions for their members. While manufacturing and farming steadily declined, state- and local-government employment quadrupled from 4 million workers in 1950 to 12 million in 1976 and 16.6 million in 2009.[29] Adding in the 3.7 million federal civilian employees, in 2010 8.4 million government workers were represented by unions,[30] including 31% of federal workers, 35% of state workers and 46% of local workers.[31]
By the 1970s, a rapidly increasing flow of imports (such as automobiles, steel and electronics from Germany and Japan, and clothing and shoes from Asia) undercut American producers.[32] By the 1980s there was a large-scale shift in employment with fewer workers in high-wage sectors and more in the low-wage sectors.[33] Many companies closed or moved factories to Southern states (where unions were weak),[34] countered the threat of a strike by threatening to close or move a plant,[35] or moved their factories offshore to low-wage countries.[36] The number of major strikes and lockouts fell by 97% from 381 in 1970 to 187 in 1980 to only 11 in 2010.[35][37] On the political front, the shrinking unions lost influence in the Democratic Party, and pro-Union liberal Republicans faded away.[38] Union membership among workers in private industry shrank dramatically, though after 1970 there was growth in employees unions of federal, state and local governments.[39][40] The intellectual mood in the 1970s and 1980s favored deregulation and free competition.[41] Numerous industries were deregulated, including airlines, trucking, railroads and telephones, over the objections of the unions involved.[42] The climax came when President Ronald Reagan—a former union president—broke the illegal[43]Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) strike in 1981, dealing a major blow to unions.[37][44]
Republicans began to push through legislative blueprints to curb the power of public employee unions as well as eliminate business regulations.[36][45][46]
Union members rally to reject union busting in New Orleans (2019)
Most labor unions in the United States are members of one of two larger umbrella organizations: the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) or the Strategic Organizing Center (SOC), which split from the AFL–CIO in 2005–2006.[47] Both organizations advocate policies and legislation favorable to workers in the United States and Canada, and take an active role in politics favoring the Democratic party but not exclusively so. The AFL–CIO is especially concerned with global trade and economic issues.
Private sector unions are regulated by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), passed in 1935 and amended since then. The law is overseen by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an independent federal agency. Public sector unions are regulated partly by federal and partly by state laws. In general they have shown robust growth rates, because wages and working conditions are set through negotiations with elected local and state officials.
To join a traditional labor union, workers must either be given voluntary recognition from their employer or have a majority of workers in a bargaining unit vote for union representation. In either case, the government must then certify the newly formed union. Other forms of unionism include minority unionism, solidarity unionism, and the practices of organizations such as the Industrial Workers of the World, which do not always follow traditional organizational models.
Public sector worker unions are governed by labor laws and labor boards in each of the 50 states. Northern states typically model their laws and boards after the NLRA and the NLRB. In other states, public workers have no right to establish a union as a legal entity. (About 40% of public employees in the USA do not have the right to organize a legally established union.)[48][49]
A review conducted by the federal government on pay scale shows that employees in a labor union earn up to 33% more income than their nonunion counterparts, as well as having more job security, and safer and higher-quality work conditions.[50] The median weekly income for union workers was $973 in 2014, compared with $763 for nonunion workers.[1]
New media organizations and later traditional newspapers led a wave of unionization since 2015, spurred by losses during the Great Recession and start-up layoffs. NewsGuild and Writers Guild of America won many of these efforts, including 5,000 journalists across 90 organizations.[51]
Labor negotiations
Once the union won the support of a majority of the bargaining unit and is certified in a workplace, it has the sole authority to negotiate the conditions of employment. Under the NLRA, employees can also, if there is no majority support, form a minority union which represents the rights of only those members who choose to join.[52] Businesses, however, do not have to recognize the minority union as a collective bargaining agent for its members, and therefore the minority union's power is limited.[53] This minority model was once widely used, but was discarded when unions began to consistently win majority support. Unions are beginning to revisit the members-only model of unionism, because of new changes to labor law, which unions view as curbing workers' ability to organize.[54]
The employer and the union write the terms and conditions of employment in a legally binding contract. When disputes arise over the contract, most contracts call for the parties to resolve their differences through a grievance process to see if the dispute can be mutually resolved. If the union and the employer still cannot settle the matter, either party can choose to send the dispute to arbitration, where the case is argued before a neutral third party.
Members of labor unions enjoy "Weingarten Rights." If management questions the union member on a matter that may lead to discipline or other changes in working conditions, union members can request representation by a union representative. Weingarten Rights are named for the first Supreme Court decision to recognize those rights.[55]
The NLRA goes farther in protecting the right of workers to organize unions. It protects the right of workers to engage in any "concerted activity" for mutual aid or protection. Thus, no union connection is needed. Concerted activity "in its inception involves only a speaker and a listener, for such activity is an indispensable preliminary step to employee self-organization."[56]
Unions are advocating new federal legislation, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), that would allow workers to elect union representation by simply signing a support card (card check). The existing process established by federal law requires at least 30% of employees to sign cards for the union, then wait 45 to 90 days for a federal official to conduct a secret ballot election in which a simple majority of the employees must vote for the union in order to obligate the employer to bargain.
Unions report that, under the present system, many employers use the 45- to 90-day period to conduct antiunion campaigns. Some opponents of this legislation fear that removing secret balloting from the process will lead to the intimidation and coercion of workers on behalf of the unions. During the 2008 elections, the EFCA had widespread support of many legislators in the House and Senate, and of the President. Since then, support for the "card check" provisions of the EFCA subsided substantially.
% of employed US workers with union membership. Source: OECD Data, Trade Union Dataset
Union membership had been declining in the US since 1954, and since 1967, as union membership rates decreased, the middle class share of aggregate income shrank correspondingly.[57] In 2007, the labor department reported the first increase in union memberships in 25 years and the largest increase since 1979. Most of the recent gains in union membership have been in the service sector while the number of unionized employees in the manufacturing sector has declined. Most of the gains in the service sector have come in West Coast states like California where union membership is now at 16.7% compared with a national average of about 12.1%.[58] Historically, the rapid growth of public employee unions since the 1960s has served to mask an even more dramatic decline in private-sector union membership.
