Intraparty Cleavages and Partisan Attitudes Toward Labor Policy

Abstract

Although one in every four jobs in the U.S. is considered low-wage—encompassing millions of jobs held by Republicans and Democrats alike—little is known about partisans’ views on policies that govern the workplace. This study examines the issue using two separate national surveys and administrative data to assess partisan attitudes toward two components of labor policy: (1) support for unionization; and (2) the role of labor unions in the workplace. The close association between labor unions and Democrats anticipates predictable attitudinal differences among partisans. However, this presupposes the absence of alternative policy reasoning. The results indicate that experience constitutes such an alternative: lower-income Republicans and Republicans from union households break from party cues and offer support for worker unionization—notably in low-wage industries including fast-food and retail—and see labor unions as important institutions that improve working conditions and job security. Democrats who come from union households offer more consistent and greater support for worker unionization than non-union Democrats, and like union Republicans, see unions as important institutions in the workplace. The results point to the importance of experience and the workplace for policy attitudes. The findings suggest that labor policy may constitute an important, if overlooked, domain with cross-cutting attitudinal cleavages based, to some extent, on one’s place in the labor market, rather than one’s place in partisan politics.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Source Model 1, Table 1

Fig. 6

Source Model 2, Table 1

Fig. 7

Source Model 1, Table 3

Fig. 8

Source Model 2, Table 3

Fig. 9

Source Model 1, Table 3

Fig. 10

Source Model 2, Table 3

Fig. 11

Source Model 3, Table 3

Fig. 12

Source Model 4, Table 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Low-wage work is defined as earning below two-thirds of the national median gross hourly earnings (Appelbaum and Schmitt 2009, p. 1908).

  2. 2.

    The CCES is a large, nationally stratified sample that is conducted before and after elections.

  3. 3.

    Household Income: Lower is less than $20,000; Lower-middle $20,000-$49,999; Middle $50,000-$80,000; Upper-middle $80,000-$150,000; Upper $150,000 + . The models are for illustrative purposes and do not assume any causal direction.

  4. 4.

    These results are likely mirrored for other low-wage occupations, but the CCES does not include a clear occupational category to perform the same analysis.

  5. 5.

    The Pew survey consisted of 1500 respondents. The General Social Survey sampled 4510 respondents, but the number of cases in the analyses is lower because not all respondents received the full battery of questions.

  6. 6.

    There is some debate about how to define low-wage. See Fusaro and Shaefer (2016) for a detailed discussion.

  7. 7.

    Matching the occupations above to a proximate category included in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics wage and occupational data can objectively identify which of the six industries would be considered low-wage (Appelbaum and Schmitt 2009). Figure 4 below depicts this information. The national median wage earnings for a full-time employee in 2014 was $41,236. An occupation where the median worker earns below two-thirds of this amount, or earns below $27,491, would be considered low-wage. An individual working in food preparation earning the median wage for one year of work in 2014 would have been expected to earn $19,139 while as a cashier, they would have been expected to earn $19,074 for a year of full-time work.

  8. 8.

    The 2006 module is used because the question about working conditions does not appear in later waves.

  9. 9.

    The Pew survey collected income data on a nine-point scale, while the GSS used a 25-point scale. The income measures used in the analysis are as follows: Lower (less than $20,000), Lower-middle ($20,000 to $40,000), Middle ($40,000 to $75,000), Upper-middle ($75,000 to $150,000), and Upper ($150,000 and above). Alternative coding schemes do not substantively alter the results.

  10. 10.

    The questions do not ask respondents to identify who was a member of the union.

  11. 11.

    The results with regard to income for both Pew and GSS are substantively similar in models that exclude respondents from union households entirely.

  12. 12.

    Analyses on both the Pew and GSS data that exclude partisan leaners yield substantively similar results.

  13. 13.

