By Todd E. Vachon and Jeremy Brecher
published in Labor Studies Vol. 41(2) p.185-203, June 2016
Abstract
This study examines the relationship between unionization and environmental attitudes and behaviors in two national surveys. We begin by comparing the responses of union versus nonunion respondents to sixteen environmental questions in the General Social Survey for various years between 1993 and 2010. Overall, union members are, on average, slightly more likely than the general population to display pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors—having moderately greater mean values for ten of the sixteen pro-environmental items and displaying no difference on the remaining six items. Next, we look at three environmental questions in the American National Election Studies in various years between 1980 and 2012 and find union members on average to be more likely to support environmentalism than the general population for all three items. Finally, we conduct a robustness check by reducing the sample to just employed workers for each of the surveys and find the results to be substantively similar to those for the general population. This study contributes to the ongoing “jobs vs. the environment” debate as well as discussions about the ability of the labor and environmental movements to work together as a broad-based progressive movement for social change.
Keywords
labor environmentalism, blue-green coalitions, jobs versus the environment, sustainable development, just transitions
1University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
2Labor Network for Sustainability, Takoma Park, MD, USA
Corresponding Author:
Todd E. Vachon, Department of Sociology, University of Connecticut, 344 Mansfield Rd., Unit 1068, Storrs, CT 06269, USA.
Introduction
“Jobs versus the Environment” has been the mantra of the mainstream media when it comes to unionized workers and environmental issues. High profile cases like the his- toric struggle between timber workers and defenders of the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest have served as great news stories for media outlets concerned with ratings and advertising revenue (Brecher 2014; Foster 1993). But what of the countless instances of cooperation between labor and the environmental movement, such as joint support for environmental legislation like the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts (Dewey 1998; Obach
2004) and their ultimate cooperation, after long-running conflict, to conserve old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest? To be sure, there are specific instances in which some unions clash with some environmental interests and other instances when they cooper- ate, but what on average is the relationship between the blues and the greens?
One possible way to address this question is by polling unionized workers on their environmental attitudes and behaviors and then comparing their responses with those of the general population to see if they differ in any way. Using data from two nationally representative surveys—the General Social Survey (GSS) and the American National Election Studies (ANES)—this study does just that. By exploring a total of nineteen survey items related to attitudes and behaviors toward the environment, we are able to paint an overall picture of the relationship between unionized workers and the environment. In sum, we find that union members are on average slightly more likely to support environ- mental protection measures; moderately more likely to engage in political action to protect the environment; and more likely to make green lifestyle choices than the general public.
In the context of decades of neoliberal deregulation and market fundamentalism that has hurt workers and the environment alike (Harvey 2005; Klein 2014), this study addresses a very important question: are America’s two largest social movements compatible? Some have argued that only a large-scale, cross-class social movement is capable of challenging the logic of unfettered capitalism—any such movement would surely require the participation of organized labor as well as the environmental move- ment (Rose 1999). In assessing that compatibility, this study makes several key contri- butions to labor studies. First, it provides a succinct recount of some of the most notable instances of conflict and cooperation between labor and environmental orga- nizations throughout American history. Second, it provides the first nationally repre- sentative comparison of environmental attitudes and behaviors of union members versus the general population in the United States. Finally, it contributes to the ongo- ing discussion of labor-community coalitions in general and blue-green coalition for- mation in particular, including the ability of these coalitions to develop lasting relationships that work for broader social change to benefit all working people (Brecher and Costello 1990; Mayer 2009).
On Common Ground or Uncommon Ground?
When antinuclear activists opposed the building of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant
(later the scene of a serious nuclear accident), a local union distributed a bumper
sticker reading “Hungry and Out of Work? Eat an Environmentalist!” Labor- environmental conflict has arisen around nuclear energy; coal mining; “smart growth” restrictions on development; and many more issues locally, regionally, and nationally (Uehlein 2010).
Both environmental and labor groups are often divided internally on such issues. For example, many environmental groups joined with labor in opposing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but others supported it. The Steelworkers union supported the Kyoto Protocol on global warming while the Mineworkers and others opposed it and eventually persuaded the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) to do so as well. While the AFL-CIO has come to recognize the reality of climate change and to support policies to expand green jobs, it has also lobbied against incorporating the targets and timelines recom- mended by climate scientists in international agreements (Brecher 2013b).
The interest of workers in protecting their jobs is often used by employers to achieve their own policy objectives; workers are often presented as the public face of opposition to environmental protection. For example, in the 1990s, a highly publicized conflict developed over use of the Endangered Species Act to halt logging in the Pacific Northwest. While proper regulation of logging might well have extended log- ging employment in the long run, the logging companies held meetings on paid work time to train workers to oppose the regulations, and the Bush administration encour- aged the conflict for its political advantage (Durban 1998).
