US Union and Workers' Movements, Past and Future
Media
Part of US Union and Workers' Movements, Past and Future
- Title
-
US Union and Workers' Movements, Past and Future - extracted text
-
US Union and Workers’ Movements,
Past and Future
DANIEL SCHNEIDER and JUDITH STEPAN-NORRIS
Abstract
The last half century of US labor movement history is characterized by dramatic
decline in both density and (since 1979) real numbers. While unions and union federations in the mainstream union movement have attempted to adjust, developments
outside their sphere have been especially prominent: the rise of independent unions
and the initiation of alternative forms of workers movements. With union decline,
community labor organizations [typified by Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)], worker centers, and living wage campaigns have
risen to fill the void. These alternate paths for worker representation, like other
forms developed in the past, bring new tactics, new activists, and new links to labor
struggles and may yet contribute to the future of labor movements in the United
States.
INTRODUCTION: US LABOR UNIONS IN DECLINE
The fortunes of US labor unions have ebbed and flowed since their inception. Over the last century, various unions and union federations have been
founded, grown, stagnated, and declined. Some eventually disappeared
(merged or collapsed) while others experienced reinvigoration, resurgence, and growth. Yet, the current period is characterized by a persistent
decline that represents the institutionalized movement’s most long-standing
retrenchment. During its peak years in the early 1950s, there were just under
250 national and international US unions, whereas in 2005 that number
dropped to approximately 125. Correspondingly, union members have
declined in real numbers (even as the labor force has grown) since 1979
(Hirsch & MacPherson, 2013) and union density has declined since 1953
(Troy & Sheflin, 1985).
There are many factors that explain union decline, most prominently labor
legislation, economic and political change, and organizational factors. The
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Wagner Act (1935) directly benefited private sector unions by signaling that
workers had the right to organize and by establishing a set of unfair practices
on the part of firms. The Taft-Hartley Act (1947) made union organizing
and maintenance more difficult, with its elaboration of unfair practices
performed by unions, its anti-Communist affidavit, and its prohibition
of wildcat and political strikes, secondary boycotts, and closed shops. In
addition, it enabled the passage of Right-to-Work legislation (now in 24
states), which further deters union organizing and maintenance. In general,
situations where employer opposition is high, the political environment is
conservative, there are no rival federations, unemployment is high, and core
employment is low are least favorable for union growth.
While private sector unionism dominated in the early part of the twentieth century, public sector unionism began to grow after President Kennedy’s
1962 Executive Order, which extended collective bargaining rights to federal
workers. The expansion of state and municipal workers’ collective bargaining rights followed. Although public sector unions currently represent the
majority of union members, their numbers may drop as several states have
begun to withdraw public workers’ collective bargaining rights.
The mainstream labor federation [American Federation of Labor–Congress
of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); formed through a merger of the two
federations in 1955] failed to respond to declining membership for many
years. However, in 1995 its members elected a leadership team that stressed
dramatically increased funding and more dynamic strategies for union organizing. They developed a more vibrant Organizing Institute and innovative
programs (such as Union Summer). Those leaders and unions within the
AFL-CIO who judged its actions insufficient broke with the federation in 2005
to form a new federation called Change to Win.
During the past lean times, the American Federation of Labor (AFL) used
a variety of strategies to bring workers into their unions. While national
unions, each with a unique jurisdiction, have been the main actors, the
AFL also organized federal labor unions, which “allowed for a wide range
of representational strategies and facilitated the organizing of marginal
sectors of the workforce” (Cobble, 1997, p. 278). Likewise, the Congress of
Industrial Organizations (CIO) organized directly affiliated local unions
to build membership in given industries before granting union charters.
However, the main spurt of union growth during mid-century came with
the CIO challenge to the AFL, and the excitement and energy it fostered.
Instead of focusing on skilled craft workers like the AFL, the CIO sought to
organize all workers, regardless of skill, race, creed, or gender.
Outside of the mainstream federations, there exists an increasing number
of “independent” unions. Whereas in the early years of the previous century,
US Union and Workers’ Movements, Past and Future
3
federated unions constituted the majority of all national unions, now independents are about as numerous. There is also a large and uncounted number
of local independent unions. Moreover, the number of independent union
members has also grown as a share of all union members (Stepan-Norris
& Southworth, 2010). These unions, all of which engage in collective bargaining, oftentimes have different agendas and different legacies than unions
belonging to the dominant federation. In the 1930s and 1940s, they played an
important role in founding new CIO unions (Stepan-Norris & Zeitlin, 2003).
When the terrain for union organizing is limited and union activity is
subdued due to unfavorable economic, political, and organizational conditions, organizations outside of the union federations tend to take on some
of the tasks otherwise satisfied by labor unions. During the past century,
labor schools (e.g., the Highlander School), foreign language federations,
Unemployed Councils, religious groups (e.g., Association of Catholic Trade
Unionists, Catholic Workers), and political groups (e.g., Socialists, Communists) were all active in organizing workers, building worker solidarity,
and developing leaders. Such organizations played important roles in the
creation of several industrial union federations, including the American
Labor Union, the Industrial Workers of the World, the Trade Union Unity
League, and the CIO, and in numerous national and international unions.
The contemporary set of organizations that supports unions and workers
is very different (Sullivan, 2010). While US unions organize bargaining units
and negotiate collective bargaining agreements with employers (Freeman &
Medoff, 1984), community-based labor groups represent workers on a number of other fronts. They work on economic justice issues and represent the
working poor in their struggles. Since the 1990s, the United States has seen
an explosion of both living wage campaigns and worker centers. These alternate paths for worker representation bring new tactics, new activists, and
new links to labor struggles and may yet contribute to the future of labor
movements in the United States.
COMMUNITY LABOR ORGANIZING AND ACORN
Over the last half century, community-based labor organizing has emerged
in the margins of the mainstream union labor movement. Composed of
independent social justice and community organizations, community-based
labor organizations display a wide variety of goals, orientations, and
structures, yet they share several key traits. They organize low-wage and
no-wage workers, often in the contingent and nonproduction labor force, at
the community level rather than at specific workplaces, industries, or trades.
