The Forum 2015; 13(2): 209–222
Open Access
John F. Camobreco* and Michelle A. Barnello
The Changing Face of Unions and White
Labor Support for the Democratic Party
DOI 10.1515/for-2015-0018
Abstract: This manuscript examines the political behavior of White union
members, with a focus on the differences between private sector and public sector
union members. In the last several decades, private sector union membership has
drastically declined, but public sector union membership has greatly increased.
This has transformed the White unionized workforce from a group composed primarily of non-professional men with no college education to one that is much
more female, college educated, and professional. We test the proposition that
White public sector union members have greater incentives to support the Democratic Party than their private sector counterparts. The method employed is an
examination of the presidential vote among both unionized and non-unionized
Whites during the 1950s and the 2000s, using data from the American National
Election Studies. Support among unionized Whites for Democratic presidential
candidates in the 2000s came primarily from college educated and professional
White union members, which represents a reversal of the pattern found during
the 1950s. These results provide evidence that the White union members currently voting for Democratic candidates belong mainly to public sector unions.
Unions and the Democratic Party
The electoral connection between union members and the Democratic Party does
not seem as clear as it used to be. Union members still seem generally supportive of
Democratic candidates, but that support has weakened among culturally conservative union members. The Democratic Party continues to fight for union causes,
*Corresponding author: John F. Camobreco, Associate Professor, Department of Political
­Science, C
­ hristopher Newport University, Newport News, VA, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Michelle A. Barnello: ­Department of Political Science, Christopher Newport University,
Newport News, VA, USA
©2015, John F. Camobreco et al., published by De Gruyter.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 11:55 PM
210 John F. Camobreco and Michelle A. Barnello
but this backing seems less consistent than in the past. We argue that some of this
ambiguity stems from changes in union membership in recent decades. In order to
gain a thorough understanding of the current electoral connection between organized labor and the Democratic Party, it is important to examine the impact of a
critical change to the unionized population over the last several decades.
For generations, the strong bond between organized labor and the Democratic
Party has been an enduring feature of American political life. But the shifting
pattern of political behavior among Whites has seemingly weakened this relationship. The widespread argument is that this changed pattern has its origins
in the rise in importance of cultural issues for partisan politics that has occurred
over the last several decades. Issues such as abortion, gay rights, gun control and
many other issues not explicitly related to the government’s relationship with the
economy have become partisan issues, and in doing so have had a significant
impact on elections. Specifically, those with traditional religious beliefs and therefore conservative views on these cultural issues now largely identify as Republicans and vote for Republican candidates in presidential elections, while seculars
and those with more modernist religious beliefs and therefore liberal views on
these cultural issues now largely identify as Democrats and vote for Democratic
candidates in presidential elections (Layman 2001; Green 2007). This shifting
political landscape has altered the incentives for the Democratic Party, which now
has to be more attuned to the desires of a culturally liberal White constituency.
However, the traditional White unionized workforce does not typically fit into this
category, being made up primarily of non-college educated men. Indeed, it has
long been a clear strategy of the Republican Party to focus on cultural issues in
an attempt to win the votes of working class Whites, many of whom are unionized
(Edsall 2006). And this strategy has had some success. There is evidence that cultural issues have weakened the support that Democratic candidates for President
have received from culturally conservative White union members (Beachler 2007).
Despite the increased political importance of cultural issues, union support
for the Democratic Party continues to be crucial for the electoral success of the
Democrats. Almost a third of the voters in both the 2004 and 2008 presidential
elections came from union households, and these households significantly supported the Democratic Party’s candidate for President (Beachler 2007, 2009;
Lewis-Beck et al. 2008, pp. 320–321; Francia 2012). Moreover, this support for
Democratic presidential candidates was very strong in battleground states, and
it extended to the U.S. Senate and House races in these states as well (Francia
2010). The advantage the Democratic Party holds among organized labor is relevant largely because of the ability of unions to get their members to the polls.
Unions have been found to increase voter turnout among low and middle income
voters (Leighley and Nagler 2007), and it has been argued that the political power
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 11:55 PM
The Changing Face of Unions and White Labor Support 211
that unions hold originates from their ability to get their members to the ballot
box (Asher et al. 2001, p. 26).