The book Fear at Work: Job Blackmail, Labor and the Environment by Richard Kazis and Richard L. Grossman (1982) made the case that ever since the establishment of environmental and workplace protections in the early 1970s, private employers have resisted further curbs on corporate conduct by threatening job destruction. The refrain has been that environmental standards, and to some extent occupational safety and health standards, wipe out existing jobs and make new ones impossible. Fear at Work showed in detail the use of this job blackmail to split trade unionists from envi- ronmentalists, making unnatural enemies of those who should be allies. While many studies indicate that in aggregate, environmental protection is good for jobs and for the economy as a whole, such specific examples often help those who are opposed to both workers and environmental protection to frame such situations as “jobs versus the environment” (Brecher 2013a; Goodstein 1999).
Sometimes, such conflicts can be reconciled. When environmentalists urged restric- tions on high-sulfur coal that was causing acid rain, the Mineworkers union opposed their proposals and even insisted that the labor-environmental Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)–Environmental Network be shut down. But in
1988, the Mineworkers negotiated an acid rain compromise agreement with Senator
George Mitchell of Maine—later torpedoed by the utility industry (Patashnik 2008).
Unions have a responsibility to protect the jobs of their members, and the labor movement has a long tradition of providing solidarity with workers in other unions whose interests are threatened. Environmental organizations, conversely, have as their primary responsibility protecting particular aspects of the environment, and they are often determined to do so even if other social groups oppose them.
A broader philosophic division often occurs around the question of economic growth. Historically, unions have supported economic growth both as a means to full employment, a way to provide a better life for all, and as an aspect of human progress. Environmentalists are often acutely aware, however, of the negative consequences of economic growth in the pollution of air, water, and land; the harm to human health; and the threat to the earth’s climate. A beginning at reconciling this division has been made with proposals for massive job creation through investment in the transition to a low-carbon economy (Collins 2014).
Despite these sources of conflict, organized labor has often been a proponent of environmental protection. Its initial involvement has frequently been an extension of its concern with health issues inside the workplace to the effect of industrial processes outside the workplace. A classic example occurred on Halloween night, 1948, in Donora, Pennsylvania, when fluoride released by plants of the U.S. Steel Corporation caused a toxic cloud that killed twenty and left hundreds more sick or dying. The “Donora death fog” led the recently formed United Steelworkers Union to recognize the close connection between health and safety issues in the plant and environmental issues in surrounding communities. The union became a strong supporter of environ- mental protection, regarding it as an extension of the union’s responsibility for its members’ health and safety. In 1963, the Steelworkers supported the very first Federal Clean Air Act and in 1990, it stated that global warming “may be the single greatest problem we face.” Workers and environmentalists joined together in many states, such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey, to fight for the right of workers and communities to have the right to know the relevant information about toxic substances used in indus- try—leading to the issuing of national right-to-know protections by both OSHA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA; United Steelworkers of America 2006).
Labor has also supported conservation efforts, in part because many workers have long been active participants in outdoor activities like hunting and fishing. For exam- ple, in 1958, the AFL-CIO joined with conservationists to support the establishment of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The AFL-CIO launched a national Union Sportsmen Alliance in 2007 to work for wildlife habitat protections while guar- anteeing access for hunters and anglers (Harden 2007).
Over the later decades of the twentieth century as “sustainable development” emerged as a concept to unite social, economic, and environmental concerns, unions in the United States and around the world developed their own version of a vision for sustainable development that integrated the needs of environment and working people (Sweeney 2012; Silverman 2004). In his retracing of the evolution of trade unionists’ thinking about nature and their relationship to the environment, Silverman (2004) uncovers a large degree of intellectual and political involvement of labor leaders in United Nations’ environmental policy making from the 1950s through the 1980s. He also finds that many international trade union organizations, such as the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the International Trade Secretariats and the European Trade Union Confederation have participated in various international con- ferences and institutions such as the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Environment, the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, and the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable
Development. As the 1992 World Congress of the International Confederation of Trade Unions, then the dominant global union federation, put it, “in a world of finite resources there must be a reconciliation between growth and environmental protec- tion.” Sustainable development demanded “the creation and maintenance of socially useful, individually fulfilling and environmentally sound employment.” This concern went beyond economics and environment to “broader social issues” such as “the strug- gle for human rights, equity and social justice” (Silverman 2004).