At the apex of union density in the 1940s, only about 9.8% of public employees were represented by unions, while 33.9% of private, non-agricultural workers had such representation. In this decade, those proportions have essentially reversed, with 36% of public workers being represented by unions while private sector union density had plummeted to around 7%. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics most recent survey indicates that union membership in the US has risen to 12.4% of all workers, from 12.1% in 2007. For a short period, private sector union membership rebounded, increasing from 7.5% in 2007 to 7.6% in 2008.[1] However, that trend has since reversed. In 2013 there were 14.5 million members in the U.S., compared with 17.7 million in 1983. In 2013, the percentage of workers belonging to a union was 11.3%, compared to 20.1% in 1983. The rate for the private sector was 6.4%, and for the public sector 35.3%.[59]
In 2023, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that labor union membership hit an all-time low in the U.S., dropping from 10.3% to 10.1%.[60][61][62]
Between 2005 and 2014, the National Labor Relations Board recorded 18,577 labor union representation elections; in 11,086 of these elections (60 percent), the majority of workers voted for union representation. Most of the elections (15,517) were triggered by employee petitions for representation, of which unions won 9,933. Less common were elections caused by employee petitions for decertification (2,792, of which unions won 1,070), and employer-filed petitions for either representation or decertification (268, of which unions won 85).[63][64]
In the US, labor education programs such as the Harvard Trade Union Program[65] created in 1942 by Harvard University professor John Thomas Dunlop sought to educate union members to deal with important contemporary workplace and labor law issues of the day. The Harvard Trade Union Program is currently part of a broader initiative at Harvard Law School called the Labor and Worklife Program[66] that deals with a wide variety of labor and employment issues from union pension investment funds to the effects of nanotechnology on labor markets and the workplace.
Labor unions use the term jurisdiction to refer to their claims to represent workers who perform a certain type of work and the right of their members to perform such work. For example, the work of unloading containerized cargo at United States ports, which the International Longshoremen's Association, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters have claimed rightfully should be assigned to workers they represent. A jurisdictional strike is a concerted refusal to work undertaken by a union to assert its members' right to such job assignments and to protest the assignment of disputed work to members of another union or to unorganized workers. Jurisdictional strikes occur most frequently in the United States in the construction industry.[69]
Unions also use jurisdiction to refer to the geographical boundaries of their operations, as in those cases in which a national or international union allocates the right to represent workers among different local unions based on the place of those workers' employment, either along geographical lines or by adopting the boundaries between political jurisdictions.[69]
Labor-environment coalitions
To help counter their steady decline in power, in the 1980s labor unions began to form coalitions locally, nationally, and globally with religious groups, social movements, politicians, and sometimes employers.[70] There was a general shift away from specific, interest group advocacy and towards large-scale pro-democracy movements.[70]
Coalitions between labor unions and environmental groups are prominent in interest areas of global trade and health.[70] The unification was unique given the two sides' rocky history and notable differences. Unions are very hierarchical and prioritize jobs, with typically working-class members, while environmental groups tend to consist of middle class and white-collar members and focus primarily on issues related to climate and the environment.[28] Tensions arose in the past when environmental groups pushed for environmental protection regulations without considering the effects on jobs or the side effects on worker safety, unintentionally antagonizing unions.[28]
Labor unions would sometimes side with employers even though employers are often seen as antithetical to unionization, since no employers mean no jobs.[71] Labor unions have sometimes worked against environmental groups when environmental activism was seen as limiting to economic growth.[28] This antagonization was further encouraged by employers in a politically motivated strategy referred to as “job blackmail,” and has been effective in pitting the movements against each other.[28]
Labor unions and environmental groups first began to collaborate internationally when the Reagan administration in the 1980s launched attacks on environmental regulations around the same time that they fired thousands of striking air traffic control employees.[70]
Public opinion
Although not as overwhelmingly supportive as it was from the 1930s through the early 1960s, a clear majority of the American public approves of labor unions. The Gallup organization has tracked public opinion of unions since 1936, when it found that 72 percent approved of unions. The overwhelming approval declined in the late 1960s, but – except for one poll in 2009 in which the unions received a favorable rating by only 48 percent of those interviewed, majorities have always supported labor unions. A Gallup Poll released August 2018 showed 62% of respondents approving unions, the highest level in over a decade. Disapproval of unions was expressed by 32%.[72] They polled opinion again in August 2022, finding that approval had risen to 71%, the highest positive opinion since the year 1965, and that approval had been consistently rising since 2016, where it was found to be 56%.[73]
On the question of whether or not unions should have more influence or less influence, Gallup has found the public consistently split since Gallup first posed the question in 2000, with no majority favoring either more influence or less influence. In August 2018, 39 percent wanted unions to have more influence, 29 percent less influence, with 26 percent wanting the influence of labor unions to remain about the same.[74]
A Pew Research Center poll from 2009 to 2010 found a drop in labor union support in the midst of The Great Recession[75] sitting at 41% favorable and 40% unfavorable. In 2018, union support rose to 55% favorable with just 33% unfavorable[76] Despite this union membership had continued to fall.[77]
Possible causes of drop in membership
Although most industrialized countries have seen a drop in unionization rates, the drop in union density (the unionized proportion of the working population) has been more significant in the United States than elsewhere.[17]
Global trends
Labor union membership by country
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics surveyed the histories of union membership rates in industrialized countries from 1970 to 2003, and found that of 20 advanced economies which had union density statistics going back to 1970, 16 of them had experienced drops in union density from 1970 to 2003. Over the same period during which union density in the US declined from 23.5 percent to 12.4 percent, some countries saw even steeper drops. Australian unionization fell from 50.2 percent in 1970 to 22.9 percent in 2003, in New Zealand it dropped from 55.2 percent to 22.1 percent, and in Austria union participation fell from 62.8 percent down to 35.4 percent. All the English-speaking countries studied saw union membership decline to some degree. In the United Kingdom, union participation fell from 44.8 percent in 1970 to 29.3 percent in 2003. In Ireland the decline was from 53.7 percent down to 35.3 percent. Canada had one of the smallest declines over the period, going from 31.6 percent in 1970 to 28.4 percent in 2003. Most of the countries studied started in 1970 with higher participation rates than the US, but France, which in 1970 had a union participation rate of 21.7 percent, by 2003 had fallen to 8.3 percent. The remaining four countries which had gained in union density were Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Belgium.[78]
The professional–managerial class (PMC) refers to a social class that controls production processes through occupying a superior management position, and is neither working class nor upper class. This group of upper middle class professionals is distinguished from other social classes by their training and education, typically university degrees.[79] with occupations thought to offer influence on society that would otherwise be available only to capital owners.[80]
Public approval of unions climbed during the 1980s much as it did in other industrialized nations,[83] but declined to below 50% for the first time in 2009 during the Great Recession. It is not clear if this is a long-term trend or a function of a high unemployment rate which historically correlates with lower public approval of labor unions.[84]
One explanation for loss of public support is simply the lack of union power or critical mass. No longer do a sizable percentage of American workers belong to unions, or have family members who do. Unions no longer carry the "threat effect": the power of unions to raise wages of non-union shops by virtue of the threat of unions to organize those shops.[84]
Polls of public opinion and labor unions
A historical comparison of union membership as a percentage of all workers and union support in the U.S.