The benefits provided by organized labor to the Democratic Party go beyond
turnout and voting. As Francia (2006, p. 16) notes, unions help to mobilize their
members to be politically involved and have aided in getting valuable legislation
passed, some of which is central to the Democratic Party’s platform. In addition,
despite the more than 10% drop in union members who identify as Democrats
over the past several decades, from nearly 60% in the early 1950s to less than 50%
in the late 1990s (Asher et al. 2001, p. 45), union-sponsored PACs made contributions nearly exclusively to the Democratic Party in the 1990s. This is a pattern that
has continued over the last decade, even after changes to the campaign finance
system. Data from recent election cycles show that, “…organized labor competes
among the ‘heavy hitters’ in the electoral arena, and has been a major source of
funds for Democrats” (Francia 2010, p. 2). Unions also continue to be the source
of critical grassroots outreach efforts aimed at electing Democratic candidates
(Francia 2010).
Although general union support for the Democratic Party remains relatively
strong, the rewards for this support have sometimes fallen short of the best hopes
of organized labor, particularly at the national level. Despite union support for
health care legislation which would have included a public option, such an
option was removed from the Senate version of the Affordable Care Act (Francia
2010). The Senate also failed to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which was
another of organized labor’s main priorities (Francia 2010). As Lichtenstein
points out (2012, p. 6), there has been little incentive for Democratic presidential candidates to champion union causes when trying to win right-to-work swing
states such as Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina. Moreover, Erskine Bowles, a
Democrat who served as the co-chair of President Obama’s deficit commission, is
against the type of progressive taxation that might benefit public sector unions
(McCartin 2011). This lack of Democratic Party support has led union leaders to
reassess their relationship with the Party, with some suggesting the withholding of campaign money or even instigating primary challenges (Francia 2010).
However, this seems unrealistic given that organized labor has few other alternatives in America’s two-party system.
While some high profile federal legislation highlights the limits of organized
labor’s influence with the Democratic Party, it is also true that the Party has not
ignored this important constituency. For example, one of the Service Employees International Union’s (SEIU) political directors was appointed as a White
House political director for the Obama administration, and the administration
also named an SEIU lawyer to the National Labor Relations Board (DiSalvo 2012).
Moreover, there is ample evidence that at the subnational level, the Democrats
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 11:55 PM
212 John F. Camobreco and Michelle A. Barnello
continue to be strong supporters of union priorities. Perhaps the most publicized example of this support was the opposition of Democratic state legislators
in Wisconsin to Republican Governor Scott Walker’s efforts to reform the collective bargaining power of public sector unions in that state. Although Walker
eventually prevailed, this victory only came after Democratic legislators took the
extreme measure of leaving the state in order to prevent a vote on Walker’s proposal. However, a similar proposal in Ohio by Republican Governor John Kasich
was defeated, due to the combined efforts of the Democratic Party and public
sector unions in that state (DiSalvo 2012). In Michigan, the Democrats worked
with several public sector educational unions to block a proposal that would
have changed the timing of school district elections in a manner that could have
weakened the electoral power of those unions (Anzia 2011). Indeed, the evidence
suggests that the Democratic Party has long been a strong advocate for teachers
unions, not only by supporting higher pay and better job protection for teachers,
but by helping block educational reforms these unions oppose (Moe 2011).
The Transformed Unionized Workforce
Over the last 60 years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of public
sector union members and a large decline in the number of private sector union
members. Only 34% of unionized workers were employed in the public sector in
1983, but this had grown to nearly 49% by 2008 (Schmitt and Warner 2009). A
similar pattern reveals itself when examining a longer period of time. Between
1973 and 2011, union membership in the private sector declined precipitously
(from 24.2% to 6.9%), but union membership among public sector workers actually increased from 23% to 37%.1 This increase in the union membership of public
sector employees has been attributed primarily to the lack of employer opposition
to public sector unionization (Juravich and Bronfenbrenner 1998), and increases
in union membership since the 1970s is almost exclusively attributable to public
sector union membership. Thus, while only 17.3% of all union members worked
for the public sector in 1973, this group had grown to a majority of the unionized
workforce – 51.2% – by 2011.2
1 The source for these data is www.unionstats.com, and the methodology for computing the estimates can be found in Hirsch and Macpherson (2003).