Importantly, they place issues of race and gender centrally in worker struggles situated in a local politics that goes beyond the workplace to include
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
issues of jobs, welfare, education, and housing. While historically unions
have been centered on workplace organizing community, organizations
have focused on “local work reproduction” (DeFilippis, Fisher, & Shragge,
2009). Community-based labor organizing has emerged to bridge the gap
between unions and community organizations. Poor workers’ unions fight
for economic justice on multiple fronts utilizing a variety of organizational
structures and tactics, particularly direct action. Community organizations
in this vein include Association of Community Organizations for Reform
Now (ACORN), the National Labor Federation (and its controversial member organization, the Western Service Workers Association), the Movement
for Economic Justice, the Industrial Areas Foundation, and countless locally
based organizations such as Action Now in Chicago and Community Labor
United in Boston.
Perhaps no organization has been as successful or visible in organizing
for economic and community issues as ACORN (Atlas, 2010a; Fisher, 2009;
Tait, 2005). Comprised of low to moderate income families working for
social justice and strong communities, ACORN has won major victories in
working conditions, healthcare, housing, schools, and neighborhood safety.
Born of the national Welfare Rights Organization in Little Rock, AR in 1970,
ACORN focused on the economic issues of poor communities from the start.
ACORN’s founder, Wade Rathke, drew on Saul Alinsky’s teachings and
labor history to create a stable, democratic membership-centered organization with a professional staff (Atlas, 2010a; Rathke, 2009). The 1970s saw
the success of this model in Arkansas as the organization won victories for
working class families that included protections from unsafe pollution and
unfair employment practices, more equitable distribution of tax revenue,
and the distribution of support services (Atlas, 2010a; Rathke, 2009). By 1975,
ACORN began to expand outside of Arkansas as part of its 20/80 program
to expand to 20 states in just 5 years (Rathke, 2009). In 1978, a coalition
of ACORN, the Movement for Economic Justice and Massachusetts Fair
Share, launched a movement in seven US cities to create pressure for “better
jobs, higher wages, and working rights” (Tait, 2005, p. 101). The campaign
focused on young unemployed workers, Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act (CETA) employees, and domestic workers. Victories in Boston,
Philadelphia, Denver, and New Orleans included thousands of new jobs
for teens and young workers, extensions for CETA employees amounting
to more than a million dollars in wages and enforcement and back pay for
domestic workers (Tait, 2005). From these victories, ACORN created a sister
organization: United Labor Unions (ULU), which went on to influence labor
revitalization tactics.
Following in the footsteps of CORE’s United Freedom Movement and Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee’s (SNCC) Freedom Unions, the
US Union and Workers’ Movements, Past and Future
5
ULU organized workers and communities facing racial and class oppression.
With a focus on reducing workplace exploitation, they also organized against
discriminatory hiring and treatment. Although the ULU organized around
bargaining and workplace issues, they differed from traditional unions in
several important ways, particularly who and how it organized. The ULU did
not organize a single industry, occupation, or trade. Between 1978 and 1984,
it organized fast food workers in Detroit, domestic and hospitality workers
in New Orleans, sweatshop workers in Philadelphia, and home health care
workers in Boston and Chicago (Tait, 2005). All of these workers worked
marginal (if not invisible) and highly dispersed low-wage jobs. ULU did
not focus on National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) representation as central to its organizing strategy (but did win several NLRB elections), instead
it focused on community support and coalitions, recognition actions, and
other direct action that stressed member involvement and decision-making
to win contracts and concessions from employers (Atlas, 2010a; Tait, 2005).
Its organizing success in Boston and Chicago and its collective bargaining
contracts on behalf of thousands of home healthcare workers attracted the
SEIU’s attention. The SEIU had begun similar campaigns, and in 1984, the
two organizations became affiliated. Several ULU organizers rose to prominence and ULU played a significant role in SEIU’s rebirth (Atlas, 2010a; Tait,
2005). Two years later, utilizing many of the ULU’s tactics, the SEIU began its
famous Justice for Janitors campaign.
ACORN’s organizing network also played a crucial role and was often
the driving force in successful living wage campaigns in over 20 US cities
between 1995 and 2008 (Atlas, 2010a; Luce, 2009; see more about living
wage campaigns below). As ACORN continued to win victories for poor
communities and workers (especially for voting rights), conservative opposition grew. In 2009, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles disguised as a pimp
and prostitute secretly videotaped themselves requesting and receiving
financial advice from ACORN employees in Baltimore regarding opening a
brothel. On September 10, Glenn Beck aired a heavily edited version of the
tape that quickly drew national attention. The organization came under fire
from media outlets, conservative commentators, and politicians. It lost the
support of its Democratic allies and eventually most of its external funding
(Atlas, 2010a). In 2010, several state divisions separated from the national
organization and ACORN filed for bankruptcy and ultimately dissolved
(Atlas, 2010b; Rathke, 2010). Although the national organization no longer
exists, ACORN’s legacy of bridging the gap between community and labor
organizing with innovative strategies in marginal communities continues to
influence the labor movement today.
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
WORKER CENTERS
Worker centers are another important way of bridging community and
labor organizing to fight for the economic well-being of workers on the
margins of the US economy. Like other community labor organizations,
worker centers organize (primarily metropolitan) communities, particularly
immigrant communities, not specific industries or occupations (Fine, 2006).
Janice Fine (2006, p. 11) describes worker centers as “mediating institutions
that provide support to and organize among communities of low-wage
workers.” Worker centers describe a variety of organizations that display
a wide variance in structure, goals, and strategies but nevertheless share
several key attributes, particularly combining service provision, advocacy,
and organizing in a democratic, place-based organization with strong racial
or ethnic identification. Worker centers have emerged in the past 20 years as
one attempt to fill the gap left by union decline to provide means to alleviate
or escape the poverty experienced by millions of immigrants and people of
color in America (Fine, 2006; Milkman, 2010).
Since the 1970s immigration to the United States has been steadily increasing, while unionization has been steadily declining (Lichtenstein, 2002;
Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). Large portions of these immigrants particularly
from Mexico, Latin America, and parts of Asia have been relegated to
menial, low-paid work with little legal protection due to low human capital,
discriminatory labor market practices, and citizenship status (Milkman,
2006). While unions at times have attempted and succeeded at fighting for
these workers, their declining position, historical legacy, and inability to
represent this kind of work has left them ill-equipped to take on these new
challenges (Fine, 2006; Sullivan, 2010). It should be of no surprise then that
the number of worker centers has increased most dramatically over this
time. As of 2006, there were 137 worker centers in the United States, up from
only 5 in 1992 (Fine, 2006).