Unions and environmentalists have often worked together to fight corporate ene- mies of labor and the environment. For example, in 1973, the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers (OCAW) union, largely as a result of the pioneering work of labor- environmental activist Tony Mazzocchi, struck the notorious polluter Shell Oil at five refineries, demanding a national health and safety agreement that also would have significantly reduced the dangers of environmental contamination through poor plant practices. The Sierra Club and eleven other national environmental organizations sup- ported the strike, stating,
We have increasingly come to recognize that working people are among the hardest hit by the hazards of pollution in the workplace. We support the efforts of the OCAW in demanding a better environment, not just for its own workers, but for all Americans. (Leopold 2007)
Al Grospiron, president of the OCAW, said,
Organized Labor must emphatically support environmental cleanup efforts and must never get into the position of opposing such efforts on the grounds of economic hardship
. . . Our position must be that nearly all polluting facilities can be corrected without hardships to the workers and that in those few cases where corrections are not possible new job opportunities or compensation must be provided for the workers. (Leopold 2007)
Unions such as the United Auto Workers (UAW) and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) helped initiate Earth Day (United Auto Workers 1970). Organizer of the first Earth Day Dennis Hayes recalls,
The UAW was by far the largest contributor to the first Earth Day, and its support went beyond the merely financial. It printed and mailed all our materials at its expense—even those critical of pollution-belching cars. And, of course, Walter [Reuther] then endorsed the Clear Air Act that the Big Four (auto companies) were doing their damnedest to kill or gut. (Uehlein 2010)
In 1975, a group called Environmentalists for Full Employment organized to chal- lenge fears that environmental protection would lead to job loss by promoting new jobs. In 1979, unions and environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth formed the OSHA-Environmental Network with active coalitions in twenty-two states. It helped pass legislation that gave both workers and communities a right to know about toxic substances being used in workplaces. Both the OSHA-Environmental
Network and Environmentalists for Full Employment were initiated by and housed in the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO, the postmerger successor to the CIO (Obach 2004).
In 1999, the labor movement and many (although not all) environmental organiza- tions jointly demanded protection of workers and the environment in any international trade agreement and joined together to protest the founding World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle. When young environmentalists, some wearing turtle cos- tumes to represent threatened species, arrived at the mass rallies and demonstrations of over forty thousand people, the slogan rapidly spread, “Turtles and teamsters, together at last!” The ensuing “Battle of Seattle” shut down the global summit called to establish the WTO (Brecher, Costello, and Smith 2000).
In the aftermath of the Battle of Seattle, labor and environmental organizations organized a major meeting to launch further cooperation. The meeting was scheduled for September 11, 2001; it was canceled because of the terrorist attacks. Two new labor-environmental alliances sprang up to continue the collaboration. The Apollo Alliance, which brought together labor, environmental, and some business groups to promote massive investment in a clean energy economy, was founded in 2003. The Blue-Green Alliance (BGA) was founded in 2006 by the Sierra Club and the Steelworkers union to fight for “green jobs”; it has subsequently been joined by a number of other unions and environmental groups. In 2012, Apollo merged into the BGA. Meanwhile, an environmental justice movement also emerged to fight for poor and minority groups who have been disproportionately impacted by environmental degradation as their communities have been made dumping grounds for pollution (Brecher 2015).
Why, despite the highly publicized conflict between labor and environmental movements and the basis for conflicting interests between them, has labor-environ- mental cooperation and labor support for environmental protection occurred at all? We hypothesize that the answer may lie in an unrecognized concern among rank-and-file union members about environmental issues and an unrecognized desire and even activism for environmental protection that expresses itself in pro-environmental poli- cies and actions in the organizations that represent them.
Data and Method
To answer our research question, we look to two long-standing national surveys of American attitudes and behaviors—the GSS and the ANES. The GSS is the only full- probability, personal-interview survey designed to monitor changes in both social characteristics and attitudes currently being conducted in the United States. The sur- vey has been administered almost annually since 1972. Among the topics covered are crime and violence, civil liberties, intergroup tolerance, national spending priorities, issues of morality, psychological well-being, social mobility, and most pertinent here, concern for the environment. ANES Time Series studies have been conducted since
1948, typically through in-person interviewing, during years of biennial national elec- tions. Topics cover voting behavior and the elections, together with questions on
public opinion and attitudes of the electorate. Importantly, both surveys ask respon- dents if they are a member of a union.