2 Calculated by the authors using data from www.unionstats.com. For a thorough review of the
rise of public sector unions, see DiSalvo (2015, pp. 39–56).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 11:55 PM
The Changing Face of Unions and White Labor Support 213
The fact that public sector union members now constitute most of the unionized workforce has transformed the unionized population in several important
ways. First, there is a fundamental difference between private sector and public
sector unions. Private sector unions have the ability to bargain collectively with
management, but do not have any power to select management. However, public
sector unions not only have the power of collective bargaining, but the ability
to help choose who sits on the other side of the bargaining table. In the words
of DiSalvo, this gives public sector unions “two bites at the apple” and provides
them with an important advantage, “They can win things at the bargaining table
through political activity. That means endorsing candidates; donating money to
their campaigns; lending them experienced staff; manning phone banks; turning
out their members to vote; and running issue ads on radio, television, and the
Internet” (DiSalvo 2015, p. 21). Therefore, public sector unions are political entities in a way that private sector union are not.
Second, the growth of public sector unions has changed the unionized workforce from a group which primarily had been a male, younger population without
much college education into a much more female, older group, most of which
has at least some college education (Schmitt and Warner 2009). In 1983, 35% of
union workers were women, and this had increased to over 45% by 2008. Also,
a growing percentage of union members today are over the age of 60 (26% compared to 11% in 1952). Perhaps most dramatically, only 20% of union workers
had at least 4-year college degrees in 1983, but this had jumped to 37.5% by 2008
(Schmitt and Warner 2009). Moreover, more of today’s union members tend to
live in suburbs and to consider themselves middle-class when compared to their
colleagues from 60 year ago (Asher et al. 2001).
Finally, another trend related to the growing percentage of union members
employed by the public sector is the growing professionalization of the unionized
workforce (Leighley and Nagler 2007). Indeed, a report by the AFL-CIO published
in 2003 notes that the largest number of organizing drives conducted the previous
year by that union’s Department of Professional Employees had been in the field
of education, and the biggest single drive had involved public health care workers
(Department of Professional Employees 2003). Of course, not all professionalized
union members work for the public sector, but there appears to be a relationship
between the growing percentage of union members working in the public sector
and the growing percentage of professionalized union members (Aronowitz 2011).
These employment and demographic changes are even more stark when the
current union population is compared to the one in existence during the 1950s.
Table 1 makes this comparison, using data from the American National Election
Studies (ANES). The 1950s column represents data pooled from the presidential
election years of 1952, 1956, and 1960. The 2000s column represents data pooled
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 11:55 PM
214 John F. Camobreco and Michelle A. Barnello
Table 1: The Demographics of Union Membership, 1950s and 2000s.
1950s
2000s
Age 17–34
Age 35–54
Age 55 and Older Female
Black
Latino
Some College
Professional
Low Income
Middle Income High Income
29.0%
50.7%
20.3%
15.2%
10.1%
–
9.0%
6.4%
20.6%
37.6%
41.8%
22.7%
47.6%
29.7%
43.5%
12.3%
7.8%
57.3%
32.1%
19.1%
35.5%
45.2%
Source: ANES Cumulative Data File.
from the presidential election years of 2000, 2004, and 2008.3 The 1950s column
provides a picture of the union population during the 1950s as a mostly White
male group with little college education. But this had changed dramatically by
the decade of the 2000s, as the union population became more female, more
racially diverse, older, and more college educated. Unfortunately, the ANES does
not contain an item that can be used to identify whether respondents worked for
the private or public sector, but does contain an item on occupational classification. Union members classified as having a professional or managerial occupation
grew from 6.4% in the 1950s to 32.1% during the 2000s (there is no occupational
classification data for 2008). The percentage of female union members also
increased greatly, from 15.2% to 43.5%. Union members age 17–34 dropped from
29.0% to 22.7%, while those age 55 and over grew from 20.3% to 29.7%. The percentage of African-American union members remained fairly steady, and there
was little change in the income distributions of union members. There are no separate data for Latinos in the 1950s, but it is all but certain that the percentage of
Latino union members during the 2000s (7.8%) represented a large increase from
3 Union members are defined as those respondents with a value of either “1” or “3” on item
vcf0127b in the American National Election Studies cumulative data file, which asks if anyone
in the household is a union member. If the answer is yes, the respondent is asked who belongs.