Worker centers have become a model for addressing the needs of immigrant workers and their communities. They tend to be founded after
“catalyzing events” expose the inadequacy of existing organizations’ ability
to deal with the holistic problems facing immigrant workers. When existing
programs and strategies do not work, organizations often turn to the worker
center model (Fine, 2006; Ghandnoosh, 2010). Thus, worker centers have
their origins in a diverse range of parent organizations: 22% originate from
faith-based organizations, 23% from ethnic organizations, and 23% from
unions and union organizing drives (both successful and unsuccessful)
(Fine, 2006).
Once these organizations take shape, they primarily operate through
three main activities: advocacy, service provision, and organizing (Fine,
US Union and Workers’ Movements, Past and Future
7
2006). Worker centers provide services from English as Second Language
classes to check cashing and serve as important resources for employment
often offering legal assistance and workshops and distributing legal educational materials. Centers both advocate for and empower immigrant
workers to advocate for themselves in the public and legal spheres, and
they provide the tools for these workers to offer a collective voice in public
debate. They enable workers to reframe issues with reference to their own
experiences and to influence policy (Fine, 2006; Ghandnoosh, 2010; Patler,
2010). Their greatest victories have been in organizing workers to come
together with the support of their communities to stand up for themselves
at work. Like other community-based labor organizations, worker centers do not often organize around NLRB recognition, but organize in the
community (utilizing a variety of direct action, coalitional, media, and
legal strategies) to create pressure on employers and governments to raise
wages and improve conditions at work (Fine, 2006; Milkman, Bloom, &
Narro, 2010). However, the bulk of their successes in “broad labor market
intervention” has come from public policy, as opposed to conventional
pressure on firms and industries (Fine, 2006, p. 266). They have clearly not
replaced the need for unionization in these sectors, but unions have had
very little success with marginal, low-wage, dispersed, and nonpublicly
supported work.
LIVING WAGE COALITIONS AND LAWS
In the context of intense employer antagonism toward unions and more
pro-business federal and state government policies, community organizations and labor unions formed coalitions to work toward living wage laws in
local communities where progressive forces had a stronger foothold. When
successful, living wage laws increase the minimum wage for groups of
local workers in particular communities who work for companies receiving
contracts or subsidies from local governments. This strategy of small-scale
initiatives (with a mean of 2100 workers covered per agreement) may be
seen as both an asset (they do not attract opposition) and a limitation
(multiple campaigns are required to accomplish improved wages for a
limited number of workers) (Tilly, 2005). The AFL-CIO allotted resources
and staff to the living wage campaign, while ACORN took the lead by
establishing the Wage Resource Center (in 1998), producing a resource
guide, and disseminating information. As of July 2011, 140 living wage laws
existed in 125 municipalities.
Scholars agree that living wage laws increase low-wage workers incomes,
including those of some workers not covered by the agreements (Brenner,
Wicks-Lim, & Pollin, 2002; Neumark, 2002). Yet, Adams and Neumark (2005)
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
emphasize the “negative employment effects” such laws have on low-wage
workers, which in their view creates a trade-off between higher wages and
fewer jobs.
CONCLUSION
The current predicament of labor unions and the development of alternative
labor organizations and tactics raises a number of important questions
about the future. Will union representation continue to decline? Will community labor organizations, worker centers, and/or living wage coalitions
continue to fill some of the gaps left behind by shrinking unions? And
will the major labor federations take a lesson from these alternatives and
incorporate their organizational forms, strategies, or tactics into their own
organizations? The AFL-CIO has taken several major steps to integrate
some of these alternatives and likely will continue to do so. In 2003, the
AFL-CIO launched Working America, a community-based membership
organization comprised of nonunion workers, which connects members
to the labor federation. Similar to ACORN, Working America works on
both important workplace and community issues, focusing on workplace
rights, health care, unemployment and minimum wage, education, and
corporate accountability. In 2006, the AFL-CIO began to formally partner
with labor centers, by authorizing worker centers to formally affiliate
with Working America, state labor federations, and local labor counsels
(AFL-CIO, 2013a). At the 2013 AFL-CIO convention, the federation further
committed to moving beyond traditional collective bargaining by passing
the “Broad, Inclusive, and Effective Labor Movement” resolution. The
resolution seeks to include nonunion workers, immigrants, and students
in the labor movement through innovative and experimental forms of
membership and representation, expanding Working America, deepening
its connection and support of worker centers, and working more closely
with students (AFL-CIO, 2013b).
What is in the labor movement’s future? With the current combination of
strong employer opposition and considerable state government limitations
on unions and an unfavorable legal climate, labor unions are severely
constrained. In the gaps left by their defeats, alternative community-based
organizations and coalitions have addressed some important but neglected
issues and have won some victories for low-wage workers. Yet, the major
organization (namely, ACORN) responsible for many of these victories itself
drew enough negative attention to seriously limit its effectiveness. At the
same time, we know from history that the labor movement is cyclical: who
would have predicted the dramatic resurgence of the 1930s and 1940s after
the devastating 1920s drained unions of many of their members? That history
US Union and Workers’ Movements, Past and Future
9
lesson gives us hope that given the dedicated organizers, the appropriate
conditions, and the supporting organizations, the labor movement will rise
again.
REFERENCES
Adams, S. & Neumark, D. (2005). The effects of living wage laws evidence from failed
and derailed living wage campaigns. National Bureau of Economic Research
Working Paper 11342.
AFL-CIO (2013a). “Worker center partnerships.” http://www.aflcio.org/About/
Worker-Center-Partnerships
AFL-CIO (2013b). “Resolution 5: A broad, inclusive and effective labor movement.”
http://www.aflcio.org/About/Exec-Council/Conventions/2013/Resolutionsand-Amendments/Resolution-5-A-Broad-Inclusive-and-Effective-LaborMovement
Atlas, J. (2010a). Seeds of change: The story of acorn, America’s most controversial
antipoverty community organizing group. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt UP.
Atlas, J. (2010b). ACORN closes its last door, filing for bankruptcy. The Huffington
Post. doi:TheHuffingtonPost.com, 03 Nov. Web
Brenner, M., Wicks-Lim, J., & Pollin, R. (2002). Measuring the impact of living
wage laws: A critical appraisal of David Neumark’s how living wage laws affect
low-wage workers and low-income families. Political Economy Research Institute
Working Paper number 43, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Cobble, D. (1997). Lost ways of organizing: Reviving the AFL’s direct strategy. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 36(3), 278–301.