Within the GSS, we have identified a set of sixteen questions that relate to the envi- ronment. These survey items can be categorized into two broad groups: environmental attitudes and environmental behaviors. They cover a broad range of issues including climate change, support for government regulation, and various personal actions that can be taken to protect the environment. These questions were asked in various years between 1993 and 2010, creating pooled groups of between 915 and 3,990 respon- dents for each question. Within the ANES, we identify three items related to the envi- ronment, and they are all attitudinal questions. These questions were asked in various years between 1980 and 2012, creating pooled groups of between 3,252 and 24,979 respondents for each question.1 The exact wording of each question, the years asked, and the sample size for each item is presented in the “Results” section.2
Our analytical approach for this study is descriptive in nature. For each survey item, we conduct a comparison of responses for union versus nonunion respondents in the general population.3 The differences in mean values of responses for these two groups will be tested for statistical significance by way of two-tailed t tests; the null hypoth- esis being no difference in means. In addition to the traditional significance levels of
.001, .01, and .05, we also indicate significance at the .10 level due to relatively small sample sizes for some of the survey questions. Finally, as a robustness check, we con- duct a supplementary analysis with the sample restricted to just employed workers to see if the findings for union members versus nonmembers in the general population are the same or different when considering just employed workers—those who could conceivably be most directly affected by environmental regulations.
Results
GSS
The descriptive statistics for the sixteen survey items in the GSS are presented for union versus nonunion respondents in Table 1.4 Beginning with attitudes, the first row of Table 1 summarizes the percent of union members versus the general population who either disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement about jobs ver- sus the environment:
We worry too much about the future of the environment and not enough about prices and jobs today.
Looking at the first datum in Table 1, we can see that 48 percent of the unionized respondents either disagree or strongly disagree with this statement, compared with just 43 percent of nonunion respondents. This finding suggests that, on average, union workers are more concerned with the future of the environment than their non- union counterparts. Or, stated differently, more nonunion respondents feel that a greater emphasis should be placed on jobs and prices today than protecting the envi-
Table 1. Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors of Respondents in the General Social
Survey by Union Status.
Union members Nonmembers
Attitudes
Economy and government
M SD M SD
Environment over economy 0.48* 0.50 0.43 0.49
Government should regulate 0.94† 0.24 0.92 0.28
Increase fuel efficiency standards 0.94 0.02 0.92 0.01
Climate change
Informed about global warming 0.60 0.03 0.60 0.01
Scientists agree about global warming 0.17 0.04 0.15 0.01
Scientists understand causes of global warming 0.73 0.04 0.66 0.01
Willingness to act
Would cut living standards 0.35 0.48 0.32 0.47
Would pay more for goods 0.54† 0.50 0.49 0.50
Would pay higher taxes 0.42** 0.49 0.36 0.48
Behaviors
Political action
| Signed an environmental petition | 0.32** | 0.47 | 0.25 | 0.43 |
| Attended an environmental protest | 0.03 | 0.17 | 0.03 | 0.17 |
| Donated money to an environmental cause | 0.29** | 0.49 | 0.22 | 0.49 |
| Joined an environmental group | 0.12** | 0.33 | 0.08 | 0.27 |
| Lifestyle choices | ||||
| Drives less | 0.49** | 0.61 | 0.42 | 0.60 |
| Recycles | 0.91** | 0.29 | 0.85 | 0.36 |
| Buys organic | 0.71* | 0.46 | 0.64 | 0.48 |
The exact wording of each survey question can be found in the “Results” section of the article; data coding, survey years, and sample size for all variables can be found in the appendix. Asterisks (and dagger) denote a statistically significant difference in means between groups.
†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed t tests of significance).
ronment for the future. The difference between these two groups’ means is statisti- cally significant.
The second row in Table 1 summarizes the percent of union versus nonunion respondents who responded definitely should or probably should to the following question about government regulation:
On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the government’s responsibility to impose strict laws to make industry do less damage to the environment?
We can see that 94 percent of union workers compared with just 92 percent of the general population believe that the government should impose strict laws on industry
to protect the environment. In other words, unionized workers are slightly more likely to favor environmental regulation. The difference between these two groups’ means is statistically significant (p < .10).
The third environmental attitude item in the GSS relates to fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and asks respondents:
How much do you favor or oppose requiring car makers to make cars and trucks that use less gasoline?
The results in Table 1 present the percent of respondents who either favor or strongly favor increasing fuel efficiency standards. We can see that 94 percent of union mem- bers and 92 percent of the general population support stronger fuel efficiency stan- dards, but there is no statistical difference between the two groups for this survey item. Thus, we can say that union members do not differ from the general population in their opinion about fuel efficiency standards.
The next three items are related to the issue of global warming. Beginning with the third row of Table 1, we can see the means for responses to the following question about the respondent’s knowledge about global warming:
Please indicate whether you are very informed, somewhat informed, neither informed nor uninformed, somewhat uniformed, or very uninformed about global warming.