Only those respondents who are coded as 1 (respondent only) or 3 (Respondent and someone
other than respondent) are coded as being union members. This item should be distinguished
from vcf0127, which records only whether someone in the household is a union member.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 11:55 PM
The Changing Face of Unions and White Labor Support 215
the 1950s. Yet the largest demographic change clearly involves the percentage of
union members with at least some college education, which increased sharply
from 9.0% to 57.3%.
Public Sector Union Membership and Support
for the Democratic Party
It is clear that the unionized population has changed a great deal in the last
several decades, but have these changes affected the relationship between union
members and the Democratic Party? Of particular interest is the political behavior of White union members, as previous research has suggested that support
for the Democratic Party has weakened among this group (Edsall 2006). We
hypothesize that public sector union members will be more inclined to support
the Democratic Party than private sector union members, for two reasons. First,
because public sector union members have the ability to elect those that they
will collectively bargain with, they have much more incentive than private sector
union members to support Democratic candidates. This is because the Democratic Party is more favorable than the Republican Party to the type of taxation
and governmental spending that can provide direct benefits to public sector
union members. However, the Democrats cannot provide these same types of
direct benefits to private sector union members, who must negotiate with their
private-sector employers for these benefits. Second, the demographic groups
common among public sector unions also tend to be more culturally liberal than
the demographic groups present among private sector unions (if one considers
only Whites), and therefore be more likely to support the Democratic candidates
for this reason as well.
In order to test this hypothesis, we analyze the aggregated presidential vote
percentages for the two major parties for the same presidential election years
examined in Table 1.4 Table 2 shows these data for 1952, 1956, and 1960. Again,
the analysis is hampered by the fact that the ANES does not distinguish between
private sector and public sector union members, but some idea of the difference
4 It might be argued that the support shown to Democratic candidates by public sector union
members should be greatest at the state and local levels, where such support is likely to have its
greatest impact. However, public sector union members also have an incentive to vote for Democratic presidential candidates, as a Democratic president is more likely to craft a federal budget
which includes the financial aid to state and local governments that makes it easier for public
sector unions to draw benefits from governments at the subnational level.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 11:55 PM
216 John F. Camobreco and Michelle A. Barnello
Table 2: Presidential Vote Among Unionized and Non-unionized Whites 1952–1960.
Union
Dem.
Rep.
Non-union
Dem.
Rep.
All
60.0%
40.0%
39.6%
60.4%
No College
Some College
62.2%
38.5%
37.8%
61.5%
42.6%
30.2%
57.4%
69.8%
Men
Women
59.4%
63.8%
40.6%
36.2%
39.9%
39.3%
60.1%
60.7%
Age 17–34
Age 55 and Older 58.9%
51.6%
41.1%
48.4%
41.8%
36.0%
58.2%
64.0%
Non-professionals Professionals
61.2%
42.5%
38.8%
57.5%
40.9%
35.1%
59.1%
64.9%
Source: ANES Cumulative Data File.
between the two can be gained by examining different demographic groups. The
data in the first two columns of Table 2 show the voting behavior of different subgroups within the White unionized population, while the second two columns
show these same data for the non-unionized White population. Overall, White
union members supported the Democratic Party’s presidential candidates much
more strongly than did White non-union members during this time (60.0% vs.
39.6%). Although not surprising, what is noteworthy is that this support came
almost exclusively from White union members with no college education, as
White union members with some college were strong supporters of the Republican Party’s presidential candidates. Gender did little to distinguish White union
members from one another, in that both males and females of this group strongly
supported Democratic presidential candidates. However, age did provide some
distinction, as younger White union members provided stronger support for
Democratic presidential candidates than did older White union members,
although the latter did support Democratic candidates more than their nonunionized counterparts. Finally, occupational classification mattered greatly,
as White union members who were not professionals supported the Democratic
presidential candidates much more than did their professional colleagues. The
overall picture that emerges, though, is one in which unionization clearly mattered. Across every subgroup, White union members more strongly supported
Democratic presidential candidates than did White non-union members.