DeFilippis, J., Fisher, R., & Shragge, E. (2009). Conservative trends, oppositional alternatives. In R. Fisher (Ed.), The people shall rule: ACORN, community
organizing, and the struggle for economic justice (pp. 112–130). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt UP.
Fine, J. (2006). Worker centers: Organizing communities at the edge of the dream. Ithaca,
NY: ILR/Cornell UP.
Fisher, R. (2009). The people shall rule: ACORN, community organizing, and the struggle
for economic justice. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt UP.
Freeman, R., & Medoff, J. (1984). What do unions do? New York, NY: Basic Books.
Ghandnoosh, N. (2010). Organizing workers along ethnic lines: The Pilipino Workers’ Center. In R. Milkman, J. Bloom & V. Narro (Eds.), Working for justice: The L.A.
model of organizing and advocacy (pp. 49–70). Ithaca, NY: ILR/Cornell UP.
Hirsch, B. & MacPherson, D. (2013). Union membership and coverage database from
the CPS. doi:www.Unionstats.com
Lichtenstein, N. (2002). State of the union: A century of American labor. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton UP.
Luce, S. (2009). ACORN and the living wage movement. In R. Fisher (Ed.), The people
shall rule: ACORN, community organizing, and the struggle for economic justice (pp.
131–152). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt UP.
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Milkman, R. (2006). L.A. story: Immigrant workers and the future of the U.S. labor movement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Milkman, R. (2010). Introduction. In R. Milkman, J. Bloom & V. Narro (Eds.), Working for justice: The L.A. model of organizing and advocacy (pp. 1–22). Ithaca, NY:
ILR/Cornell UP.
Milkman, R., Bloom, J., & Narro, V. (Eds.) (2010). Working for justice: The L.A. model of
organizing and advocacy. Ithaca, NY: ILR/Cornell UP.
Neumark, D. (2002). How living wage laws affect low wage workers and low-income
families. Public Policy Institute of California Report #156.
Patler, C. (2010). Alliance-building and organizing for immigrant rights: The case of
the coalition for humane immigrant rights of Los Angeles. In R. Milkman, J. Bloom
& V. Narro (Eds.), Working for justice: The L.A. model of organizing and advocacy (pp.
71–88). Ithaca, NY: ILR/Cornell UP.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2006). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Rathke, W. (2009). Understanding ACORN: Sweat and Social Change. In R. Fisher
(Ed.), The people shall rule: ACORN, community organizing, and the struggle for economic justice (pp. 40–62). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt UP.
Rathke, W. (2010). ACORN’s bankruptcy: Not debts, cash flow. Wade Rathke Chief
Organizer Blog. N.p., 08 Nov.
Stepan-Norris, J., & Southworth, C. (2010). Rival unionism and membership growth
in the United States, 1900 to 2005: A special case of inter-organizational competition. American Sociological Review, 75, 227–251.
Stepan-Norris, J., & Zeitlin, M. (2003). Left out: Reds and America’s industrial unions.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sullivan, R. (2010). Organizing workers in the space between unions: Union-centric
labor revitalization and the role of community-based organizations. Critical Sociology, 36, 793–819.
Tait, V. (2005). Poor workers’ unions: Rebuilding labor from below. Cambridge, MA: South
End.
Tilly, C. (2005). Living wage laws in the United States: The dynamics of a growing
movement. In M. Kousis & C. Tilly (Eds.), Threats and opportunities in contentious
politics (pp. 143–157). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Troy, L., & Sheflin, N. (1985). U.S. union sourcebook. West Orange, NJ: Industrial Relations Data and Information Systems.
DANIEL SCHNEIDER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Daniel Schneider is a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology at
the University of California, Irvine. He earned his BA in Sociology at UC
Santa Barbara. His research focuses on work, unions, labor movements,
and the intersections of race, gender, and immigration in the labor market. He is currently working on projects interrogating the possibilities of
US Union and Workers’ Movements, Past and Future
11
professionalization for women’s occupations and racialized differences in
political participation.
JUDITH STEPAN-NORRIS SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Judith Stepan-Norris (http://www.sociology.uci.edu/socio_bios/jstepann)
is a Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Irvine, a Past
Chair of Political Sociology Section of the American Sociological Association (ASA), and a member of the American Sociological Review Editorial
Board. She currently serves as Social Science Equity Advisor for the UCI
ADVANCE program and is chair of the UC-wide scholarly advisory committee for the ADVANCE PAID program. Her research centers on class
movements; it has a predominant focus on the US labor movement (union
structure, leadership, democracy, and union members) along with some
recent research on the Los Angeles renters’ movement (with Ben Lind). Her
historical work focuses on American unions affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations (Left Out: Reds and America’s Industrial Unions,
with Maurice Zeitlin) and on the organization of the United Automobile
Workers Union at Ford’s River Rouge plant (Talking Union, with Maurice
Zeitlin). Other research analyzes unions’ and churches’ impact on their
neighborhoods, the AFL-CIO’s Union Summer program (with Leslie Bunnage), workplace networks, rival unionism, and the 1894 bituminous coal
strike (with Ben Lind). With Caleb Southworth and Jasmine Kerrissey, she
is working on a book to synthesize and analyze the data they collected
through an NSF funded project on unions throughout the entire twentieth
century.
RELATED ESSAY
Rent, Rent-Seeking, and Social Inequality (Sociology), Beth Red Bird and
David B. Grusky
Globalization: Consequences for Work and Employment in Advanced
Capitalist Societies (Sociology), Tony Elger
Labor Market Instability, Labor Market Entry and Early Career Development
(Sociology), Michael Gebel
The Reorganization of Work (Sociology), Charles Heckscher
Technology Diffusion (Economics), Adam B. Jaffe
Maternal and Paternal Employment across the Life Course (Sociology),
Michaela Kreyenfeld
Transformation of the Employment Relationship (Sociology), Arne L. Kalleberg and Peter V. Marsden
How Do Labor Market Networks Work? (Sociology), Brian Rubineau and
Roberto M. Fernandez
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
Impact of Limited Education on Employment Prospects in Advanced
Economies (Sociology), Heike Solga
Transnational Work Careers (Sociology), Roland Verwiebe
-
US Union and Workers’ Movements,
Past and Future
DANIEL SCHNEIDER and JUDITH STEPAN-NORRIS
Abstract
The last half century of US labor movement history is characterized by dramatic
decline in both density and (since 1979) real numbers. While unions and union federations in the mainstream union movement have attempted to adjust, developments
outside their sphere have been especially prominent: the rise of independent unions
and the initiation of alternative forms of workers movements. With union decline,
community labor organizations [typified by Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)], worker centers, and living wage campaigns have
risen to fill the void. These alternate paths for worker representation, like other
forms developed in the past, bring new tactics, new activists, and new links to labor
struggles and may yet contribute to the future of labor movements in the United
States.
