IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cep/cepdps/dp0512.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

From Playstations to Workstations: Youth Preferences for Unionisation in Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Rafael Gomez
  • Morley Gunderson
  • Noah Meltz

Abstract

Differences in preferences for unions between youths and adults in Canada are analysed based on a survey of approximately 1500 persons. The results indicate that the preferences of youth for unionisation are strongly influenced by social factors such as familial union status and the attitudes of close peers. Preferences for unionisation are also shaped by the perceived costs and benefits of unionisation to deal with a wide range of workplace issues such as merit pay, voice, fair treatment, opportunities for advancement, layoffs, seniority, and a lack of progressive HRM and legislative protection at the workplace. The different preferences of youths and adults are generally consistent with the divergent effects that unions would have on youths and adults with respect to these issues. Youths have a stronger preference than do adults for unions in general. Most of that stronger preference reflects the stronger desire of youths to have unions deal with workplace issues, than it reflects the exposure of youths to these issues. The fact that preferences of youths for unionisation are strongly shaped by social capital factors such as union membership in the family and the attitudes of family and friends towards unions, highlights the cumulative and inter-generational effects that are involved in the unionisation process. Possible substitutes for unionisation such as progressive HRM practices and legislative protection exert a powerful negative effect on preferences for unionisation, especially for youths. The implications of these and other findings for the future of unionisation are also discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Rafael Gomez & Morley Gunderson & Noah Meltz, 2001. "From Playstations to Workstations: Youth Preferences for Unionisation in Canada," CEP Discussion Papers dp0512, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    • Handle: RePEc:cep:cepdps:dp0512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/DP0512.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. W. Craig Riddell, 1993. "Unionization in Canada and the United States: A Tale of Two Countries," NBER Chapters, in: Small Differences That Matter: Labor Markets and Income Maintenance in Canada and the United States, pages 109-148, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Stephen Nickell & Glenda Quintini, 2003. "Nominal wage rigidity and the rate of inflation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(490), pages 762-781, October.
    3. Farber, Henry S, 1983. "The Determination of the Union Status of Workers," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(5), pages 1417-1437, September.
    4. Stephen Nickell & John Van Reenen, 2001. "Technological Innovation and Performance in the United Kingdom," CEP Discussion Papers dp0488, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    5. Stephen Nickell & Luca Nunziata & Wolfgang Ochel & Glenda Quintini, 2001. "The Beveridge Curve, Unemployment and Wages in the OECD from the 1960s to the 1990s - Preliminary Version," CEP Discussion Papers dp0502, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    6. Editors : & David Marsden & Hugh Stephenson, 2001. "Labour Law and Social Insurance in the New Economy: A Debate on the Supiot Report," CEP Discussion Papers dp0500, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    7. Francis Green, 1992. "Recent Trends in British Trade Union Density: How Much of a Compositional Effect?," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 30(3), pages 445-458, September.
    8. Christina Cregan & Stewart Johnston, 1990. "An Industrial Relations Approach to the Free Rider Problem: Young People and Trade Union Membership in the UK," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 28(1), pages 84-104, March.
    9. Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 1998. "Discrimination and detailed decomposition in a logit model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 115-120, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jo Blanden & Stephen Machin, 2003. "Cross‐Generation Correlations of Union Status for Young People in Britain," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 41(3), pages 391-415, September.
    2. Alexandros Zangelidis, 2008. "Seniority Profiles in Unionized Workplaces: Do Unions Still have the Edge?," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 70(3), pages 327-345, June.
    3. Alex Bryson & Rafael Gomez & Morley Gunderson & Noah Meltz, 2005. "Youth-Adult Differences in the Demand for Unionization: Are American, British, and Canadian Workers All That Different?," Journal of Labor Research, Transaction Publishers, vol. 26(1), pages 155-167, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Duranton, Gilles & Puga, Diego, 2005. "From sectoral to functional urban specialisation," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 343-370, March.
    2. Combes, Pierre-Philippe & Duranton, Gilles, 2006. "Labour pooling, labour poaching, and spatial clustering," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-28, January.
    3. Dickens & David T. Ellwood, 2004. "Whither Poverty in Great Britain and the United States? The Determinants of Changing Poverty and Whether Work Will Work," NBER Chapters, in: Seeking a Premier Economy: The Economic Effects of British Economic Reforms, 1980–2000, pages 313-370, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Hilary Steedman, 2001. "Benchmarking Apprenticeship: UK and Continental Europe Compared," CEP Discussion Papers dp0513, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    5. Manning, Alan, 2004. "Monopsony and the efficiency of labour market interventions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 145-163, April.
    6. A Charlwood, 2001. "Influences on Trade Union Organising Effectiveness in Great Britain," CEP Discussion Papers dp0504, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    7. Burgess, Simon & Profit, Stefan, 2001. "Externalities in the matching of workers and firms in ritain," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 313-333, June.
    8. Steinar Holden & Fredrik Wulfsberg, 2007. "Are real wages rigid downwards?," Working Paper 2007/01, Norges Bank.
    9. Fernie, Sue & Gray, Helen, 2002. "It's a family affair: the effect of union recognition and human resource management on the provision of equal opportunities in the UK," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 20089, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Stephen Redding & Mercedes Vera-Martin, 2006. "Factor Endowments and Production in European Regions," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 142(1), pages 1-32, April.
    11. Di Liberto, Adriana, 2008. "Education and Italian regional development," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 94-107, February.
    12. Manfred Keil & Donald Robertson & James Symons, 2001. "Minimum Wages and Employment," CEP Discussion Papers dp0497, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    13. Danny Quah, 2002. "Spatial Agglomeration Dynamics," CEP Discussion Papers dp0521, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    14. Henry S. Farber & Alan B. Krueger, 1992. "Union Membership in the United States: The Decline Continues," Working Papers 685, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    15. Meade, Ellen E. & Sheets, D. Nathan, 2002. "Regional influences on U.S. monetary policy: some implications for Europe," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 20091, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Blanchflower, David G., 2006. "A Cross-Country Study of Union Membership," IZA Discussion Papers 2016, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Alan Manning, 2006. "A Generalised Model of Monopsony," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(508), pages 84-100, January.
    18. Gomez, Rafael & Lipset, Seymour Martin & Meltz, Noah, 2001. "Frustrated demand for unionisation: the case of the United States and Canada revisited," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 20126, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Schmitt, John & Wadsworth, Jonathan, 2002. "Give PC's a chance: personal computer ownership and the digital divide in the United States and Great Britain," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 20086, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Heshmati Almas & Karlson Nils & Box Marcus, 2013. "Generality, State Neutrality and Unemployment in the OECD," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 13(3), pages 333-358, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cep:cepdps:dp0512. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/publications/discussion-papers/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.