Table 3 shows similar data for the presidential elections of 2000, 2004,
and 2008. The overall picture that emerges is encouraging for the Democratic
Party, as support for its presidential candidates among the entire population of
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 11:55 PM
The Changing Face of Unions and White Labor Support 217
Table 3: Presidential Vote Among Unionized and Non-unionized Whites 2000–2008.
Union
Dem.
Rep.
Non-union
Dem.
Rep.
All
57.6%
42.4%
42.6%
57.4%
No College
Some College
49.6%
62.7%
50.4%
37.3%
45.0%
41.3%
55.0%
58.7%
Men
Women
53.4%
63.0%
46.6%
37.0%
38.8%
45.4%
61.2%
54.6%
Age 17–34
Age 55 and Older 49.2%
58.7%
50.8%
41.3%
49.9%
42.2%
50.1%
57.8%
Non-professionals Professionals
54.0%
68.1%
46.0%
31.9%
40.4%
45.6%
59.6%
54.4%
Source: ANES Cumulative Data File.
White union members showed little slippage since the 1950s (57.6% vs. 60.0%).
However, a look at the data for specific subgroups reveals some important
changes. First, White union members with some college, who were supportive of
Republican presidential candidates during the 1950s, exhibited strong support
for Democratic presidential candidates. However, White union members with no
college did not support Democratic presidential candidates as they did during the
1950s (although this support is slightly greater than support for such candidates
among the non-unionized Whites with no college). Additionally, female White
union members were significantly more supportive of Democratic presidential
candidates than their male counterparts. However, it is still the case that unionized White males showed greater support for Democratic presidential candidates
than did non-unionized White males.
There was also an age-based distinction among White union members –
but this distinction is the opposite of what it was during the 1950s. During that
period, older White union members were much less supportive of Democratic
presidential candidates than young White union members. During the 2000s this
situation is reversed, as older White union members were much more supportive
of Democratic presidential candidates than young White union members, who
actually gave a slight majority of their votes to Republican presidential candidates during the 2000s. Furthermore, there was very little difference between this
group and non-unionized young Whites. Finally, the voting pattern of professionalized White union members exhibits an astounding shift. During the 1950s this
group was heavily Republican, but in the 2000s this group was more supportive of Democratic presidential candidates than any other subgroup among the
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 11:55 PM
218 John F. Camobreco and Michelle A. Barnello
White unionized population (68.1%). This is remarkable given that non-unionized White professionals showed fairly strong support for Republican presidential candidates during this time. Non-professionalized White union members
remained supportive of Democratic presidential candidates, but not at the same
level as in the 1950s.
The preceding data present evidence, although indirect, that much of the union
support for Democratic presidential candidates now originates from public sector
union members. During the 2000s, union members who were young or without a
college education – precisely those members most likely to belong to private sector
unions – were actually more likely to vote for the Republican rather than the Democratic candidate for president. On the other hand, support for Democratic Party
presidential candidates was very strong among White union members who were
female, those with at least some college, those who were older, and those employed
in professional occupations. These are also the groups of the unionized workforce
most likely to be public sector union members, and the unionized groups that have
grown the most over the last several decades. Given the growth of these groups
and their strong support for Democratic presidential candidates, it is reasonable to
argue that White union members will remain strongly tied to the Democratic Party
in the near future, despite the less than enthusiastic support shown to the party by
those among that group who are young and/or have no college education.