INTRODUCTION: US LABOR UNIONS IN DECLINE
The fortunes of US labor unions have ebbed and flowed since their inception. Over the last century, various unions and union federations have been
founded, grown, stagnated, and declined. Some eventually disappeared
(merged or collapsed) while others experienced reinvigoration, resurgence, and growth. Yet, the current period is characterized by a persistent
decline that represents the institutionalized movement’s most long-standing
retrenchment. During its peak years in the early 1950s, there were just under
250 national and international US unions, whereas in 2005 that number
dropped to approximately 125. Correspondingly, union members have
declined in real numbers (even as the labor force has grown) since 1979
(Hirsch & MacPherson, 2013) and union density has declined since 1953
(Troy & Sheflin, 1985).
There are many factors that explain union decline, most prominently labor
legislation, economic and political change, and organizational factors. The
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Wagner Act (1935) directly benefited private sector unions by signaling that
workers had the right to organize and by establishing a set of unfair practices
on the part of firms. The Taft-Hartley Act (1947) made union organizing
and maintenance more difficult, with its elaboration of unfair practices
performed by unions, its anti-Communist affidavit, and its prohibition
of wildcat and political strikes, secondary boycotts, and closed shops. In
addition, it enabled the passage of Right-to-Work legislation (now in 24
states), which further deters union organizing and maintenance. In general,
situations where employer opposition is high, the political environment is
conservative, there are no rival federations, unemployment is high, and core
employment is low are least favorable for union growth.
While private sector unionism dominated in the early part of the twentieth century, public sector unionism began to grow after President Kennedy’s
1962 Executive Order, which extended collective bargaining rights to federal
workers. The expansion of state and municipal workers’ collective bargaining rights followed. Although public sector unions currently represent the
majority of union members, their numbers may drop as several states have
begun to withdraw public workers’ collective bargaining rights.
The mainstream labor federation [American Federation of Labor–Congress
of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); formed through a merger of the two
federations in 1955] failed to respond to declining membership for many
years. However, in 1995 its members elected a leadership team that stressed
dramatically increased funding and more dynamic strategies for union organizing. They developed a more vibrant Organizing Institute and innovative
programs (such as Union Summer). Those leaders and unions within the
AFL-CIO who judged its actions insufficient broke with the federation in 2005
to form a new federation called Change to Win.
During the past lean times, the American Federation of Labor (AFL) used
a variety of strategies to bring workers into their unions. While national
unions, each with a unique jurisdiction, have been the main actors, the
AFL also organized federal labor unions, which “allowed for a wide range
of representational strategies and facilitated the organizing of marginal
sectors of the workforce” (Cobble, 1997, p. 278). Likewise, the Congress of
Industrial Organizations (CIO) organized directly affiliated local unions
to build membership in given industries before granting union charters.
However, the main spurt of union growth during mid-century came with
the CIO challenge to the AFL, and the excitement and energy it fostered.
Instead of focusing on skilled craft workers like the AFL, the CIO sought to
organize all workers, regardless of skill, race, creed, or gender.
Outside of the mainstream federations, there exists an increasing number
of “independent” unions. Whereas in the early years of the previous century,
US Union and Workers’ Movements, Past and Future
3
federated unions constituted the majority of all national unions, now independents are about as numerous. There is also a large and uncounted number
of local independent unions. Moreover, the number of independent union
members has also grown as a share of all union members (Stepan-Norris
& Southworth, 2010). These unions, all of which engage in collective bargaining, oftentimes have different agendas and different legacies than unions
belonging to the dominant federation. In the 1930s and 1940s, they played an
important role in founding new CIO unions (Stepan-Norris & Zeitlin, 2003).
When the terrain for union organizing is limited and union activity is
subdued due to unfavorable economic, political, and organizational conditions, organizations outside of the union federations tend to take on some
of the tasks otherwise satisfied by labor unions. During the past century,
labor schools (e.g., the Highlander School), foreign language federations,
Unemployed Councils, religious groups (e.g., Association of Catholic Trade
Unionists, Catholic Workers), and political groups (e.g., Socialists, Communists) were all active in organizing workers, building worker solidarity,
and developing leaders. Such organizations played important roles in the
creation of several industrial union federations, including the American
Labor Union, the Industrial Workers of the World, the Trade Union Unity
League, and the CIO, and in numerous national and international unions.
The contemporary set of organizations that supports unions and workers
is very different (Sullivan, 2010). While US unions organize bargaining units
and negotiate collective bargaining agreements with employers (Freeman &
Medoff, 1984), community-based labor groups represent workers on a number of other fronts. They work on economic justice issues and represent the
working poor in their struggles. Since the 1990s, the United States has seen
an explosion of both living wage campaigns and worker centers. These alternate paths for worker representation bring new tactics, new activists, and
new links to labor struggles and may yet contribute to the future of labor
movements in the United States.
COMMUNITY LABOR ORGANIZING AND ACORN
Over the last half century, community-based labor organizing has emerged
in the margins of the mainstream union labor movement. Composed of
independent social justice and community organizations, community-based
labor organizations display a wide variety of goals, orientations, and
structures, yet they share several key traits. They organize low-wage and
no-wage workers, often in the contingent and nonproduction labor force, at
the community level rather than at specific workplaces, industries, or trades.
