Labor Unions and Non-member Political Protest Mobilization in the United States

Abstract

While political protest and labor unions are seen as important elements in democratic societies, systematic research on the relationship between the two is scarce. Past research finds that union members are more likely to engage in protest, but it is unclear whether unions increase protest among non-members. This study draws on two waves of data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study and examines two mechanisms through which labor unions facilitate political protest among non-members: social ties and aggregate strength. We provide evidence that labor unions mobilize non-members to engage in political protest. When non-members have a social tie to a union or live in a state where unions are more robust and widespread, they are more likely to engage in political protest, but no more likely to engage in non-collective forms of political participation such as donating to political causes or contacting officials. The findings extend our understanding of an important, but understudied, act of political behavior as well as the ways that societal institutions stimulate collective political mobilization.

Labor Unions and Voter Turnout in the American States: Direct Versus Indirect Mobilization

“…It is known that when unions are stronger and more pervasive in a given state, the state is likely to have less business-friendly policies (Witko and Newmark 2005), more liberal public policies (Radcliff and Saiz 1998), more equal income distribution (Bucci 2018;Rosenfeld 2014;Volscho and Kelly 2012), more equal political representation (Flavin 2018;Rosenfeld 2014), and less poverty (Brady, Baker, and Finnigan 2013). These findings suggest that labor unions may also have indirect state-level effects on political participation (Leighley and Nagler 2007;Lyon and Schaffner 2020).…”

“…Given the fact that membership of organizations including labor unions has kept decreasing recently, my findings imply that it can be more important to consider indirect mobilization for political participation. As discussed earlier, the indirect mechanisms primarily include social ties and aggregate strength (Kim 2016;Leighley and Nagler 2007;Lyon and Schaffner 2020;Radcliff 2001). That is, individuals who have social ties to union members can enjoy both relevant information and recruitment opportunities.…”

“…Instead, leaders contact their associates, associates contact their colleagues, colleagues contact their friends, families, and coworkers" (Rosenstone and Hansen 2003, 27). Because union leaders seek to maximize their political and economic interests in policy-making process, they can enjoy reduced costs of mobilization by strategically engaging in nonmember mobilization using membership in social networks (Lamare 2010;Leighley and Nagler 2007;Lyon and Schaffner 2020;Radcliff 2001).…”

“…Thus, it is expected that, when a union member is aware of the roles of unions and what to do as a member in the coming election, his or her family members are more likely to learn about their roles and the issues in the election. As a result, they are more likely to participate in elections as a result of social networks (e.g., Lyon and Schaffner 2020).…”

“…Thus, during election campaigns, these issues are likely to attract not only union members but also nonunion members who share similar interests in states (Leighley and Nagler 2007;Rosenstone and Hansen 2003). In this sense, nonmembers can be mobilized as they can easily obtain relevant information about the issues and become interested in the elections (Kim 2016;Lyon and Schaffner 2020;Macdonald 2019).…”