> Results show that the impact of unionization is not significant except for (1) establishments that operate in the non-manufacturing sector; and (2) establishments operating in industries that have major collective bargaining agreements which contain moderate employment security provisions. Under those conditions, unionization decreases layoff rates; otherwise, unionization has no effect on layoff rates.
Point number 2 in particular strikes me as circular - unions did not impact layoff rates except in industries where the unions protected against layoffs.
This understanding of unions is as common as it is wrong. A union allows workers to negotiate contracts, meaning workers can have a say in how performance is assessed and how things like bonuses are handed out.
I am in a non-union workspace. There's no transparency on how bonuses or stock refreshers are handed out. A union contract could codify it.
The owner class wants workers to think unions will hurt our earnings because when workers are structurally unable to shape company policy the bosses can do whatever they want...and what they want is to maximize profits. (Like Elon Musk said: You don't need a union, I'll put in an soft serve machine for you.)
1. "Firms and Layoffs: The Impact of Unionization on Involuntary Job Loss" - (2003 with data from 1997) https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/03-09.html
> Results show that the impact of unionization is not significant except for (1) establishments that operate in the non-manufacturing sector; and (2) establishments operating in industries that have major collective bargaining agreements which contain moderate employment security provisions. Under those conditions, unionization decreases layoff rates; otherwise, unionization has no effect on layoff rates.
Does anyone have anything more recent about this?