    Educational attainment is on a five-point scale according to degree attainment ranging from 0 (less than high school diploma) to 4 (graduate degree). The Pew survey originally collected educational data on an eight-point scale, while the GSS contains the five-point scale. Given this, the Pew data have been rescaled to conform to the scale used by the GSS to maintain consistency across models and estimations.

  14. 14.

    The Pew data do not include specific wording about the strength of partisanship. Therefore, for those models, the control refers to respondents who initially self-identified with a party. The GSS data include strength of party identification and the binary control refers to those who identified as strong partisans. The Pew collected ideology data on a five-point scale, while the GSS used a seven-point scale. The poles of the ideology scale in the Pew data used the term “very,” while the GSS used “extremely.” The GSS data have been collapsed (combining the middle categories between moderate and extreme) into a five-point scale to mirror the Pew.

  15. 15.

    Unions have been found to not only represent their members by aggregating and communicating preferences to policymakers, but also distill policy information in ways that clarify the implications of otherwise complex policies (Kim and Margalit 2017). See also Pacewicz (2016) on how the diminished role of unions as community institutions–coupled with paradigmatic shifts toward market-oriented resource allocation–has ruptured economic cleavages that once structured coherent party conflict and political engagement, leaving party labels in the hands of an amalgam of activists.

  16. 16.

    Along these lines, other work finds labor unions to be a necessary lateral mechanism to ensure regulatory baselines in areas of the labor market where labor law violations are pervasive and alternatives for external recourse are sparse (Fine 2017). Largely consistent with the results of this study, this arrangement stems from an attitudinal affinity, such that lower-income workers hold more favorable attitudes toward worker-driven institutions than toward administrative institutions to address workplace grievances.

References

  1. Appelbaum, E., & Schmitt, J. (2009). Review article: Low-wage work in high-income countries: Labor-market institutions and business strategy in the US and Europe. Human Relations,62(12), 1907–1934.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bartels, L. M. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952–1996. American Journal of Political Science,44(1), 35–50.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior,24(2), 117–150.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brochu, P., & Morin, L.-P. (2012). Union membership and perceived job insecurity: Thirty years of evidence from the American General Social Survey. ILR Review,65(2), 263–285.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Budd, J. W., & McCall, B. P. (2004). Unions and unemployment insurance benefits receipt: Evidence from the Current Population Survey. Industrial Relations,43(2), 339–355.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. The American Political Science Review,105(3), 496–515.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Burawoy, M. (1985). The politics of production: Factory regimes under capitalism and socialism. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Campbell, A. L. (2012). Policy makes mass politics. Annual Review of Political Science,15(1), 333–351.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Card, D. (1996). The effect of unions on the structure of wages: A longitudinal analysis. Econometrica,64(4), 957–979.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,85(5), 808–822.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dahl, R. A. (1985). A preface to economic democracy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dark, T. E. (1999). The unions and the Democrats: An enduring alliance. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dewey, J. (1939). The economic basis of the New Society. In J. Ratner (Ed.), Intelligence in the modern world: John Dewey’s philosophy (pp. 416–433). New York: The Modern Library.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Doellgast, V. L. (2012). Disintegrating democracy at work: Labor unions and the future of good jobs in the service economy. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Erikson, R. S., & Stoker, L. (2011). Caught in the draft: The effects of Vietnam draft lottery status on political attitudes. American Political Science Review,105(02), 221–237.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fine, J. (2017). Enforcing labor standards in partnership with civil society: Can co-enforcement succeed where the state alone has failed? Politics & Society,45(3), 359–388.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Flavin, P. (2016). Labor union strength and the equality of political representation. British Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Francia, P. L. (2010). Assessing the Labor-Democratic party alliance: A one-sided relationship? Polity,42(3), 293–303.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fusaro, V., & Shaefer, H. L. (2016). How should we define “low-wage” work? An analysis using the Current Population Survey. Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