Importantly, they place issues of race and gender centrally in worker struggles situated in a local politics that goes beyond the workplace to include
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
issues of jobs, welfare, education, and housing. While historically unions
have been centered on workplace organizing community, organizations
have focused on “local work reproduction” (DeFilippis, Fisher, & Shragge,
2009). Community-based labor organizing has emerged to bridge the gap
between unions and community organizations. Poor workers’ unions fight
for economic justice on multiple fronts utilizing a variety of organizational
structures and tactics, particularly direct action. Community organizations
in this vein include Association of Community Organizations for Reform
Now (ACORN), the National Labor Federation (and its controversial member organization, the Western Service Workers Association), the Movement
for Economic Justice, the Industrial Areas Foundation, and countless locally
based organizations such as Action Now in Chicago and Community Labor
United in Boston.
Perhaps no organization has been as successful or visible in organizing
for economic and community issues as ACORN (Atlas, 2010a; Fisher, 2009;
Tait, 2005). Comprised of low to moderate income families working for
social justice and strong communities, ACORN has won major victories in
working conditions, healthcare, housing, schools, and neighborhood safety.
Born of the national Welfare Rights Organization in Little Rock, AR in 1970,
ACORN focused on the economic issues of poor communities from the start.
ACORN’s founder, Wade Rathke, drew on Saul Alinsky’s teachings and
labor history to create a stable, democratic membership-centered organization with a professional staff (Atlas, 2010a; Rathke, 2009). The 1970s saw
the success of this model in Arkansas as the organization won victories for
working class families that included protections from unsafe pollution and
unfair employment practices, more equitable distribution of tax revenue,
and the distribution of support services (Atlas, 2010a; Rathke, 2009). By 1975,
ACORN began to expand outside of Arkansas as part of its 20/80 program
to expand to 20 states in just 5 years (Rathke, 2009). In 1978, a coalition
of ACORN, the Movement for Economic Justice and Massachusetts Fair
Share, launched a movement in seven US cities to create pressure for “better
jobs, higher wages, and working rights” (Tait, 2005, p. 101). The campaign
focused on young unemployed workers, Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act (CETA) employees, and domestic workers. Victories in Boston,
Philadelphia, Denver, and New Orleans included thousands of new jobs
for teens and young workers, extensions for CETA employees amounting
to more than a million dollars in wages and enforcement and back pay for
domestic workers (Tait, 2005). From these victories, ACORN created a sister
organization: United Labor Unions (ULU), which went on to influence labor
revitalization tactics.
Following in the footsteps of CORE’s United Freedom Movement and Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee’s (SNCC) Freedom Unions, the
US Union and Workers’ Movements, Past and Future
5
ULU organized workers and communities facing racial and class oppression.
With a focus on reducing workplace exploitation, they also organized against
discriminatory hiring and treatment. Although the ULU organized around
bargaining and workplace issues, they differed from traditional unions in
several important ways, particularly who and how it organized. The ULU did
not organize a single industry, occupation, or trade. Between 1978 and 1984,
it organized fast food workers in Detroit, domestic and hospitality workers
in New Orleans, sweatshop workers in Philadelphia, and home health care
workers in Boston and Chicago (Tait, 2005). All of these workers worked
marginal (if not invisible) and highly dispersed low-wage jobs. ULU did
not focus on National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) representation as central to its organizing strategy (but did win several NLRB elections), instead
it focused on community support and coalitions, recognition actions, and
other direct action that stressed member involvement and decision-making
to win contracts and concessions from employers (Atlas, 2010a; Tait, 2005).
Its organizing success in Boston and Chicago and its collective bargaining
contracts on behalf of thousands of home healthcare workers attracted the
SEIU’s attention. The SEIU had begun similar campaigns, and in 1984, the
two organizations became affiliated. Several ULU organizers rose to prominence and ULU played a significant role in SEIU’s rebirth (Atlas, 2010a; Tait,
2005). Two years later, utilizing many of the ULU’s tactics, the SEIU began its
famous Justice for Janitors campaign.
ACORN’s organizing network also played a crucial role and was often
the driving force in successful living wage campaigns in over 20 US cities
between 1995 and 2008 (Atlas, 2010a; Luce, 2009; see more about living
wage campaigns below). As ACORN continued to win victories for poor
communities and workers (especially for voting rights), conservative opposition grew. In 2009, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles disguised as a pimp
and prostitute secretly videotaped themselves requesting and receiving
financial advice from ACORN employees in Baltimore regarding opening a
brothel. On September 10, Glenn Beck aired a heavily edited version of the
tape that quickly drew national attention. The organization came under fire
from media outlets, conservative commentators, and politicians. It lost the
support of its Democratic allies and eventually most of its external funding
(Atlas, 2010a). In 2010, several state divisions separated from the national
organization and ACORN filed for bankruptcy and ultimately dissolved
(Atlas, 2010b; Rathke, 2010). Although the national organization no longer
exists, ACORN’s legacy of bridging the gap between community and labor
organizing with innovative strategies in marginal communities continues to
influence the labor movement today.
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
WORKER CENTERS
Worker centers are another important way of bridging community and
labor organizing to fight for the economic well-being of workers on the
margins of the US economy. Like other community labor organizations,
worker centers organize (primarily metropolitan) communities, particularly
immigrant communities, not specific industries or occupations (Fine, 2006).
Janice Fine (2006, p. 11) describes worker centers as “mediating institutions
that provide support to and organize among communities of low-wage
workers.” Worker centers describe a variety of organizations that display
a wide variance in structure, goals, and strategies but nevertheless share
several key attributes, particularly combining service provision, advocacy,
and organizing in a democratic, place-based organization with strong racial
or ethnic identification. Worker centers have emerged in the past 20 years as
one attempt to fill the gap left by union decline to provide means to alleviate
or escape the poverty experienced by millions of immigrants and people of
color in America (Fine, 2006; Milkman, 2010).
Since the 1970s immigration to the United States has been steadily increasing, while unionization has been steadily declining (Lichtenstein, 2002;
Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). Large portions of these immigrants particularly
from Mexico, Latin America, and parts of Asia have been relegated to
menial, low-paid work with little legal protection due to low human capital,
discriminatory labor market practices, and citizenship status (Milkman,
2006). While unions at times have attempted and succeeded at fighting for
these workers, their declining position, historical legacy, and inability to
represent this kind of work has left them ill-equipped to take on these new
challenges (Fine, 2006; Sullivan, 2010). It should be of no surprise then that
the number of worker centers has increased most dramatically over this
time. As of 2006, there were 137 worker centers in the United States, up from
only 5 in 1992 (Fine, 2006).