A New York Times/CBS Poll found that 60% of Americans opposed restricting collective bargaining while 33% were for it. The poll also found that 56% of Americans opposed reducing pay of public employees compared to the 37% who approved. The details of the poll also stated that 26% of those surveyed, thought pay and benefits for public employees were too high, 25% thought too low, and 36% thought about right. Mark Tapscott of the Washington Examiner criticized the poll, accusing it of over-sampling union and public employee households.[85]
A Gallup poll released on March 9, 2011, showed that Americans were more likely to support limiting the collective bargaining powers of state employee unions to balance a state's budget (49%) than disapprove of such a measure (45%), while 6% had no opinion. 66% of Republicans approved of such a measure as did 51% of independents. Only 31% of Democrats approved.[86]
A Gallup poll released on March 11, 2011, showed that nationwide, Americans were more likely to give unions a negative word or phrase when describing them (38%) than a positive word or phrase (34%). 17% were neutral and 12% didn't know. Republicans were much more likely to say a negative term (58%) than Democrats (19%). Democrats were much more likely to say a positive term (49%) than Republicans (18%).[87]
A nationwide Gallup poll (margin of error ±4%) released on April 1, 2011,[88] showed the following;
When asked if they supported the labor unions or the governors in state disputes; 48% said they supported the unions, 39% said the governors, 4% said neither, and 9% had no opinion.
Women supported the governors much less than men. 45% of men said they supported the governors, while 46% said they supported the unions. This compares to only 33% of women who said they supported the governors and 50% who said they supported the unions.
All areas of the US (East, Midwest, South, West) were more likely to support unions than the governors. The largest gap being in the East with 35% supporting the governors and 52% supporting the unions, and the smallest gap being in the West with 41% supporting the governors and 44% the unions.
18- to 34-year-olds were much more likely to support unions than those over 34 years of age. Only 27% of 18- to 34-year-olds supported the governors, while 61% supported the unions. Americans ages 35 to 54 slightly supported the unions more than governors, with 40% supporting the governors and 43% the unions. Americans 55 and older were tied when asked, with 45% supporting the governors and 45% the unions.
Republicans were much more likely to support the governors when asked with 65% supporting the governors and 25% the unions. Independents slightly supported unions more, with 40% supporting the governors and 45% the unions. Democrats were overwhelmingly in support of the unions. 70% of Democrats supported the unions, while only 19% supported the governors.
Those who said they were following the situation not too closely or not at all supported the unions over governors, with a 14–point (45% to 31%) margin. Those who said they were following the situation somewhat closely supported the unions over governors by a 52–41 margin. Those who said that they were following the situation very closely were only slightly more likely to support the unions over the governors, with a 49–48 margin.
Unions and workers protesting together for higher wages (2015)
A nationwide Gallup poll released on August 31, 2011, revealed the following:[89]
52% of Americans approved of labor unions, unchanged from 2010.
78% of Democrats approved of labor unions, up from 71% in 2010.
52% of Independents approved of labor unions, up from 49% in 2010.
26% of Republicans approved of labor unions, down from 34% in 2010.
A nationwide Gallup poll released on September 1, 2011, revealed the following:[90]
55% of Americans believed that labor unions will become weaker in the United States as time goes by, an all-time high. This compared to 22% who said their power would stay the same, and 20% who said they would get stronger.
The majority of Republicans and Independents believed labor unions would further weaken by a 58% and 57% percentage margin respectively. A plurality of Democrats believed the same, at 46%.
42% of Americans want labor unions to have less influence, tied for the all-time high set in 2009. 30% wanted more influence and 25% wanted the same amount of influence.
The majority of Republicans wanted labor unions to have less influence, at 69%.
A plurality of Independents wanted labor unions to have less influence, at 40%.
A plurality of Democrats wanted labor unions to have more influence, at 45%.
The majority of Americans believed labor unions mostly helped members of unions by a 68 to 28 margin.
A plurality of Americans believed labor unions mostly helped the companies where workers are unionized by a 48–44 margin.
A plurality of Americans believed labor unions mostly helped state and local governments by a 47–45 margin.
A plurality of Americans believed labor unions mostly hurt the US economy in general by a 49–45 margin.
The majority of Americans believed labor unions mostly hurt workers who are not members of unions by a 56–34 margin.
Institutional environments
A broad range of forces have been identified as potential contributors to the drop in union density across countries. Sano and Williamson outline quantitative studies that assess the relevance of these factors across countries.[91] The first relevant set of factors relate to the receptiveness of unions' institutional environments. For example, the presence of a Ghent system (where unions are responsible for the distribution of unemployment insurance) and of centralized collective bargaining (organized at a national or industry level as opposed to local or firm level) have both been shown to give unions more bargaining power and to correlate positively to higher rates of union density.[91]
Unions have enjoyed higher rates of success in locations where they have greater access to the workplace as an organizing space (as determined both by law and by employer acceptance), and where they benefit from a corporatist relationship to the state and are thus allowed to participate more directly in the official governance structure. Moreover, the fluctuations of business cycles, particularly the rise and fall of unemployment rates and inflation, are also closely linked to changes in union density.[91]
Labor legislation
Workers speak in support of the Workplace Democracy Act which makes it easier to unionize (2018)
Labor lawyer Thomas Geoghegan attributes the drop to the long-term effects of the 1947 Taft–Hartley Act, which slowed and then halted labor's growth and then, over many decades, enabled management to roll back labor's previous gains.[92]
First, it ended organizing on the grand, 1930s scale. It outlawed mass picketing, secondary strikes of neutral employers, sit downs: in short, everything [ CIO founder John L.] Lewis did in the 1930s.
The second effect of Taft–Hartley was subtler and slower-working. It was to hold up any new organizing at all, even on a quiet, low-key scale. For example, Taft–Hartley ended "card checks." … Taft–Hartley required hearings, campaign periods, secret-ballot elections, and sometimes more hearings, before a union could be officially recognized.
