The Value of Union Sponsorship to Strikers.

Abstract

Union sponsored strikes are more successful than informally organized strikes. This fact is generally interpreted as evidence that formal organization makes protest more effective. To test this interpretation's validity, a series of log linear models are used to estimate the relative importance of worker organization and background in 1,920 strikes started in Massachusetts manufacturing establishments between January 1, 1881 and June 30, 1894. Comparison of these models reveals that most of the difference in the success of formally and informally organized strikes can be attributed to differences in the positional and material resources strikers bring to the conflict. The models also demonstrate that formal organization helped some, but not all, workers win strikes. In particular, union sponsorship--especially sponsorship by unions regularly distributing strike aid--improved the yield of strikes in capital intensive industries and industries which were becoming more capital intensive. Union sponsorship also helped workers involved in proto-industrial strikes time their strikes to periods when the firms they faced were especially vulnerable. On the other h and , union sponsorship did not alleviate the difficulties which faced strikers employed in industries where women were being substituted for men, in communities where the skill mix of employment was low or in large factories. In short, unions helped workers in relatively strong positions, but did little for those in the weakest labor market positions. The results are interpreted as supporting the view (see Piven and Cloward) that formal advocacy organizations are only successful if the targets of their protest have a strong interest in negotiating with the organizations' constituents.