One final issue that can be examined is the impact of cultural issues on
the connection between union members and the Democratic Party. As noted
earlier, the groups typically associated with public sector union membership are
also those groups likely to be fairly liberal on cultural issues. Is the Democratic
Party’s cultural liberalism another impetus for public sector union members to
support Democratic presidential candidates? We test this proposition by examining the abortion attitudes of different groups of union members during the
2000s. Abortion is arguably the most controversial and polarizing cultural issue
of the last several decades, and therefore represents an appropriate cultural
issue to examine. It is also an issue on which the parties have been clearly distinguished for quite some time, with the Democratic Party taking a clear stand
in favor of legalized abortion. The ANES contains a 4-point abortion item which
asks respondents the circumstances under which they would support legalized
abortion, with higher scores indicating greater support.5 Table 4 shows the mean
5 The four possible responses to this item are: 1. by law, abortion should never be permitted.
2. The law should permit abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in
danger. 3. The law should permit abortion for reasons other than rape, incest, or danger to the
woman’s life, but only after the need for the abortion has been clearly established. 4. By law, a
woman should always be able to obtain an abortion as a matter of personal choice.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 11:55 PM
The Changing Face of Unions and White Labor Support 219
Table 4: Abortion Attitudes Among Unionized Whites 2000–2008.
No College
Some College
2.68
3.32***
Men
Women
2.90
3.25*
Age 17–34
Age 55 and Older 2.72
2.95
Non-professionals Professionals
2.85
3.63***
Source: ANES Cumulative Data File.
Numbers represent mean scores on 4-point ANES abortion attitude item. Higher numbers
­indicate greater support for legalized abortion.
*Difference is statistically significant at 0.10 level.
***Difference is statistically significant at 0.001 level.
score on this abortion item for different groups of unionized Whites between
2000 and 2008. In all cases, the groups typically associated with public sector
union membership have higher scores, indicating greater support for legalized
abortion. For the college and professional categories, the differences between the
respective groups are highly statistically significant. Thus, this evidence suggests
that public sector union members are more culturally liberal than their private
sector counterparts, and this gives them an additional incentive to support the
Democratic Party.
The Future of White Union Support for the
­Democratic Party
The political importance of cultural issues over the last several decades has
changed the composition of the Democratic Party’s constituency and altered
the incentives for the Party. In an effort to attract culturally liberal Whites, the
Democratic Party has lost some support among culturally conservative White
union members. Yet overall, White union members continue to support Democratic presidential candidates. While Democratic Party support for the initiatives
of organized labor sometimes seems lacking at the national level, this support
is alive and well at the state and local levels, even when labor is not winning its
political battles. The key to untangling the current relationship between White
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 11:55 PM
220 John F. Camobreco and Michelle A. Barnello
union members and the Democratic Party is the recognition that public sector
union members now represent a majority of the unionized workforce. This important shift has also transformed the demographic composition of the union population. During the 1950s this population was largely a White, male, younger group
with little college education. Since that time the face of unions has become more
racially and ethnically diverse, more female, older, more educated, and more
professionalized.
The fact that public sector unions have waxed while private sector unions
have waned is significant because the former are fundamentally different than
the latter. Public sector union members have the power to help elect who they will
bargain with, and this gives them an electoral consideration that is not relevant
to their private sector counterparts. The public sector union population is also
composed of groups that tend to be more culturally liberal than the groups that
populate private sector unions. Both of these differences give public sector union
members a greater incentive to support the Democratic Party than their private
sector brethren.
The evidence presented here about the political differences between public
sector and private sector union members, although indirect, confirms that the
Democratic Party’s support among White union members largely originates from
public sector union members. Moreover, White public sector union members do
indeed appear to be more culturally liberal than private sector union members,
confirming that the former have an additional incentive to support the Democratic
Party. These results do not suggest that White private sector union members have
completely abandoned the Democratic Party, but clearly their support for Democratic presidential candidates has declined a great deal since the 1950s. Instead,
the core of White unionized support for the Democratic Party now appears to
emanate from public sector unions, a fact made all the more significant given
that public sector union members now outnumber private sector union members.