The results show that 60 percent of both union and nonunion members indicated that they were either very informed or somewhat informed about global warming. This finding suggests that union membership is not associated with either increased or decreased self-assessed knowledge about the issue of global warming.
The next item probes respondent’s beliefs about the extent to which scientists either agree or disagree about the existence and causes of global warming:
To what extent do environmental scientists agree among themselves about the existence and causes of global warming?
Just 17 percent of union members and 15 percent of the general population believe that scientists are in “near complete agreement” about the existence and causes of global warming. There is no statistical difference between these group means, which suggests that union members are neither more nor less likely to believe that environmental sci- entists are in agreement about global warming.
The final item concerning global warming is a question that gauges respondent’s beliefs about the extent to which scientists understand the causes of global warming:
How well do environmental scientists understand the causes of global warming?
For this item, 73 percent of union members versus 66 percent of the general population believe that scientists understand the causes of global warming somewhat well or very well. Although somewhat contradictory to the findings from the previous question—which found
that few respondents (less than 20 percent) believed that scientists agreed about the causes of global warming—more than half of the respondents here believe that scientists under- stand the causes of global warming very well. However, there is still no significant differ- ence between union members and the general population for this final global warming item.
The next three items measure the willingness of respondents to take action to pro- tect the environment in the future. The first, willingness to cut living standards, asks:
How willing would you be to accept cuts in your standard of living in order to protect the environment?
For this item, 35 percent of union members versus 32 percent of the general population are willing to accept a cut in their living standards to protect the environment. However, the lack of statistical significance leads us to conclude that there is no difference between union members and the general population on this particular item. The second measure of willingness to act concerns prices of goods and asks:
How willing would you be to pay much higher prices in order to protect the environment?
For this item, there is a statistically significant difference in means, with 54 percent of union members compared with just 49 percent of the general population willing to pay much higher prices to protect the environment (p < .10). The final item in this group concerns taxation to protect the environment and asks:
How willing would you be to pay much higher taxes in order to protect the environment?
Here, 42 percent of union members compared with just 36 percent of the general popu- lation would be willing to pay higher taxes if they were used to protect the environ- ment. The difference in group means for this item is statistically significant.
The next group of items deals with pro-environmental behaviors, including politi- cal activism and personal lifestyle decisions to protect the environment. Beginning with political action, the first item in this section asks respondents if they have recently signed an environmental petition:
In the last five years, have you signed a petition about an environmental issue?
The data suggest that union members are significantly more likely to have signed a petition in the past five years, with 32 percent of members compared with just 25 per- cent of the general population responding yes. The second political action item— attended a protest—asks:
In the last five years, have you taken part in a protest or demonstration about an environmental issue?
For this item, there is no significant difference in means, with just 3 percent of union members and the general population indicating that they have attended a protest for an
environmental issue. The third political item asks respondents if they have recently donated money to an environmental cause:
In the last five years, have you given money to an environmental group?
In total, 29 percent of union members compared with 22 percent of the general population indicated that they have donated money to an environmental group. The difference in means is statistically significant for this item, with union members being more likely to have donated money to an environmental cause. The final measure of political action asks if respondents have joined an environmental organization:
Are you a member of any group whose main aim is to preserve or protect the environment?
Again, we find a statistically significant difference in means for this item, with 12 percent of union members compared with just 8 percent of the general population indicating that they have joined an environmental organization.
These findings for political action might be expected for union members as they are simply more accustomed than the general public to engaging in various forms of polit- ical action, but what about their personal lifestyle choices related to the environment? The next set of questions addresses personal behaviors and lifestyle choices that respondents may have made to protect the environment. For the next three items, the response categories of always, often, and sometimes were combined and compared with the response of never. The first item, drives less, asks:
How often do you cut back on driving a car for environmental reasons?
The data reveal that 49 percent of union members, compared with 42 percent of the general population, indicated that they drive less for environmental reasons. The dif- ference in means is significant. The second lifestyle item concerns recycling:
How often do you make a special effort to sort glass or cans or plastic or papers and so on for recycling?
Again, we find a statistically significant difference, with 91 percent of union members and just 85 percent of the general population indicating that they make a special effort to recycle. Looking next at consumption choices, we assess responses to a question about choosing to purchase organic products:
How often do you make a special effort to buy fruits and vegetables grown without pesticides or chemicals?
Union members again are statistically more likely to purchase chemical free foods, with 71 percent of members compared with 64 percent of the general population indi- cating that they always, often, or sometimes purchase organic produce.
Table 2. Environmental Attitudes of Respondents in the American National Election Studies by Union Status.
