Valuing Non-Wage Compensation of Private Sector Labor Union Workers in the Construction Trades

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Tinari ◽  
Kenneth T. Betz

Abstract This article presents procedures for calculating the value of non-wage compensation for members of private sector labor unions in the construction industry and cites examples using various collective bargaining agreements. Four major fringe benefit categories are analyzed: welfare, annuity, vacation, and pension funds. When calculating the loss to a private sector union worker it is necessary to obtain not only the relevant collective bargaining agreements but also information regarding both actual earnings and the number of hours worked. If both cannot be obtained, problems in valuing retirement and other fringe benefit funds arise. In some cases, the union member may work for several different employers during any given year, thus receiving many W-2s, but all hours worked would be recorded through the union. To value employer contributions to annuity and vacation funds a determination needs to be made if the contributions take into account premium pay union workers may receive. To value lost medical insurance, the replacement cost of a comparable medical insurance policy should be used. For lost pension benefits, it is important to establish the typical number of hours per annum that would most likely have been worked but for the injury. In addition, if the history of that union's pension benefit reveals increases over time, then that pattern may need to be considered as a basis for determining the future value of the pension benefit. Valuation of each private sector union benefit, therefore, is not simply a matter of referring to the value of the hourly contribution by the employer but requires its own method appropriate to the nature of the benefit as specified in the union's collective bargaining agreement.

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Fowler

This article examines the round of collective bargaining that took place between the Canadian Autoworkers (CAW), Canada’s largest private-sector union, and the ‘Big Three’ auto manufacturers (Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors) during the most recent crisis of capitalism (sometimes popularly referred to as the ‘Great Recession’). During this round of bargaining, the union made concessions in order to secure production; the article argues what while this may have represented a short-term success, in the long run the union has implicitly bought into the logics of neoliberalism, which will have disastrous consequences for both the union and the larger labour movement.


Author(s):  
John D. Bitzan ◽  
Bahman Bahrami

This study examines union wage premiums by occupation in the public sector in the U.S. for the 2000-2004 period.  In examining union-nonunion wage differences for public sector workers in occupations accounting for 66 percent of all public workers in the 2000-2004 Current Population Survey, we find positive and statistically significant union premiums for 27 out of 41 occupations examined.  We also find large differences among occupations, with miscellaneous teachers and instructors receiving a 61 percent premium, secretaries and administrative assistants receiving a 5 percent premium, and 14 occupations receiving no statistically significant premium.  In comparing union premiums by occupation between the private and public sectors, we find, in most cases, that private sector premiums are larger than public sector premiums.  Finally, an Oaxaca decomposition shows that the majority of the differential between private sector union premiums and public sector union premiums appears to be due to differences in the way unions reward workers in the private and public sectors, not because of differences in the types of workers in the private and public sectors.


2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexis N. Walker

Why did public sector unionization rise so dramatically and then plateau at the same time as private sector unionization underwent a precipitous decline? The exclusion of public sector employees from the centerpiece of private sector labor law—the 1935 Wagner Act—divided U.S. labor law and relegated public sector demand-making to the states. Consequently, public sector employees' collective bargaining rights were slow to develop and remain geographically concentrated, unequal and vulnerable. Further, divided labor law put the two movements out of alignment; private sector union density peaked nearly a decade before the first major statutes granting public sector collective bargaining rights passed. As a result of this incongruent timing and sequencing, the United States has never had a strong union movement comprised of both sectors at the height of their membership and influence.


2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Behroz Baraghoshi ◽  
Cihan Bilginsoy

2005 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-203
Author(s):  
Yonatan Reshef ◽  
Alan I. Murray

This paper tests whether an inconsistency exists between unions' industrial relations philosophies and their abilities to secure real wage gains. One economic measure and two attitudinal measures are related to union membership. The influence of these measures on both the likelihood that a person is a union member and union membership's impact upon these measures are simultaneously estimated. The implications of the results for private-sector union decline in Canada are then discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document