Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Profiles of union organizers from manufacturing and service unions

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Labor Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study uses data on 229 organizers from eight unions to assess differences in characteristics of organizers employed by manufacturing and service unions. The results suggest that a new breed of organizer is entering the labor movement through service unions-organizers who are younger, more highly educated, more socially mobile, and have less experience in the union movement than organizers from manufacturing unions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.The Changing Situation of Workers and Their Unions: A report of the AFL-CIO Committee on the Evolution of Work. Publication No. 165. Washington, DC: AFL-CIO, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Richard N. and Jack Stieber. “The Impact of Attorneys and Arbitrators on Arbitration Awards.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review 40 (1987): 543–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaison, Gary N. and P. Andiappan. “Profiles of Local Union Officers: Females v. Males.”Industrial Relations 26 (1987): 281–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorito, Jack and Wallace E. Hendricks. “Union Characteristics and Bargaining Outcomes.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review 40 (1987): 569–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Getman, Julius G. “Ruminations on Union Organizing in the Private Sector.”The University of Chicago Law Review 53 (1986): 45–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyman, Michele M. and Lamont Stallworth. “Participation in Local Unions: A Comparison of Black and White Members.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review 40 (1987): 323–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, Shulamit, Kevin Lang, and Donna Kadev. “National Union Leader Performance and Turnover in Building Trades.”Industrial Relations 25 (1986): 276–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karsh, Bernard, Joel Seidman, and Daisy M. Lilienthal. “The Union Organizer and His Tactics: A Case Study.”American Journal of Sociology 59 (1953): 113–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochan, Thomas A., ed.Challenges and Choices Facing American Labor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, David and Peter Feuille. “Behavioral Research in Industrial Relations.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review 36 (1983): 341–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddala, G.S.Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maranto, Cheryl L. and Jack Fiorito. “The Effect of Union Characteristics on the Outcome of NLRB Certification Elections.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review 40 (1987): 225–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKersie, Robert and Montague Brown. “Nonprofessional Hospital Workers and a Union Organizing Drive.”Quarterly Journal of Economics 77 (1963): 372–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkel, George. “The Failure of Communication in an Organizing Campaign.”Monthly Labor Review 80 (1957): 1200–1201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, Trond. “A Comment on Presenting Results from Logit and Probit Models.”American Sociological Review 50 (1985): 130–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, Thomas F. “Union Attainment of First Contracts: Do Service Unions Possess A Competitive Advantage?”Journal of Labor Research (Fall 1990a).

  • _____. “Do Union Organizers Matter?: Individual Differences, Campaign Practices, and Representation Election Outcomes.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review 43 (1989a): 103–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • _____. “Union Organizing Department Characteristics and Representation Campaign Tactics.” Working Paper. Department of Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, 1989b.

  • _____. “Nice Guys Don’t Always Finish Last: The Impact of the Union Organizer on the Probability of Securing a First Contract.”Industrial Relations (1990b).

  • U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Job Classification Guide. Office of Program Research, Survey Division. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas A&M University, 77843, College Station, TX

    Thomas F. Reed

Authors
  1. Thomas F. Reed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This article is based on data collected for a dissertation written at the Graduate School of Business at Columbia University. I gratefully acknowledge the support of committee members David Lewin, James Kuhn, Casey Ichniowski, and Seymour Spilerman of Columbia and Charles A. O’Reilly III of the University of California at Berkeley. I thank John Delaney for his many helpful insights and suggestions during the course of my research and Shannon Ratcliff and Rick Fuentes for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. This research was financially supported by the Industrial Relations Research Center and the Management Institute at Columbia University and the Department of Management at Texas A&M University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reed, T.F. Profiles of union organizers from manufacturing and service unions. Journal of Labor Research 11, 73–80 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02685421

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02685421

Keywords

Search

Navigation