TRADE UNION DENSITY AND COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT PATTERNS IN BRITAIN*
| Date | 01 November 1979 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1979.tb00962.x |
| Published date | 01 November 1979 |
TRADE UNION DENSITY AND COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT
PATTERNS IN BRITAIN*
RAY
RlCHARDSONt AND
STEVE
CATLlN$
INTRODUCTION
This paper has a number
of
aims, all revolving around the analysis
of
trade union
density patterns, i.e., the proportions
of
particular workforces that are unionised. In
recent years there has been a certain amount
of
work on aggregate union density in
Great Britain. For example, Bain and Elsheikh’ sought to explain the pattern of growth
in aggregate density over time; in a different vein, Purdy and Zis2 tried to re-assess the
extent to which changing aggregate density might explain wage inflation. There has,
however, been relatively little work on disaggregated density patterns, for example
on
an industrial or occupational basis. The only considerable attempt to explain such
density patterns for Great Britain is the work by Bain.3 Elsewhere, there have been a
number
of
attempts
to
include an estimate
of
the density pattern as one of the determin-
ants
of
the wage structure (see Metcalf,
1977,
for a summary‘). Among the potential
weaknesses
of
the latter attempts is the usual assumption, explicit or implicit, that union
density patterns affect relative wages but that relative wages do not affect union density,
i.e., that neither high nor low wage rates play any part in promoting unionisation.
Probably the major reason for the limited amount of work seeking to explain union
density patterns has been the lack
of
suitable density estimates. However, there are now
available direct estimates by Price and BainS and indirect estimates from the New
Earnings Surveys. The latter are estimates
of
the proportions
of
workers whose pay is
affected by collective agreements. These ‘coverage’ data have been extensively used as a
proxy for union density data
in
the analysisof the wage structure. One aim
of
this paper
is to examine the correspondence between the Price and Bain estimates and the
coverage data.
Another, and more central, aim is to examine further the explanations
of
density
patterns considered by Baing
in
connection with white-collar workers. It cannot be
claimed that any analysis in this direction can be conclusive at this time, for two main
reasons, First, even preliminary theorising suggests a potential
role
for a large number
of
explanations. Most
of
these cannot be adequately reflected in
or
isolated by the
available data. Secondly, even where useful data are available, the relationship between
the possible explanations and union density is likely to
be
too complex to be captured by
all but very elaborate statistical techniques, whose
use
itself
poses
considerable prob-
lems.
As an illustration
of
this second point, consider the expected relationship between the
sex composition
of
the workforce of an industry and the level
of
union density.
For
a
number
of
reasons
it
might be argued that women place a lower value
on
union
membership than do men; it might also
be
argued that women are more costly than men
to organise. If these arguments were correct, we would expect,
ceteris
paribur,
that
female-intensive industries would tend to have low union densities. That is, regardless
of
the attitudes
or
reactions
of
employers, women would either not wish
or
not be able
to
sustain as high a level
of
unionisation as do men. There is, however, a very different
pattern
of
behaviour that might explain an observed relation
of
high female density and
low union density.
*
We
would
like to express
our
thanks
for
the helpful comments on earlier drafts given
by
Mr
John Gennard, Mr
J. J.
Thomas
and Mr Michael Wright.
t
Lecturer
in
Economics, London School of Economics.
$
L.A.C.S.A.B.
376
To continue reading
Request your trial