It also allowed and even encouraged employers to threaten workers who want to organize. Employers could hold "captive meetings," bring workers into the office and chew them out for thinking about the Union. And Taft–Hartley led to the "union-busting" that started in the late 1960s and continues today. It started when a new "profession" of labor consultants began to convince employers that they could violate the [pro-labor 1935] Wagner Act, fire workers at will, fire them deliberately for exercising their legal rights, and nothing would happen. The Wagner Act had never had any real sanctions.
So why hadn't employers been violating the Wagner Act all along? Well, at first, in the 1930s and 1940s, they tried, and they got riots in the streets: mass picketing, secondary strikes, etc. But after Taft–Hartley, unions couldn't retaliate like this, or they would end up with penalty fines and jail sentences.[92]
In general, scholars debate the influence of politics in determining union strength in the US and other countries. One argument is that political parties play an expected role in determining union strength, with left-wing governments generally promoting greater union density, while others contest this finding by pointing out important counterexamples and explaining the reverse causality inherent in this relationship.[93]
Economic globalization
More recently, as unions have become increasingly concerned with the impacts of market integration on their well-being, scholars have begun to assess whether popular concerns about a global "race to the bottom" are reflected in cross-country comparisons of union strength. These scholars use foreign direct investment (FDI) and the size of a country's international trade as a percentage of its GDP to assess a country's relative degree of market integration. These researchers typically find that globalization does affect union density, but is dependent on other factors, such as unions' access to the workplace and the centralization of bargaining.[94]
Sano and Williamson argue that globalization's impact is conditional upon a country's labor history.[95] In the United States in particular, which has traditionally had relatively low levels of union density, globalization did not appear to significantly affect union density.
Employer strategies
Illegal union firing increased during the Reagan administration and has continued since.
Studies focusing more narrowly on the U.S. labor movement corroborate the comparative findings about the importance of structural factors, but tend to emphasize the effects of changing labor markets due to globalization to a greater extent. Bronfenbrenner notes that changes in the economy, such as increased global competition, capital flight, and the transitions from a manufacturing to a service economy and to a greater reliance on transitory and contingent workers, accounts for only a third of the decline in union density.[97]
Bronfenbrenner claims that the federal government in the 1980s was largely responsible for giving employers the perception that they could engage in aggressive strategies to repress the formation of unions. Richard Freeman also points to the role of repressive employer strategies in reducing unionization, and highlights the way in which a state ideology of antiunionism tacitly accepted these strategies[83]
Goldfield writes that the overall effects of globalization on unionization in the particular case of the United States may be understated in econometric studies on the subject.[98] He writes that the threat of production shifts reduces unions' bargaining power even if it does not eliminate them, and also claims that most of the effects of globalization on labor's strength are indirect. They are most present in change towards a neoliberal political context that has promoted the deregulation and privatization of some industries and accepted increased employer flexibility in labor markets.
Union responses to globalization
Studies done by Kate Bronfenbrenner at Cornell University show the adverse effects of globalization towards unions due to illegal threats of firing.
Regardless of the actual impact of market integration on union density or on workers themselves, organized labor has been engaged in a variety of strategies to limit the agenda of globalization and to promote labor regulations in an international context. Labor rights had failed to be included in international trade negotiations in Geneva in 1948 and in Tokyo in 1978.[100] But they eventually were brought up by the US in the Uruguay Round in 1994 and were decidedly left to the jurisdiction of the International Labor Organization.[100] Summers argues that this decision to shift all responsibility of labor rights to the ILO essentially extinguished the possibility of including labor standards in any meaningful way, as the ILO lacks any enforceable mechanism to address instances of rights violations.[100] It was around this time that US labor unions began to step in to advocate for rights in free trade negotiations.
In 1994, labor unions were one of the many groups protesting The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) being negotiated at the time.[101] Pro-NAFTA advocates launched campaigns which claimed that NAFTA and other free trade deals would contribute to employment in the US.[102] While this may be true, Summers argues that US exports tend to be capital-intensive, while imports tend to be labor-intensive, and thus deals like NAFTA would further contribute to the trend of more jobs being lost than created.[100] In the fight to preserve employment and fight against policies which would contribute to environmental damage, the negotiations became a catalyst for the rise of coalition building across sectors, namely between labor unions and environmentalist groups, as well as across borders, between Mexican, US, and Canadian advocacy groups.[101]
However, Mayer has written that it was precisely unions' opposition to NAFTA overall that jeopardized organized labor's ability to influence the debate on labor standards in a significant way.[103] During Clinton's presidential campaign, labor unions wanted NAFTA to include a side deal to provide for a kind of international social charter, a set of standards that would be enforceable both in domestic courts and through international institutions. Mickey Kantor, then U.S. trade representative, had strong ties to organized labor and believed that he could get unions to come along with the agreement, particularly if they were given a strong voice in the negotiation process.[103]
When it became clear that Mexico would not stand for this kind of an agreement, some critics from the labor movement would not settle for any viable alternatives. In response, part of the labor movement wanted to declare their open opposition to the agreement, and to push for NAFTA's rejection in Congress.[103] Ultimately, the ambivalence of labor groups led those within the Administration who supported NAFTA to believe that strengthening NAFTA's labor side agreement, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), too much would cost more votes among Republicans than it would garner among Democrats, and would make it harder for the United States to elicit support from Mexico.[104]
Graubart writes that, despite unions' open disappointment with the outcome of this labor-side negotiation, labor activists, including the AFL–CIO have used the NAALC's citizen petition, containing a unique cross-border mechanism, to highlight ongoing political campaigns and struggles in their home countries.[105][106] He claims that despite the relative weakness of the legal provisions themselves, the side-agreement has served a legitimizing functioning, giving certain social struggles a new kind of standing. Kay argues that in the process of fighting NAFTA, activists groups had gained a "power-to"—the power of mobilizing and creating transnational networks, which ultimately helped them to defeat the Multilateral Agreements on Investment in 1998 as well as the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas in 2005.[101]
Transnational labor regulation
Unions have recently been engaged in a developing field of transnational labor regulation embodied in corporate codes of conduct. However, O'Brien cautions that unions have been only peripherally involved in this process, and remain ambivalent about its potential effects.[107] They worry that these codes could have legitimizing effects on companies that do not actually live up to good practices, and that companies could use codes to excuse or distract attention from the repression of unions.
Braun and Gearhart note that although unions do participate in the structure of a number of these agreements, their original interest in codes of conduct differed from the interests of human rights and other non-governmental activists. Unions believed that codes of conduct would be important first steps in creating written principles that a company would be compelled to comply with in later organizing contracts, but did not foresee the establishment of monitoring systems such as the Fair Labor Association. These authors point out that such organizations are motivated by power, want to gain insider status politically and are accountable to a constituency that requires them to provide them with direct benefits.[108]
In contrast, activists from the non-governmental sector are motivated by ideals, are free of accountability and gain legitimacy from being political outsiders. Therefore, the interests of unions are not likely to align well with the interests of those who draft and monitor corporate codes of conduct.
