America's Workers Have It Even Worse Than They Think
By Kevin Reuning and C.M. Lewis
When viewed in comparison to their peers in most other industrialized countries, workers in the United States have few workplace protections, especially on the federal level. In 2019 the International Trade Union Confederation - the largest global trade union federation - categorized the United States as displaying systematic violation of workers’ rights, alongside Uganda, Haiti and Serbia. Weak worker protections and rights, alongside the decline of organized labor, are among the main reasons for the sharp rise in income inequality in the United States over the last thirty years.
A recent DFP survey found that voters are ready for new and strong protections for workers, and that voters believe workers need to be more involved in the decisions that affect them. The survey was in the field from November 20th to December 3rd on the Lucid platform, and weighted using gender, age, region, education, race, and the interaction of education and race to look like the overall population of registered voters. In total, the survey includes 5,881 registered voters.
Before examining voters’ preferences, we wanted to first identify if they know what worker protections look like in the United States. We asked voters whether a variety of different employment situations were legal or illegal. For example, 91 percent of voters recognized that it was illegal to fire a worker for being African American. Overall, voters were able to recognize a variety of instances where employers were restricted: that you cannot promote a worker for their religious views (79 percent said illegal) and cannot discipline a worker for supporting a union (79 percent said illegal). In contrast, 86 percent believe workers cannot be fired for their sexuality; although this is true in some states and jurisdictions, it is not true federally (although a Supreme Court case is pending).
At the other end of the spectrum, voters were split over the legal status of firing workers for social media postings, and for rewarding workers who lose weight. Although particular cases might vary, in general employers are able to do both of these. Thirty-five percent of voters thought rewarding workers for losing weight was illegal (39 percent thought it was legal), and 34 percent thought firing someone for what they post on social media was illegal -- compared to 41 percent who thought it was legal. In general, voters believe that there are more protections for workers than there actually are.
Given the importance of party identification and the increasingly partisan political atmosphere, we looked for discrepancies across party identification. However, we found that the same patterns generally hold across partisanship. The largest difference is between Republicans and Independents/Others regarding the legality of firing workers for social media posts. Thirty-nine percent of Republicans believe that this is currently illegal, compared to only 30 percent of Independents and 34 percent of Democrats.
Having established public perception of existing labor protections, we asked voters about general views on employment relationships and the role of unions in industrial relations. The results were surprising: 60 percent of respondents believe that workers need strong unions, 66 percent believe that workers need government regulation to protect them and 65 percent believe that workers need a bigger say in their jobs. In addition, 49 percent - a strong plurality - thought that managers and supervisors have too much control over their workers. We also directly asked about the idea that unions were useful, but are no longer relevant in the present economy. Fifty-two percent disagreed, while only 34 percent agreed.
Many pro-worker positions even hold majority support among Republicans. Fifty-six percent of Republicans believe workers need a stronger say in their job, while 55 percent believe that workers need government regulation to protect their interests. Again, we find that the majority of Republicans think that government regulation is necessary to protect workers. Direct questions about unions showed a split Republican Party as well. Forty-four percent of Republicans believe that workers need strong unions, with a narrow plurality - 45 percent - opposed.
Next, we asked voters about their positions on a variety of policies that would shift the balance of power between workers and employers. This included: raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour; just-cause employment; codetermination; making it easier to form unions; a federal job guarantee; providing paths for worker input; and requiring that workers get a portion of company stock. Before asking their position voters received either one of two prompts (or neither prompt as a control). One prompt was about growing economic inequality (Economic frame), while the second prompt was about the lack of rights for US workers (Rights frame). Overall, we found that a majority of voters supported each of these policies, and that the different framings had no significant effect on their positions.
Given the large sample size, we can also break these positions out by party as well. We expected that Republicans might be more responsive to a rights frame. Although this might be true in some cases, it was not consistent across the different issues. The results do show Republican majority support for just-cause employment (66 percent support in the control); codetermination (56 percent support in the control); and creating paths for worker input (54 percent support in the control).
Voters value having a stronger voice at their job, and they want it through stronger unions and government regulations. These values lead them to support progressive policies such as codetermination, $15 minimum wage, and a job guarantee among other positions. Surprisingly, the framing of the debate does not seem to be important, voters do not respond more to arguments of growing economic inequality or the importance of individual rights and protections.
Kevin Reuning (@kevinreuning) is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.
C.M. Lewis (@thehousered) is a staff union representative for the Pennsylvania State Education Association and a member of the Strikewave editorial team. Sign up for Strikewave here.