Abstract
We examine demand for union membership amongst young and adult workers in Britain, Canada, and the United States. Using a model of representation advanced by Farber (1983, 2001) and Riddell (1993), we find that a majority of the union density differential between young and adult workers in all three countries is due to supply-side constraints rather than a lower desire for unionization by the young. This finding lends credence to two conjectures: first, tastes for collective representation do not differ substantially among workers (either by nationality or by age) and second, union representation can be fruitfully modeled as an experience-good. The experience-good properties of union membership explain the persistence of union density differentials (in this case between youth and adults) in the face of equal levels of desired representation.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Booth, Alison. “The Free Rider Problem and a Social Custom Model of Trade Union Membership.”Quarterly Journal of Economics 100 (February 1985). 253–61.
Bronfenbrenner, Kate. “The Role of Union Strategies in NLRB Certification Elections.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review 50 (January 1997): 195–211.
Diamond, William and Richard Freeman. “Liking the Workplace You Have: The Incumbency Effect in Preferences Towards Unions.” Working Paper No. 1115, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics, 2001.
Farber, Henry. “The Determination of the Union Status of Workers.”Econometrica 51 (1983): 1417–38.
-. “Notes on the Economics of Labor Unions.” Working Paper No. 452, Industrial Relations Section, Princeton University, 2001.
— and Alan Krueger. “Union Membership in the United States: The Decline Continues.” In Bruce Kaufman and Morris Kleiner, eds.Employee Representation: Alternatives and Future Directions. Madison, Wisc: IRRA, 1993, pp. 70–79.
Gomez, Rafael and Morley Gunderson. “The Experience-Good Model of Union Membership.” In Phanindra V. Wunnava, ed.The Changing Role of Unions. New York: M.E. Sharpe 2004, pp. 92–112.
Gomez, Rafael, Morley Gunderson, and Noah Meltz. “Comparing Youth and Adult Desire for Unionization in Canada.”British Journal of Industrial Relations 40 (September 2002): 521–42.
Greer, David.Industrial Organization and Public Policy, 3rd ed. London: MacMillan, 1992.
Kotier, Philip.Marketing Management/ International Edition. London: Prentice Hall, 2000.
Lipset, Seymour Martin and Noah Meltz. “Canadian and American Attitudes Toward Work and Institutions.”Perspectives on Work 1 (No. 3, 1997): 14–20.
Porter, Michael E. “Consumer Behavior, Retailer Power and Market Performance in Consumer Goods Industries.”Review of Economics and Statistics 56 (Novermber 1974): 419–36.
Riddell, W. Craig. “Unionization in Canada and the United States: A Tale of Two Countries.” In David Card and Richard Freeman, eds.Small Differences That Matter: Labor Markets and Income Maintenance in Canada and the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 1993, pp. 109–49.
Stigler, George and Gary Becker. “De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum.”American Economic Review 67 (March 1997): 76–90.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
An earlier version of this paper appeared as Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) discussion paper dp515, January 2002. This paper was produced under the “Future of Trade Unions in Modern Britain” program supported by the Leverhulme Trust and with the financial help of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada. We thank Jo Blanden, Andy Charlwood, David Metcalf, and Steve Machin for comments on an earlier draft. We dedicate this paper to our mentor and friend, the late Noah Meltz, who passed away as this paper was being written.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bryson, A., Gomez, R., Gunderson, M. et al. Youth-adult differences in the demand for unionization: Are American, British, and Canadian workers all that different?. J Labor Res 26, 155–167 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02812227
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02812227