Arguing against the idea that high union wages necessarily make manufacturing uncompetitive in a globalized economy was labor lawyer Thomas Geoghegan.
Busting unions, in the U.S. manner, as the prime way of competing with China and other countries [does not work]. It's no accident that the social democracies, Sweden, France, and Germany, which kept on paying high wages, now have more industry than the U.S. or the UK. … [T]hat's what the U.S. and the UK did: they smashed the unions, in the belief that they had to compete on cost. The result? They quickly ended up wrecking their industrial base.[109]
Unions have made some attempts to organize across borders. Eder observed that transnational organizing is not a new phenomenon but has been facilitated by technological change.[110] Nevertheless, he claimed that while unions pay lip service to global solidarity, they still act largely in their national self-interest. He argued that unions in the global North are becoming increasingly depoliticized while those in the South grow politically, and that global differentiation of production processes leads to divergent strategies and interests in different regions of the world. These structural differences tend to hinder effective global solidarity. However, in light of the weakness of international labor, Herod wrote that globalization of production need not be met by a globalization of union strategies in order to be contained. Herod also pointed out that local strategies, such as the United Auto Workers' strike against General Motors in 1998, can sometimes effectively interrupt global production processes in ways that they could not before the advent of widespread market integration. Thus, workers need not be connected organizationally to others around the world to effectively influence the behavior of a transnational corporation.[111]
Impact and criticism
A 2018 study in the Economic History Review found that the rise of labor unions in the 1930s and 1940s was associated with a reduction in income inequality.[112] A 2020 study found that congressional representatives were more responsive to the interests of the poor in districts with higher unionization rates.[113] Another 2020 study found an association between state level adoption of parental leave legislation and labor union strength.[114] A 2021 study in the ILR Review found that state union density was associated with a reduction in poverty in both unionized and non-unionized households.[115]
According to sociologist Matthew Desmond of Princeton University, the power of labor unions in the post-war era till the late 1970s played a significant role in ensuring that an expanding US economy "shared its bounty" with the working class and mitigated labor exploitation, making it a time when "honest work delivered a solid paycheck." He acknowledges, however, that racism, attacks from corporate lobbyists who "made deep inroads to both parties," and a changing economy weakened unions and "prevented the labor movement from ever realizing its full potential."[116]
The Hoover Institution think tank has asserted that the economic inequality argument made in favor of labor unions "misfires on several fronts. Those high union wages could not survive in the face of foreign competition or new nonunionized firms. The only way a union can provide gains for its members is to extract some fraction of the profits that firms enjoy when they hold monopoly positions." The think tank has also asserted that the decline of labor unions in the United States "cannot drive widespread inequality for the entire population, which is also affected by a rise in the knowledge economy as well as a general aging of the population."[117]
A 2020 study in the American Journal of Political Science suggested that when white people obtain union membership, they become less racially resentful.[118] Higher union density has been associated with lower suicide/overdose deaths.[119] Decreased unionization rates in the United States have been linked to an increase in occupational fatalities.[120]
Other research has found that unions can harm profitability, employment and business growth rates.[21][22] The outsourcing of labor from the United States to Asia, Latin America, and Africa has been partially driven by increasing costs of union partnership, which gives other countries a comparative advantage in labor, making it more efficient to perform labor-intensive work there.[121]
The weakening of unions has been linked to more favorable electoral outcomes for the Republican Party.[122][123][124] However, Republican-controlled states are less likely to adopt more restrictive labor policies when unions are strong in the state.[125]
1 2 3 "UNION MEMBERS — 2022"(PDF). Bureau of Labor Statistics. January 19, 2023. The union membership rate—the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of unions—was 10.1 percent in 2022, down from 10.3 percent in 2021, ... The union membership rate of public-sector workers (33.1 percent) continued to be more than five times higher than the rate of private-sector workers (6.0 percent).
1 2 3 Rosalsky, Greg (February 28, 2023). "You may have heard of the 'union boom.' The numbers tell a different story". NPR. Headline writers began declaring things like, "Employees everywhere are organizing" and that the United States was seeing a "union boom." In September, the White House asserted "Organized labor appears to be having a moment." However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released its union data for 2022. And their data shows that — far from a resurgence — the share of American workers in a union has continued to decline. Last year, the union membership rate fell by 0.2 percentage points to 10.1% — the lowest on record.
↑ Taylor E. Dark, The Unions and the Democrats: An Enduring Alliance (Cornell University Press, 2018).
↑ Ruth Milkman & Stephanie Luce, Labor Unions and the Great Recession, RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences (2017), Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 145-165: "In the private sector, the U.S. political and regulatory context became increasingly unfavorable to unionism starting in the 1970s, but that was far less often true in the public sector until very recently. However, in the twenty-first century, and especially since the Great Recession, concerted political attacks on public sector unionism have spread, and anti-unionism has become a cornerstone of conservative ideology."
"A 2011 study drew a link between the decline in union membership since 1973 and expanding wage disparity. Those trends have since continued, said Bruce Western, a professor of sociology at Harvard University who co-authored the study."
"The IMF analysis suggests these trend lines aren't merely correlations, but the first is caused, at least partially, by the second. Indeed, the paper says that roughly half the increase in income inequality in advanced economies is 'driven by deunionization.'"
1 2 Hirsch, Barry T. "What do unions do for economic performance?." Journal of Labor Research 25, no. 3 (2004): 415–455.
1 2 Vedder, Richard, and Lowell Gallaway. "The economic effects of labor unions revisited." Journal of labor research 23, no. 1 (2002): 105-130.
↑ Benjamin C. Waterhouse, Lobbying in America, (Princeton University Press, 2013) 53.
↑ Robert H. Zieger, and Gilbert J. Gall, American Workers, American Unions: The Twentieth Century (3rd ed. 2002); Lawrence Richards, Union-Free America: Workers and Antiunion Culture (2010)
↑ Martha Derthick and Paul J. Quirk, The Politics of Deregulation (1985) p 218
↑ Derthick and Quirk, The Politics of Deregulation (1985) pp vii, 11, 104, 137
↑ Richard B. Freeman and Eunice Han. "The war against public sector collective bargaining in the US." Journal of Industrial Relations (2012) 54#3 pp: 386-408.