  25. Gautié, J., & Schmitt, J. (2010). Low-wage work in the wealthy world. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gerber, A. S., & Huber, G. A. (2010). Partisanship, political control, and economic assessments. American Journal of Political Science,54(1), 153–173.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Givan, R. K., & Hipp, L. (2012). Public perceptions of union efficacy: A twenty-four country study. Labor Studies Journal,37(1), 7–32.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gottschalk, P., & Moffitt, R. (2009). The rising instability of U.S. earnings. Journal of Economic Perspectives,23(4), 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hagedorn, J., Paras, C. A., Greenwich, H., & Hagopian, A. (2016). The role of labor unions in creating working conditions that promote public health. American Journal of Public Health,106(6), 989–995.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. The American Political Science Review,95(3), 619–631.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kalleberg, A. L. (2011). Good jobs, bad jobs: The rise of polarized and precarious employment systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s. New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kerrissey, J., & Schofer, E. (2013). Union membership and political participation in the United States. Social Forces,91(3), 895–928.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kim, S. E., & Margalit, Y. (2017). Informed preferences? The impact of unions on workers’ policy views. American Journal of Political Science,61(3), 728–743.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kramer, A. (2008). Unions as facilitators of employment rights: An analysis of individuals’ awareness of parental leave in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Industrial Relations,47(4), 651–658.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Leighley, J. E., & Nagler, J. (2007). Unions, voter turnout, and class bias in the U.S. electorate, 1964–2004. Journal of Politics,69(2), 430–441.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lendler, M. (1997). Crisis and political belief: The case of the Colt Firearms strike. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lenz, G. S. (2009). Learning and opinion change, not priming: Reconsidering the priming hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science,53(4), 821–837.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lenz, G. S. (2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lerman, A. E., & McCabe, K. T. (2017). Personal experience and public opinion: A theory and test of conditional policy feedback. The Journal of Politics,79(2), 624–641.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Logan, D., & Goren, P. (2010). Party identification, issue attitudes, and the dynamics of political debate. American Journal of Political Science,54(3), 686–699.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lyness, K. S., Gornick, J. C., Stone, P., & Grotto, A. R. (2012). It’s all about control: Worker control over schedule and hours in cross-national context. American Sociological Review,77(6), 1023–1049.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Margalit, Y. (2013). Explaining social policy preferences: Evidence from the Great Recession. American Political Science Review,107(1), 80–103.

    Google Scholar 

  44. McCabe, K. T. (2016). Attitude responsiveness and partisan bias: Direct experience with the Affordable Care Act. Political Behavior,38(4), 861–882.

    Google Scholar 

  45. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2016). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pacewicz, J. (2016). Partisans and partners: The politics of the post-Keynesian society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science,40(3), 825–850.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science,37(2), 472–496.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Reynolds, M. M., & Brady, D. (2012). Bringing you more than the weekend: Union membership and self-rated health in the United States. Social Forces,90(3), 1023–1049.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (1979). Injury to insult: Unemployment, class, and political response. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Schmitt, J., Waller, M., Fremstad, S., & Zipperer, B. (2008). Unions and upward mobility for low-wage workers. Working USA,11(3), 337–348.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Smeeding, T. (2006). Poor people in rich nations: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives,20(1), 69–90.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Tilly, C., & Carré, F. J. (2017). Where bad jobs are better: Retail jobs across countries and companies. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Weil, D. (2014). The fissured workplace: Why work became so bad for so many and what can be done to improve it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Western, B., & Rosenfeld, J. (2011). Unions, norms, and the rise in US wage inequality. American Sociological Review,76(4), 513–537.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Janice Fine, Rick Lau, Zayna Lyon, Katie McCabe, Lisa Miller, Will Young, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this work. Replication materials can be found at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ZRUDFC.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory Lyon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lyon, G. Intraparty Cleavages and Partisan Attitudes Toward Labor Policy. Polit Behav 42, 385–413 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9500-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Public opinion
  • Labor policy
  • Partisanship
  • Work
  • Political attitudes