Union members Nonmembers
Attitudes
Economy and government
M SD M SD
Government regulation 0.65*** 0.48 0.55 0.50
Increase government spending 0.55*** 0.50 0.50 0.50
Environmental movement
Thermometer for environmentalists 70.28** 19.75 68.47 20.94
The exact wording of each survey question can be found in the “Results” section of the article; data coding, survey years, and sample size for all variables can be found in the appendix. Asterisks denote a statistically significant difference in means between groups.
†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed t tests of significance).
Taken together, these sixteen items suggest that, on average, union members are modestly more likely to display pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors in the GSS. The next section will probe the relationship between union membership and environ- mentalism in the ANES biannual surveys.
ANES
The descriptive statistics for the three environmental survey items in the ANES are presented for union versus nonunion respondents in Table 2. The first two items deal with the economy and government. Beginning with the first question, respondents were asked:
Some people think we need much tougher government regulations on business in order to protect the environment (suppose these people are at one end of a scale, at point 1). Others think that current regulations to protect the environment are already too much of a burden on business (suppose these people are at the other end of the scale, at point 7). And, of course, some other people have opinions somewhere in between, at points 2, 3,
4, 5, or 6. Where would you place yourself on this scale?
Values of 1, 2, and 3 were combined for this item to represent a desire to increase regu- lation of business to protect the environment (values of 4-7 represent either satisfaction with current levels of regulation or a desire to deregulate business). As we can see at the first data point in Table 2, 65 percent of union members feel that tougher regulations are needed to protect the environment, compared with just 55 percent of the general popu- lation. The difference in means for the two groups is statistically significant.
The second item asks respondents about their preferences for government spending
for environmental protection. The question asks:
If you had a say in making up the federal budget this year, for which programs would you like to see spending increased and for which would you like to see spending decreased: Should federal spending on improving/protecting the environment be increased, decreased, or kept the same?
The percent of union members who express a desire to increase spending to protect the environment is 55 percent compared with just 50 percent of the general population. This difference is statistically significant.
The final item from the ANES is a “thermometer” question, in which respondents are asked to rate various political groups, parties, and so forth on a scale from 0 to 100. The question is worded as follows:
There are many groups in America that try to get the government or the American people to see things more their way. We would like to get your feelings towards some of these groups. I have here a card on which there is something that looks like a thermometer. We call it a “feeling thermometer” because it measures your feelings towards groups. Here’s how it works. If you don’t know too much about a group or don’t feel particularly warm or cold toward them, then you should place them in the middle, at the 50 degree mark. If you have a warm feeling toward a group or feel favorably toward it, you would give it a score somewhere between 50 degrees and 100 degrees, depending on how warm your feeling is toward the group. On the other hand, if you don’t feel very favorably toward some of these groups—if there are some you don’t care for too much—then you would place them somewhere between 0 degrees and 50 degrees. Using the thermometer, how would you rate environmentalists?
The average temperature rating for environmentalists by union members was 70.28 degrees, and the average rating by the general population was 68.47 degrees. This sug- gests that union members have a slightly more favorable opinion of environmentalists than the general population. The difference in means for this item is statistically significant.
Taking these three items together, we find on average that union members are mod- erately more likely to display pro-environmental attitudes than their nonunion coun- terparts in the ANES. The significance of these findings will be discussed in greater detail in the “Discussion and Conclusion” section.
Supplemental Analysis
To check the robustness of the findings, we tried restricting the sample to just employed workers—defined as those currently employed either full-time or part-time—by excluding the self-employed, retired, full-time students, and homemakers. This restric- tion led to a reduction in sample size for all questions, with the N now ranging between
567 and 2,459 depending on the particular question.5 Comparing the union versus nonunion employed workers in the GSS, we find union members to display slightly more pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors on six of the sixteen items (govern- ment should regulate, scientists know causes of global warming, signed an
environmental petition, drives less, recycles, and buys organic) and show no statistical difference for the remaining ten items. While this is a reduction in the number of sig- nificant differences compared with the sample of the general population (where there were ten statistically different findings), the same pattern is present—the union mem- bers are on average more likely to show concern for the environment.