↑ American Federation of Government Employees AFGE Local 704, "More FAQs" 2015
↑ Schultz, Duane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen (2010). Psychology and work today: an introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (10thed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. pp.271–272. ISBN978-0205683581.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
↑ Rittenhouse, Ed. (1950). School with a Purpose. Journal of Higher Education, 21 (7), 360-362+393
1 2 Hunt, James W. and Strongin, Patricia K. The Law of the Workplace: Rights of Employers and Employees. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: BNA Books, 1994. ISBN0-87179-841-7; Whitney, Nathaniel Rugges. Jurisdiction in American Building-Trades Unions. Charleston, S.C.: BiblioBazaar, 2008 (originally published 1914). ISBN0-559-45399-X
1 2 Sexton, Patricia Cayo. "The Decline of the Labor Movement." The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts. Goodwin, Jeff and James M. Jasper, eds. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003
1 2 3 Sano, Joelle and John B. Williamson. (2008) "Factors Affecting Union Decline and their Implications for Labor Reform," International Journal of Comparative Sociology 49: 479-500
↑ Ebbinghaus, B. and Visser, J. (1999) "When Institutions Matter. Union Growth and Decline in Western Europe, 1950–1995", European Sociological Review 15#2 pp 135–58
↑ Scruggs, L. and Lange, P. (2002) "Where Have all the Members Gone? Globalizations, Institutions, and Union Density," The Journal of Politics 64#1 pp 126–53.
↑ Sano, Joelle and John B. Williamson. (2008) "Factors Affecting Union Decline and their Implications for Labor Reform." International Journal of Comparative Sociology 49: 479–500.
↑ Bronfenbrenner, Kate. Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Strategies (Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR Press, 1998)
↑ Goldfield, Michael. "The impact of globalization and neoliberalism on the decline of organized labour in the United States" in Labor, Globalization and the State: Workers, women and migrants confront neoliberalism ed. by Banerjee, Debdas and Michael Goldfield, (Routledge, 2007).
↑ Graubart, Jonathan. Legalizing Transnational Activism: The Struggle to Gain Social Change from NAFTA's Citizen Petitions (Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008).
↑ O'Brien, Robert. "The varied paths to minimum global labour standards." Global Unions? Theory and Strategies of organized labour in the global political economy edited by Jeffrey Harrod and Robert O'Brien, (Routledge, 2002).
↑ Rainer Braun, and Judy Gearhart. "Who should code your conduct? Trade union and NGO differences in the fight for workers' rights," Development in Practice 14.1–2 (2004): 183–196.
↑ Eder, Mine. "The constraints on labour internationalism: contradictions and prospects." in Global Unions? Theory and Strategies of Organized Labour in the Global Political Economy ed Harrod, Jeffrey and Robert O'Brien, (Routledge, 2002).
↑ Herod, Andrew. "Organizing globally, organizing locally: union spatial strategy in a global economy." in Global Unions? Theory and Strategies of Organized labour in the Global Political Economy ed Harrod, Jeffrey and Robert O'Brien, (Routledge, 2002).
↑ Eisenberg-Guyot, Jerzy; Mooney, Stephen J.; Hagopian, Amy; Barrington, Wendy E.; Hajat, Anjum (2020). "Solidarity and disparity: Declining labor union density and changing racial and educational mortality inequities in the United States". American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 63 (3): 218–231. doi:10.1002/ajim.23081. ISSN1097-0274. PMC7293351. PMID31845387. Results – Overall, a 10% increase in union density was associated with a 17% relative decrease in overdose/suicide mortality (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70, 0.98), or 5.7 lives saved per 100 000 person‐years (95% CI: −10.7, −0.7). Union density's absolute (lives‐saved) effects on overdose/suicide mortality were stronger for men than women, but its relative effects were similar across genders. Union density had little effect on all‐cause mortality overall or across subgroups, and modeling suggested union‐density increases would not affect mortality inequities. Conclusions - Declining union density (as operationalized in this study) may not explain all‐cause mortality inequities, although increases in union density may reduce overdose/suicide mortality.
A trade union or labor union, often simply referred to as a union, is an organization of workers whose purpose is to maintain or improve the conditions of their employment, such as attaining better wages and benefits, improving working conditions, improving safety standards, establishing complaint procedures, developing rules governing status of employees and protecting and increasing the bargaining power of workers.
The American Federation of Labor was a national federation of labor unions in the United States that continues today as the AFL-CIO. It was founded in Columbus, Ohio, in 1886 by an alliance of craft unions eager to provide mutual support and disappointed in the Knights of Labor. Samuel Gompers was elected the full-time president at its founding convention and was re-elected every year except one until his death in 1924. He became the major spokesperson for the union movement.
The nature and power of organized labor in the United States is the outcome of historical tensions among counter-acting forces involving workplace rights, wages, working hours, political expression, labor laws, and other working conditions. Organized unions and their umbrella labor federations such as the AFL–CIO and citywide federations have competed, evolved, merged, and split against a backdrop of changing values and priorities, and periodic federal government intervention.
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is a labor union representing almost 1.9 million workers in over 100 occupations in the United States and Canada. SEIU is focused on organizing workers in three sectors: healthcare, including hospital, home care and nursing home workers; public services ; and property services.
In labor law, a union shop, also known as a post-entry closed shop, is a form of a union security clause. Under this, the employer agrees to either only hire labor union members or to require that any new employees who are not already union members become members within a certain amount of time. Use of the union shop varies widely from nation to nation, depending on the level of protection given trade unions in general.
The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), is an independent democratic rank-and-file labor union representing workers in both the private and public sectors across the United States.
Union busting is a range of activities undertaken to disrupt or weaken the power of trade unions or their attempts to grow their membership in a workplace.
Thomas Reilly Donahue Jr. was an American trade union leader who served as Secretary-Treasurer of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations from 1979 to 1995, interim president for several months in 1995, and was President Emeritus from 1996 until his death. He was considered as one of the most influential leaders of the post-World War II American trade union movement.
Unions have been compared across countries by growth and decline patterns, by violence levels, and by kinds of political activity.
Pride at Work (P@W) is an American lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender group (LGBTQ+) of labor union activists affiliated with the AFL-CIO.
Worker centers are non-profit community-based mediating organizations in the United States that organize and provide support to communities of low-wage workers who are not already members of a collective bargaining organization, or have been legally excluded from coverage by U.S. labor laws. Many worker centers focus on immigrant and low-wage workers in sectors such as restaurant, construction, day labor and agriculture.
The Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of trade union women affiliated with the AFL–CIO. The CLUW is a bridging organization that seeks to create connections between the feminist movement and the labor movement in the United States. The organization works towards overcoming past constraints and conflicts in pursuance of relationship improvement between those movements, and thus enabling broad coalitions. The CLUW is the only national organization solely for women union members and is one of six constituency groups within the AFL–CIO. It is based in the headquarters of the AFL–CIO in Washington, D.C. CLUW pursues by four goals: to bring women into union leadership, to organize unorganized women workers, to bring women's issues onto the labor agenda, and to involve women into political action.
The Maine AFL–CIO is a federation of AFL–CIO-affiliated labor unions in the state of Maine.
The National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) is an American labor union which represents about 100,000 public employees in the federal government.
A wildcat strike is a strike action undertaken by unionised workers without union leadership's authorization, support, or approval; this is sometimes termed an unofficial industrial action. The legality of wildcat strikes varies between countries and over time.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is the largest trade union of public employees in the United States. It represents 1.3 million public sector employees and retirees, including health care workers, corrections officers, sanitation workers, police officers, firefighters, and childcare providers. Founded in Madison, Wisconsin, in 1932, AFSCME is part of the AFL–CIO, one of the two main labor federations in the United States. AFSCME has had four presidents since its founding.
George Hardy was a Canadian-American labour leader who was president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) from 1971 to 1980. At the time of his death, SEIU had grown to become the fifth-largest affiliate of the AFL-CIO. Hardy was a vice president of the AFL-CIO from 1972 to 1980, and a member of its executive council. He was a former member of the Democratic National Committee and the California Democratic State Central Committee.
The United Public Workers of America (1946–1952) was an American labor union representing federal, state, county, and local government employees. The union challenged the constitutionality of the Hatch Act of 1939, which prohibited federal executive branch employees from engaging in politics. In United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947), the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Hatch Act, finding that its infringement on the Constitutional rights was outweighed by the need to end political corruption. The union's leadership was Communist, and in a famous purge the union was ejected from its parent trade union federation, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, in 1950.
The Martin Luther King, Jr. County Labor Council (MLKCLC) is the central body of labor organizations in King County, Washington. The MLKCLC is affiliated with the national AFL–CIO, the central labor organization in the United States, which represents more than 13 million working people. Over 125 organizations are affiliated with the MLKCLC, and more than 75,000 workers belong to Council-affiliated organizations. In addition to supporting labor organizations, it acts as a voice for the interests and needs of the working people in King County, WA.
The Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) was a federation of unions that organized workers in industrial unions in the United States and Canada from 1935 to 1955. Originally created in 1935 as a committee within the American Federation of Labor (AFL) by John L. Lewis, a leader of the United Mine Workers (UMW), and called the Committee for Industrial Organization. Its name was changed in 1938 when it broke away from the AFL. It focused on organizing unskilled workers, who had been ignored by most of the AFL unions.
References
Surveys
Arnesen, Eric, ed. Encyclopedia of U.S. Labor and Working-Class History (2006), 3 vol; 2064pp; 650 articles by experts
Beard, Mary Ritter. A Short History of the American Labor Movement 1920, 176 pages online edition
Beik, Millie, ed. Labor Relations: Major Issues in American History (2005) over 100 annotated primary documents
Boris, Eileen, and Nelson Lichtenstein, eds. Major Problems In The History Of American Workers: Documents and Essays (2002)
Brody, David. In Labor's Cause: Main Themes on the History of the American Worker (1993)
Browne, Waldo Ralph. What's what in the Labor Movement: A Dictionary of Labor Affairs and Labor (1921) 577pp; encyclopedia of labor terms, organizations and history. complete text online
Dubofsky, Melvyn, and Foster Rhea Dulles. Labor in America: A History (2004), textbook, based on earlier textbooks by Dulles.
Dubofsky, Melvyn, and Warren Van Tine, eds. Labor Leaders in America (1987) biographies of key leaders, written by scholars
LeBlanc, Paul. A Short History of the U.S. Working Class: From Colonial Times to the Twenty-First Century (1999), 160pp
Lichtenstein, Nelson. State of the Union: A Century of American Labor (2003)
Mauer, Michael. The Union Member's Complete Guide (2019)
McGaughey, E 'Democracy or Oligarchy? Models of Union Governance in the UK, Germany and US' (2017) ssrn.com
Minchin, Timothy J. Labor under Fire: A History of the AFL–CIO since 1979 (U of North Carolina Press, 2017). xvi, 414 pp.
Perlman, Selig. A History of Trade Unionism in the United States 1922, 313 pages online edition
Taylor, Paul F. The ABC-CLIO Companion to the American Labor Movement (1993) 237pp; short encyclopedia
Zieger, Robert H., and Gilbert J. Gall, American Workers, American Unions: The Twentieth Century(3rd ed. 2002)
Zieger, Robert H. For Jobs and Freedom: Race and Labor in America Since 1865 (2007)
To 1900
Commons, John R. History of Labour in the United States – vol 1 and vol. 2 1860–1896 (1918) (note spelling of "Labour")
Commons, John R. "American Shoemakers, 1648-1895: A Sketch of Industrial Evolution," Quarterly Journal of Economics 24 (November 1909), 39–83. in JSTOR
Commons, John R. ed. Trade Unionism and Labor Problems (1905) articles by experts on unions and working condition online edition
Grob, Gerald N. Workers and Utopia: A Study of Ideological Conflict in the American Labor Movement, 1865–1900 (1961)
Hall, John P. "The Knights of St. Crispin in Massachusetts, 1869–1878," Journal of Economic History 18 (June 1958), p 161–175 in JSTOR
Laslett, John H. M. Labor and the Left: A Study of Socialist and Radical Influences in the American Labor Movement, 1881–1924 (1970)
