000 02183nam a22002537a 4500
003 ZW-GwMSU
005 20240612071939.0
008 240612b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022 _a09596801
040 _aMSU
_bEnglish
_cMSU
_erda
050 0 0 _aHD8391 EUR
100 1 _aSchnabel, Claus
_eauthor
245 1 0 _aUnion membership and density:
_bsome (not so) stylized facts and challenges/
_cClaus Schnabel
264 1 _aLondon:
_bSage,
_c2013.
336 _2rdacontent
_atext
_btxt
337 _2rdamedia
_aunmediated
_bn
338 _2rdacarrier
_avolume
_bnc
440 _aEuropean journal of industrial relations
_vVolume 19, number 3
520 3 _aSurveying some recent data and the empirical literature from various disciplines, this paper attempts to shed some light on what we know and don't know about (trends in) unionization and its determinants in advanced countries. It shows that there are relatively few robust stylized facts, for instance that unionization is positively related to public sector employment, to establishment size and to the business cycle (with union growth being procyclical). The existence of a union-administered unemployment insurance and unions' presence at the workplace also play a positive role for (changes in) unionization. However, some seemingly obvious explanations for the decline in unionization over the last decades do not hold on closer scrutiny. Various trends like the ongoing economic globalization and changes in the sectoral structure of the economy and the composition of the workforce do not seem to have impeded union membership and density everywhere. Similarly, the trend towards decentralization of collective bargaining has not resulted in large-scale deunionization. It also remains an open question whether changes in social values, rising individualism, and changing attitudes of employees towards unions have affected or will affect unionization negatively. -- trade unions ; union membership ; union density ; unionization
650 _aUnion membership
_vTrade unions
_xIndustrialized countries
700 1 _aSchnabel, Claus
_eco author
856 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0959680113493373
942 _2lcc
_cJA
999 _c166057
_d166057