Moving to the ANES, the restriction of the sample reduced the sample size to a range of 2,064 for the item with the fewest responses and 15,151 for the item with the most responses. For these three items, the findings are unchanged, employed workers that are union members are more likely to display pro-environmental attitudes than their nonunion counterparts, and the differences are statistically significant. In sum, we can reasonably assume that our findings are robust as they hold up even when look- ing at just employed workers—a smaller sample and, thus, a more conservative statis- tical test than the general population.6
Discussion and Conclusion
In this study, we addressed the issue of labor environmentalism; in particular, we asked whether union members were more or less likely to display positive attitudes and behaviors toward the environment. Using data from two nationally representative sur- veys—the GSS and the ANES—we compared the mean responses of union members with the general population for nineteen indicators of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. In sum, we find union members are moderately more likely to support the environment in thirteen of the nineteen measures and show no difference from the general population on the remaining six measures. In addition, we conducted a supple- mental analysis that limited the sample to just employed workers, and we again found union members were moderately more likely to display pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors in this smaller sample.
This finding seems to go against the common sense understanding portrayed in the media that union members are solely concerned with their own economic interests at the expense of all others, including the environment. However, a more informed his- torical analysis would reveal a long record of environmental concern among unionized workers and their organizations that overlaps and intermingles with the sporadic “news event” conflicts that occasionally flare up between workers and environmentalists. Our findings suggest that, at worst, union members are no different from the general population when it comes to environmental attitudes and behaviors and in many cases they are moderately more concerned than the average American.
Despite statistically significant findings, this study suffers from some limitations. For example, the GSS and ANES data sets, while providing a rich array of questions to choose from, lack some important pieces of information for this study, namely, what kind of union the individual respondents belong to. Presumably, workers’ attitudes will vary across sectors of employment, particularly if their livelihood is directly related to industries that would experience the greatest impact of environmental pro- tection measures. Furthermore, the number of unionized respondents in a given sam- ple year is quite low, requiring the combination of multiple years to generate a reasonable sample. Considering these limitations, we recommend several avenues for
future research to expand our understanding of the relationship between unionization and workers’ attitudes toward the environment.
Future research in this area could complement the existing array of excellent qualita- tive case studies (e.g., Foster 1993; Mayer 2009; Obach 2004) by conducting multivari- ate regression analyses of the effects of unionization on workers’ attitudes after controlling for a variety of individual-level characteristics such as income and education. In addition, a decomposition of the union effect for different sectors (public vs. private) and industries of employment (blue-collar workers in extraction, manufacturing, con- struction, etc. vs. white-collar workers in education, clerical work, retail, etc.) could further inform our understanding of the sometimes complicated relationship between workers’ attitudes on jobs and the environment. Another interesting avenue would be a study of how the attitudes of workers have changed over time; are union members becoming more or less environmentally conscious than they once were? The political and social context of environmental issues for workers was likely quite different in the
1980s than it is in the early twenty-first century. To pursue some of these questions, a new source of data is required, one with an oversampling of union members and repeated administration of questions over time. We recommend future scholars to further consider these important questions about workers’ attitudes toward the environment.
On Common Ground After All?
Unions face an inescapable tension. On the one hand, they are principally organized to protect the work-related interests of their members. On the other hand, they have a responsibility to represent the broad class and social interests their members share with other workers, citizens, and human beings. From time to time, these interests come into conflict. When a particular group of workers finds their very livelihoods threatened by environmental protection or other socially necessary policies, their unions have a responsibility to ensure that the burden of change is not unjustly put on them.
Faced with such a situation, unions can simply fight against socially desirable poli- cies that may harm some of their members. But unions have the opportunity to pursue another course: not trying to preserve environmentally destructive jobs, but fighting for economic security and/or new jobs with equal or better wages and benefits. This has come to be known as providing a “just transition.” Fighting for such a just transition can be a crucial point of convergence between environmental and labor advocates.
What is more remarkable than the fact that some unions at times oppose specific envi- ronmental policies that may harm their members is the fact that particular unions and orga- nized labor as a whole have so often served as advocates for environmental protection. Unions, in such cases, far from pursuing interests of members that contradict broader social interests, advocate for the interests their members share with others. As Olga Madar, the first head of the UAW Conservation and Resource Development Department, put it around the time the UAW was helping initiate the first Earth Day, union members were “first and foremost American citizens and consumers” who “breathe the same air and drink and bathe in the same water” as their neighbors in other occupations (UAWs 1970).
This study shows that instances in which unions support environmental policies and even take the lead in environmental efforts are not aberrations, but rather they may be
reflections of the concerns and convictions of their rank-and-file members. Union mem- bers, far from being only concerned with their immediate self-interest at the expense of a broader common interest in environmental protection, are at least equally concerned about the environment as the general population and in some cases more concerned and more willing to act on that concern than either the public at large or nonunion workers. That fact should encourage environmental advocates to strengthen their outreach to work- ers and their unions, knowing that union members are on average moderately more pro- environmental than the population as a whole. And it should encourage union activists and leaders who are themselves concerned about protecting the environment to go forth boldly, knowing that there are likely to be reserves of support for environmental protec- tion among trade union members. In sum, the results of this study suggest that there is potential in America for the two largest social movements—labor and the environmental movement—to work together on a broad progressive platform that brings together work- ing class and middle class activists to fight for a more just and sustainable future for all.