Mandel, Bernard. Samuel Gompers: A Biography (1963)
Orth, Samuel P. The Armies of Labor: A Chronicle of the Organized Wage-Earners (1919) short popular overview online edition
Taillon, Paul Michel. Good, Reliable, White Men: Railroad Brotherhoods, 1877-1917 (2009)
Taft, Philip Taft and Philip Ross, "American Labor Violence: Its Causes, Character, and Outcome," in The History of Violence in America: A Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, ed. Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, 1969. online edition
Van Tine, Warren R. The Making of the Labor Bureaucrat: Union Leadership in the United States, 1870–1920 (1973)
Voss, Kim. The Making of American Exceptionalism: The Knights of Labor and Class Formation in the Nineteenth Century (1993)
Weir, Robert E. Beyond Labor's Veil: The Culture of the Knights of Labor (1996)
Bernstein, Irving. The Lean Years: A History of the American Worker, 1920–33 (1966)
Brody, David. Labor in Crisis: The Steel Strike of 1919 (1965)
Dubofsky, Melvyn and Warren Van Tine. John L. Lewis: A Biography (1986)
Brody, David. Labor in Crisis: The Steel Strike of 1919 (1965)
Faue, Elizabeth. Community of Suffering & Struggle: Women, Men, and the Labor Movement in Minneapolis, 1915–1945 (1991)
Fraser, Steve. Labor Will Rule: Sidney Hillman and the Rise of American Labor (1993)
Gordon, Colin. New Deals: Business, Labor, and Politics, 1920–1935 (1994)
Greene, Julie. Pure and Simple Politics: The American Federation of Labor and Political Activism, 1881–1917 (1998)
Hooker, Clarence. Life in the Shadows of the Crystal Palace, 1910–1927: Ford Workers in the Model T Era (1997)
Laslett, John H. M. Labor and the Left: A Study of Socialist and Radical Influences in the American Labor Movement, 1881–1924 (1970)
Karson, Marc. American Labor Unions and Politics, 1900–1918 (1958)
McCartin, Joseph A. Labor's Great War: The Struggle for Industrial Democracy and the Origins of Modern American Labor Relations, 1912–1921 (1997)
Mandel, Bernard. Samuel Gompers: A Biography (1963)
Meyer, Stephen. The Five Dollar Day: Labor Management and Social Control in the Ford Motor Company, 1908–1921 (1981)
Mink, Gwendolyn. Old Labor and New Immigrants in American Political Development: Union, Party, and State, 1875–1920 (1986)
Orth, Samuel P. The Armies of Labor: A Chronicle of the Organized Wage-Earners (1919) short overview
Quint, Howard H. The Forging of American Socialism: Origins of the Modern Movement (1964)
Warne, Colston E. ed. The Steel Strike of 1919 (1963), primary and secondary documents
Zieger, Robert. Republicans and Labor, 1919–1929 (1969)
Primary sources
Gompers, Samuel. Seventy Years of Life and Labor: An Autobiography (1925)
1935–1955
Bernstein, Irving. Turbulent Years: A History of the American Worker, 1933–1941 (1970)
Boyle, Kevin. The UAW and the Heyday of American Liberalism, 1945–1968 (1995)
Campbell, D'Ann. "Sisterhood versus the Brotherhoods: Women in Unions" Women at War With America: Private Lives in a Patriotic Era (1984).
Dubofsky, Melvyn and Warren Van Time John L. Lewis (1986).
Faue, Elizabeth. Community of Suffering & Struggle: Women, Men, and the Labor Movement in Minneapolis, 1915–1945 (1991), social history
Fraser, Steve. Labor Will Rule: Sidney Hillman and the Rise of American Labor (1993).
Galenson, Walter. The CIO Challenge to the AFL: A History of the American Labor Movement, 1935–1941 (1960)
Gordon, Colin. New Deals: Business, Labor, and Politics, 1920–1935 (1994)
Jensen, Richard J. "The Causes and Cures of Unemployment in the Great Depression," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 19 (1989) p.553–583
Kennedy, David M. Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945 (1999) recent narrative.
Lichtenstein, Nelson. Labor's War at Home: The CIO in World War II (2003)
Lichtenstein, Nelson. The Most Dangerous Man in Detroit: Walter Reuther and the Fate of American Labor (1995)
Miller, Sally M., and Daniel A. Cornford eds. American Labor in the Era of World War II (1995), essays by historians, mostly on California
Seidman; Joel. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen: The Internal Political Life of a National Union (1962)
Vittoz, Stanley. New Deal Labor Policy and the American Industrial Economy (1987)
Zieger, Robert H. The CIO, 1935–1955 (1995)
Fair Employment FEPC
Collins, William J. "Race, Roosevelt, and Wartime Production: Fair Employment in World War II Labor Markets," American Economic Review 91:1 (March 2001), pp.272–286
Kersten, Andrew Edmund. Race, Jobs, and the War: The FEPC in the Midwest, 1941-46 (2000) online review
Reed, Merl E. Seedtime for the Modern Civil Rights Movement: The President's Committee on Fair Employment Practice, 1941–1946 (1991)
Taft–Hartley and the NLRA
Abraham, Steven E. "The Impact of the Taft–Hartley Act on the Balance of Power in Industrial Relations" American Business Law Journal Vol. 33, 1996
Ballam, Deborah A. "The Impact of the National Labor Relations Act on the U.S. Labor Movement" American Business Law Journal, Vol. 32, 1995
Brooks, George W., Milton Derber, David A. McCabe, Philip Taft. Interpreting the Labor Movement (1952)
Gall, Gilbert J. The Politics of Right to Work: The Labor Federations as Special Interests, 1943–1979 (1988)
Hartley Jr. Fred A., and Robert A. Taft. Our New National Labor Policy: The Taft–Hartley Act and the Next Steps (1948)
Lee, R. Alton. Truman and Taft–Hartley: A Question of Mandate (1966)
Millis, Harry A., and Emily Clark Brown. From the Wagner Act to Taft–Hartley: A Study of National Labor Policy and Labor Relations (1950)
Primary sources
Christman, Henry M. ed. Walter P. Reuther: Selected Papers (1961)
1955–present
Bennett, James T., and Bruce E. Kaufman. What do unions do?: a twenty-year perspective (2007)
Dark; Taylor E. The Unions and the Democrats: An Enduring Alliance (1999)
Dine, Philip. State of the Unions: How Labor Can Strengthen the Middle Class, Improve Our Economy, and Regain Political Influence (2007)
Fantasia, Rick, and Kim Voss. Hard Work: Remaking the American Labor Movement (2004)
Galenson, Walter; The American Labor Movement, 1955–1995 (1996)
Goldberg, Arthur J. AFL–CIO, Labor United (1956)
Leiter, Robert D. The Teamsters Union: A Study of Its Economic Impact (1957)
Lichtenstein, Nelson. "Two Roads Forward for Labor: The AFL–CIO's New Agenda." Dissent 61.1 (2014): 54–58. Online
Lipset, Seymour Martin, ed. Unions in Transition: Entering the Second Century (1986)
Mort, Jo-Ann, ed. Not Your Father's Union Movement: Inside the AFL–CIO (2002)
Rosenfeld, Jake. What Unions No Longer Do (Harvard University Press, 2014) ISBN0674725115
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