Worker centers have become a model for addressing the needs of immigrant workers and their communities. They tend to be founded after
“catalyzing events” expose the inadequacy of existing organizations’ ability
to deal with the holistic problems facing immigrant workers. When existing
programs and strategies do not work, organizations often turn to the worker
center model (Fine, 2006; Ghandnoosh, 2010). Thus, worker centers have
their origins in a diverse range of parent organizations: 22% originate from
faith-based organizations, 23% from ethnic organizations, and 23% from
unions and union organizing drives (both successful and unsuccessful)
(Fine, 2006).
Once these organizations take shape, they primarily operate through
three main activities: advocacy, service provision, and organizing (Fine,
US Union and Workers’ Movements, Past and Future
7
2006). Worker centers provide services from English as Second Language
classes to check cashing and serve as important resources for employment
often offering legal assistance and workshops and distributing legal educational materials. Centers both advocate for and empower immigrant
workers to advocate for themselves in the public and legal spheres, and
they provide the tools for these workers to offer a collective voice in public
debate. They enable workers to reframe issues with reference to their own
experiences and to influence policy (Fine, 2006; Ghandnoosh, 2010; Patler,
2010). Their greatest victories have been in organizing workers to come
together with the support of their communities to stand up for themselves
at work. Like other community-based labor organizations, worker centers do not often organize around NLRB recognition, but organize in the
community (utilizing a variety of direct action, coalitional, media, and
legal strategies) to create pressure on employers and governments to raise
wages and improve conditions at work (Fine, 2006; Milkman, Bloom, &
Narro, 2010). However, the bulk of their successes in “broad labor market
intervention” has come from public policy, as opposed to conventional
pressure on firms and industries (Fine, 2006, p. 266). They have clearly not
replaced the need for unionization in these sectors, but unions have had
very little success with marginal, low-wage, dispersed, and nonpublicly
supported work.
LIVING WAGE COALITIONS AND LAWS
In the context of intense employer antagonism toward unions and more
pro-business federal and state government policies, community organizations and labor unions formed coalitions to work toward living wage laws in
local communities where progressive forces had a stronger foothold. When
successful, living wage laws increase the minimum wage for groups of
local workers in particular communities who work for companies receiving
contracts or subsidies from local governments. This strategy of small-scale
initiatives (with a mean of 2100 workers covered per agreement) may be
seen as both an asset (they do not attract opposition) and a limitation
(multiple campaigns are required to accomplish improved wages for a
limited number of workers) (Tilly, 2005). The AFL-CIO allotted resources
and staff to the living wage campaign, while ACORN took the lead by
establishing the Wage Resource Center (in 1998), producing a resource
guide, and disseminating information. As of July 2011, 140 living wage laws
existed in 125 municipalities.
Scholars agree that living wage laws increase low-wage workers incomes,
including those of some workers not covered by the agreements (Brenner,
Wicks-Lim, & Pollin, 2002; Neumark, 2002). Yet, Adams and Neumark (2005)
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
emphasize the “negative employment effects” such laws have on low-wage
workers, which in their view creates a trade-off between higher wages and
fewer jobs.
CONCLUSION
The current predicament of labor unions and the development of alternative
labor organizations and tactics raises a number of important questions
about the future. Will union representation continue to decline? Will community labor organizations, worker centers, and/or living wage coalitions
continue to fill some of the gaps left behind by shrinking unions? And
will the major labor federations take a lesson from these alternatives and
incorporate their organizational forms, strategies, or tactics into their own
organizations? The AFL-CIO has taken several major steps to integrate
some of these alternatives and likely will continue to do so. In 2003, the
AFL-CIO launched Working America, a community-based membership
organization comprised of nonunion workers, which connects members
to the labor federation. Similar to ACORN, Working America works on
both important workplace and community issues, focusing on workplace
rights, health care, unemployment and minimum wage, education, and
corporate accountability. In 2006, the AFL-CIO began to formally partner
with labor centers, by authorizing worker centers to formally affiliate
with Working America, state labor federations, and local labor counsels
(AFL-CIO, 2013a). At the 2013 AFL-CIO convention, the federation further
committed to moving beyond traditional collective bargaining by passing
the “Broad, Inclusive, and Effective Labor Movement” resolution. The
resolution seeks to include nonunion workers, immigrants, and students
in the labor movement through innovative and experimental forms of
membership and representation, expanding Working America, deepening
its connection and support of worker centers, and working more closely
with students (AFL-CIO, 2013b).
What is in the labor movement’s future? With the current combination of
strong employer opposition and considerable state government limitations
on unions and an unfavorable legal climate, labor unions are severely
constrained. In the gaps left by their defeats, alternative community-based
organizations and coalitions have addressed some important but neglected
issues and have won some victories for low-wage workers. Yet, the major
organization (namely, ACORN) responsible for many of these victories itself
drew enough negative attention to seriously limit its effectiveness. At the
same time, we know from history that the labor movement is cyclical: who
would have predicted the dramatic resurgence of the 1930s and 1940s after
the devastating 1920s drained unions of many of their members? That history
US Union and Workers’ Movements, Past and Future
9
lesson gives us hope that given the dedicated organizers, the appropriate
conditions, and the supporting organizations, the labor movement will rise
again.
REFERENCES
Adams, S. & Neumark, D. (2005). The effects of living wage laws evidence from failed
and derailed living wage campaigns. National Bureau of Economic Research
Working Paper 11342.
AFL-CIO (2013a). “Worker center partnerships.” http://www.aflcio.org/About/
Worker-Center-Partnerships
AFL-CIO (2013b). “Resolution 5: A broad, inclusive and effective labor movement.”
http://www.aflcio.org/About/Exec-Council/Conventions/2013/Resolutionsand-Amendments/Resolution-5-A-Broad-Inclusive-and-Effective-LaborMovement
Atlas, J. (2010a). Seeds of change: The story of acorn, America’s most controversial
antipoverty community organizing group. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt UP.
Atlas, J. (2010b). ACORN closes its last door, filing for bankruptcy. The Huffington
Post. doi:TheHuffingtonPost.com, 03 Nov. Web
Brenner, M., Wicks-Lim, J., & Pollin, R. (2002). Measuring the impact of living
wage laws: A critical appraisal of David Neumark’s how living wage laws affect
low-wage workers and low-income families. Political Economy Research Institute
Working Paper number 43, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Cobble, D. (1997). Lost ways of organizing: Reviving the AFL’s direct strategy. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 36(3), 278–301.
