Union Success in Representation Elections: Why Does Unit Size Matter?

Henrys Farber

ILR Review, 2001, vol. 54, issue 2, 329-348

Abstract: The author documents four facts regarding NLRB-supervised representation election activity over the period 1952–98: (1) election activity fell sharply and discontinuously beginning in the mid-1970s, after a two-decade rise; (2) unions' election win rate declined less sharply, though continuously, over the entire period; (3) a “size gap†characterized unions' win rates throughout the period, with a lower win rate in larger units; and (4) the size gap widened substantially after 1952. A simple optimizing model of the union decision to hold a representation election can explain (1)–(3). The author describes two possible explanations for (4), one based on differing behavior by employers in different size classes, and one purely probabilistic. Results of empirical tests using NLRB election data for 1952–98 suggest that the optimizing model of the union decision to hold an election combined with the purely probabilistic explanation can largely account for the observed patterns.

Date: 2001
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001979390105400208 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:54:y:2001:i:2:p:329-348

DOI: 10.1177/001979390105400208

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in ILR Review from Cornell University, ILR School
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().