Union/Nonunion Differentials: Membership or Coverage?

Jones, Ethel B.

doi:10.2307/145473

Cited by 30 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, consistent with the conclusions of Jones (1982), union status rnisclassification shown in section 3 not to hold true for the entire sample. If there have been structural changes between the year-pairs used in the first differencing, then resulting coefficient estimates may be biased (Baltagi 1995).…”

Section: The Probationary Period Of Initial Union Membership and Uniosupporting

confidence: 75%

“…Table 1 suggests, if anything, the opposite is the case. Jones (1982) argues this is due to a high degree of mi sclassification among covered nonmembers. Using NLS data, she shows that freeriders are much more likely not to name their covering union, suggesting many of these workers are mi sclassified as covered rather than uncovered.…”

Section: Union Density and Wage Diff Erentialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Early studies using cross-sectional data typically found small significant dif ferentials. For example, Jones (1982) uses data from the 1971 panels of the National Longitu dinal Survey (NLS) and finds a membership differential of about 2% for young men and 3%…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What Explains Wage Differences between Union Members and Covered Nonmembers?

Schumacher¹

1999

Southern Economic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An individual covered by a collective bargaining agreement but who is not a union member is estimated to earn about 13% lower wages than a union member. Sectors with relatively few covered nonmembers are associated with a large coverage differential, while sectors with high proportions of covered nonmembers are associated with small differentials. This suggests free riders either weaken the bargaining position of the union or weak bargaining positions increase the incentive to freeride. Only a modest amount of this differential is accounted for by un measured ability, the probationary period associated with newly hired union workers, or union status misclassification.

show abstract

Section: The Probationary Period Of Initial Union Membership and Uniosupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Union Density and Wage Diff Erentialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Explains Wage Differences between Union Members and Covered Nonmembers?

Schumacher¹

1999

Southern Economic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although Jones (1982) using the National Longitudinal Survey (NLS) finds a very small member/non-member covered worker wage premium, subsequent investigation typically finds quite large effectssee for example the studies using the NLS by Blakemore et al (1986), and Hunt, Kiker and Williams (1987); the more recent studies using the Current Population Survey (CPS) by Hundley (1993), Schumacher (1999), and Budd and Na (2000);and Hildreth (2000) who uses the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS).…”

Section: What Might Explain the Member/non-member Covered Wage Premium?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is commonly suggested (see for example Jones, 1982) that in individual-level surveys union 10 We lose 10% of our employees in the covered sector by dropping these smaller establishments. We also estimated all our models retaining workers in these smaller workplaces, and the main results of the paper are unchanged.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Union Membership Wage-Premium Puzzle: Is There a Free Rider Problem?

Booth¹,

Bryan²

2004

ILR Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Olson (1965), suggested that there is a free rider problem associated with labour union membership. The reason is that union-set wages are available to all workers covered by unions irrespective of whether or not they are union members, andgiven that there are costs to membership -workers will only join if they are coerced or offered incentive excludable goods. And yet empirical research for both the US and for Great Britain has shown that there is a substantial union membership wage premium amongst private sector union-covered workers. An implication is that the free rider hypothesis is therefore irrelevant, since these studies reveal significant economic gains in the form of higher wages for union members. Using rich data from a new linked employer-employee survey for Britain, we show that this is not the case. While estimates assuming exogenous membership do indeed suggest there is a union membership wage premium of a similar order of magnitude to that found in other studies, we demonstrate that -with appropriate instruments based on theory and with additional controls -this wage premium vanishes. Terms of use: Documents inJEL Classification: J51, J52

show abstract

What Explains Wage Differences Between Union Members and Covered Nonmembers?

Schumacher

1999

Southern Economic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An individual covered by a collective bargaining agreement but who is not a union member is estimated to earn about 13% lower wages than a union member. Sectors with relatively few covered nonmembers are associated with a large coverage differential, while sectors with high proportions of covered nonmembers are associated with small differentials. This suggests freeriders either weaken the bargaining position of the union or weak bargaining positions increase the incentive to freeride. Only a modest amount of this differential is accounted for by unmeasured ability, the probationary period associated with newly hired union workers, or union status misclassification.

show abstract

Union/Nonunion Differentials: Membership or Coverage?

Cited by 30 publications

References 10 publications

What Explains Wage Differences between Union Members and Covered Nonmembers?

What Explains Wage Differences between Union Members and Covered Nonmembers?

The Union Membership Wage-Premium Puzzle: Is There a Free Rider Problem?

What Explains Wage Differences Between Union Members and Covered Nonmembers?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About