DeFilippis, J., Fisher, R., & Shragge, E. (2009). Conservative trends, oppositional alternatives. In R. Fisher (Ed.), The people shall rule: ACORN, community
organizing, and the struggle for economic justice (pp. 112–130). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt UP.
Fine, J. (2006). Worker centers: Organizing communities at the edge of the dream. Ithaca,
NY: ILR/Cornell UP.
Fisher, R. (2009). The people shall rule: ACORN, community organizing, and the struggle
for economic justice. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt UP.
Freeman, R., & Medoff, J. (1984). What do unions do? New York, NY: Basic Books.
Ghandnoosh, N. (2010). Organizing workers along ethnic lines: The Pilipino Workers’ Center. In R. Milkman, J. Bloom & V. Narro (Eds.), Working for justice: The L.A.
model of organizing and advocacy (pp. 49–70). Ithaca, NY: ILR/Cornell UP.
Hirsch, B. & MacPherson, D. (2013). Union membership and coverage database from
the CPS. doi:www.Unionstats.com
Lichtenstein, N. (2002). State of the union: A century of American labor. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton UP.
Luce, S. (2009). ACORN and the living wage movement. In R. Fisher (Ed.), The people
shall rule: ACORN, community organizing, and the struggle for economic justice (pp.
131–152). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt UP.
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Milkman, R. (2006). L.A. story: Immigrant workers and the future of the U.S. labor movement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Milkman, R. (2010). Introduction. In R. Milkman, J. Bloom & V. Narro (Eds.), Working for justice: The L.A. model of organizing and advocacy (pp. 1–22). Ithaca, NY:
ILR/Cornell UP.
Milkman, R., Bloom, J., & Narro, V. (Eds.) (2010). Working for justice: The L.A. model of
organizing and advocacy. Ithaca, NY: ILR/Cornell UP.
Neumark, D. (2002). How living wage laws affect low wage workers and low-income
families. Public Policy Institute of California Report #156.
Patler, C. (2010). Alliance-building and organizing for immigrant rights: The case of
the coalition for humane immigrant rights of Los Angeles. In R. Milkman, J. Bloom
& V. Narro (Eds.), Working for justice: The L.A. model of organizing and advocacy (pp.
71–88). Ithaca, NY: ILR/Cornell UP.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2006). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Rathke, W. (2009). Understanding ACORN: Sweat and Social Change. In R. Fisher
(Ed.), The people shall rule: ACORN, community organizing, and the struggle for economic justice (pp. 40–62). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt UP.
Rathke, W. (2010). ACORN’s bankruptcy: Not debts, cash flow. Wade Rathke Chief
Organizer Blog. N.p., 08 Nov.
Stepan-Norris, J., & Southworth, C. (2010). Rival unionism and membership growth
in the United States, 1900 to 2005: A special case of inter-organizational competition. American Sociological Review, 75, 227–251.
Stepan-Norris, J., & Zeitlin, M. (2003). Left out: Reds and America’s industrial unions.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sullivan, R. (2010). Organizing workers in the space between unions: Union-centric
labor revitalization and the role of community-based organizations. Critical Sociology, 36, 793–819.
Tait, V. (2005). Poor workers’ unions: Rebuilding labor from below. Cambridge, MA: South
End.
Tilly, C. (2005). Living wage laws in the United States: The dynamics of a growing
movement. In M. Kousis & C. Tilly (Eds.), Threats and opportunities in contentious
politics (pp. 143–157). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Troy, L., & Sheflin, N. (1985). U.S. union sourcebook. West Orange, NJ: Industrial Relations Data and Information Systems.
DANIEL SCHNEIDER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Daniel Schneider is a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology at
the University of California, Irvine. He earned his BA in Sociology at UC
Santa Barbara. His research focuses on work, unions, labor movements,
and the intersections of race, gender, and immigration in the labor market. He is currently working on projects interrogating the possibilities of
US Union and Workers’ Movements, Past and Future
11
professionalization for women’s occupations and racialized differences in
political participation.
JUDITH STEPAN-NORRIS SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Judith Stepan-Norris (http://www.sociology.uci.edu/socio_bios/jstepann)
is a Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Irvine, a Past
Chair of Political Sociology Section of the American Sociological Association (ASA), and a member of the American Sociological Review Editorial
Board. She currently serves as Social Science Equity Advisor for the UCI
ADVANCE program and is chair of the UC-wide scholarly advisory committee for the ADVANCE PAID program. Her research centers on class
movements; it has a predominant focus on the US labor movement (union
structure, leadership, democracy, and union members) along with some
recent research on the Los Angeles renters’ movement (with Ben Lind). Her
historical work focuses on American unions affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations (Left Out: Reds and America’s Industrial Unions,
with Maurice Zeitlin) and on the organization of the United Automobile
Workers Union at Ford’s River Rouge plant (Talking Union, with Maurice
Zeitlin). Other research analyzes unions’ and churches’ impact on their
neighborhoods, the AFL-CIO’s Union Summer program (with Leslie Bunnage), workplace networks, rival unionism, and the 1894 bituminous coal
strike (with Ben Lind). With Caleb Southworth and Jasmine Kerrissey, she
is working on a book to synthesize and analyze the data they collected
through an NSF funded project on unions throughout the entire twentieth
century.
RELATED ESSAY
Rent, Rent-Seeking, and Social Inequality (Sociology), Beth Red Bird and
David B. Grusky
Globalization: Consequences for Work and Employment in Advanced
Capitalist Societies (Sociology), Tony Elger
Labor Market Instability, Labor Market Entry and Early Career Development
(Sociology), Michael Gebel
The Reorganization of Work (Sociology), Charles Heckscher
Technology Diffusion (Economics), Adam B. Jaffe
Maternal and Paternal Employment across the Life Course (Sociology),
Michaela Kreyenfeld
Transformation of the Employment Relationship (Sociology), Arne L. Kalleberg and Peter V. Marsden
How Do Labor Market Networks Work? (Sociology), Brian Rubineau and
Roberto M. Fernandez
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
Impact of Limited Education on Employment Prospects in Advanced
Economies (Sociology), Heike Solga
Transnational Work Careers (Sociology), Roland Verwiebe