These results have important implications for both practical politics and
scholarly research on voting and elections. From a practical standpoint, it
seems clear that a significant percentage of White union members will continue
to support the Democratic Party and its candidates. This will be driven by the
increasing percentage of union members who work in the public sector, a group
that is also more culturally liberal than private sector union members. However,
we should also expect to see additional Republican efforts to weaken public
sector unions. Although such efforts would be consistent with the Republican
Party’s philosophy of limiting government spending, it would also represent a
savvy political strategy. Given the strong link between public sector unions and
the Democratic Party, the Republican Party would set itself up for long term political gains if it could succeed in weakening or dissolving such unions. These results
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 11:55 PM
The Changing Face of Unions and White Labor Support 221
also provide important evidence for future researchers of the political behavior of
union members. That evidence clearly suggests that when possible, it is necessary to distinguish between private sector and public sector union members. The
latter are different from the former in some important ways, and these ways affect
the electoral behavior of public sector union members. This will be an especially
important exercise as public sector union members continue to represent a larger
and larger share of the unionized workforce.
References
Anzia, Sarah F. 2011. “Election Timing and the Electoral Influence of Interest Groups.” Journal of
Politics 73: 412–427.
Aronowitz, Stanley. 2011. “One, Two, Many Madisons: The War on Public Sector Workers.”
New Labor Forum 20: 15–21.
Asher, Herbert B., Eric S. Herberlig, Randall B. Ripley, and Karen Snyder. 2001. American Labor
Unions in the Electoral Arena: People, Passions, and Power. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Beachler, Donald W. 2007. “Race, God, and Guns: Union Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election.” Working USA: The Journal of Labor and Society 10: 311–325.
Beachler, Donald W. 2009. “Victory and the Promise of Reform: Labor and the 2008 Election.”
Working USA: The Journal of Labor and Society 12: 265–277.
Department of Professional Employment. 2003. Rising Tide, Professionals: The New Face of
America’s Unions. Washington, DC: AFL-CIO.
DiSalvo, Daniel. 2012. “Dues and Deep Pockets: Public-Sector Unions’ Money Machine.” Civic
Report 67.
DiSalvo, Daniel. 2015. Government Against Itself: Public Union Power and its Consequences.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Edsall, Thomas Byrnes. 2006. Building Red America: The New Conservative Coalition and the
Drive for Permanent Power. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Francia, Peter L. 2006. The Future of Organized Labor in American Politics. New York,
NY: Columbia University Press.
Francia, Peter L. 2010. “Assessing the Labor-Democratic Party Alliance: A One-Sided
­Relationship?” Polity 42: 293–303.
Francia, Peter L. 2012. “Do Unions Still Matter in U.S. Elections? Assessing Labor’s Political
Power and Significance.” The Forum 10 (1): Article 3. doi: 10.1515/1540-8884.1497.
Green, John C. 2007. The Faith Factor: How Religion Influences American Elections. Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Hirsch, Barry T., and David A. Macpherson. 2003. “Union Membership and Coverage Database
from the Current Population Survey: Note.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 56: 349–354.
Juravich, Tom, and Kate Bronfenbrenner. 1998. “Preparing for the Worst: Organizing and
Staying Organized in the Public Sector.” In Organizing to Win: New Research on Union
Strategies, edited by Kate Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon Friedman, Richard W. Hurd, Rudolph A.
Oswald and Ronald L. Seeber, 262–282. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 11:55 PM
222 John F. Camobreco and Michelle A. Barnello
Layman, Geoffrey. 2001. The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party
Politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Leighley, Jan E., and Jonathan Nagler. 2007. “Unions, Voter Turnout, and Class Bias in the U.S.
Electorate, 1964–2004.” Journal of Politics 69: 430–441.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., William G. Jacoby, Helmut Norpoth, and Herbert F. Weisberg. 2008.
The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Lichtenstein, Nelson. 2012. “Can This Election Save the Unions?” Dissent 59: 29–33.
McCartin, Joseph A. 2011. “Convenient Scapegoat: Public Workers under Assault.” Dissent 58:
45–50.
Moe, Terry M. 2011. Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools.
­Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Schmitt, John, and Kris Warner. 2009. The Changing Face of Labor, 1983–2008. Center for
Economic and Policy Research. http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/changingface-of-labor-2009-11.pdf.
John F. Camobreco is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Christopher Newport
­University. His research interests include mass political behavior and religion and politics.
Michelle A. Barnello is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Christopher Newport
­University. Her research interests include women and politics and abortion policy.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 11:55 PM