Appendix
Data Coding, Survey Years, and Sample Size for All Variables.
General Social Survey
Variable coding Sample year(s) n
Environment over economy
reverse coded from economy over environment: strongly disagree and disagree = 1; neither agree nor disagree, agree, and strongly agree = 0
1993, 1994,
2000, 2010
3,917
Government should regulate
Increase fuel efficiency standards
Informed about global warming
Scientists agree about global warming
Scientists understand causes of global warming
definitely should and probably
should = 1; probably should not and
definitely should not = 0
strongly favor and favor = 1; neither favor nor oppose, oppose, and strongly oppose = 0
very informed and somewhat informed = 1; neither informed nor uninformed, somewhat uninformed, and very uninformed = 0
near complete agreement = 1; partial agreement through no agreement at all = 0 understand very well and
understand somewhat well = 1; do
not understand very well and do not understand at all = 0
1996, 2006 2,301
2006 915
2006 1,834
2006, 2010 1,128
2006, 2010 1,178
(continued)
Appendix (continued)
Variable coding Sample year(s) n
Would cut living standards
Would pay more for goods
very willing and fairly willing = 1; neither willing nor unwilling, fairly unwilling, and very unwilling = 0 very willing and fairly willing = 1; neither willing nor unwilling, fairly unwilling, and very unwilling = 0
1993, 1994,
2000, 2010
1993, 1994,
2000, 2010
3,871
3,834
Would pay higher taxes very willing and fairly willing = 1; neither willing nor unwilling, fairly unwilling, and very unwilling = 0
1993, 1994,
2000, 2010
3,869
Signed an environmental petition Attended an environmental protest
Donated money to an environmental cause Joined an environmental
group
yes = 1; no = 0 1993, 1994,
2000, 2010
yes = 1; no = 0 1993, 1994,
2000, 2010
yes = 1; no= 0 1994, 2000,
2010
yes = 1; no = 0 1993, 1994,
2000, 2010
3,901
3,827
2,432
3,990
Drives less always, often, and sometimes = 1;
never = 0
Recycles always, often, and sometimes = 1;
never = 0
Buys organic always, often, and sometimes = 1;
never = 0
American National Election Studies
1993, 1994,
2010
1993, 1994,
2000, 2010
1993, 1994,
2010
2,949
3,855
2,978
Government regulation 1 (much tougher regulations needed),
2, 3 = 1; 4, 5, 6, 7 (regulations lready too much) = 0
1996-2000 3,252
Increase government spending
increase = 1; same, decrease, and
cut out entirely (volunteered) = 0
1984-2012 24,979
Thermometer for environmentalists
continuous measure from 0-100, with 100 representing the warmest possible feeling toward environmentalists
1980, 1988-
2008
16,201
The exact wording of each survey question appears in the “Results” section of the article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
- One shortcoming of the General Social Survey (GSS) and American National Election Studies (ANES) data sets is the relatively small number of union respondents in any given sample year. To create a large enough sample size for statistical analysis, we made the decision to combine multiple years in this analysis. This issue is discussed further in the “Discussion and Conclusion” section.
- A complete description of each survey item and how it is coded can be provided by the authors upon request.
- Thus, we are comparing the mean values for union members with those of nonmembers in the general population, including other workers, unemployed workers, retirees, students, and homemakers. A supplemental analysis is also conducted in which we compare just union workers with nonunion workers.
- The asterisks (and daggers) represent a statistically significant difference in means between the two groups (union vs. nonunion) at the levels of statistical significance indicated by the key at the bottom of the table.
- It is important to note that smaller samples have fewer degrees of freedom, which may increase the chances of type II statistical errors, or “false negatives” (the failure to reject a false null hypothesis; Peck and Devore 2011).
- Tables for the supplemental analyses are available from the authors upon request.
References
Brecher, Jeremy. 2013a. “How EPA Climate Protection Can Be America’s Greatest Jobs Producer.” Common Dreams, February 20. http://www.commondreams.org/ views/2013/02/20/how-epa-climate-protection-can-be-americas-greatest-jobs-producer.
Brecher, Jeremy. 2013b. “Stormy Weather: Climate Change and a Divided Labor Movement.”
New Labor Forum 22:75-81.
Brecher, Jeremy. 2014. “‘Jobs vs. the Environment’: How to Counter This Divisive Big Lie.” The Nation, April 22. http://www.thenation.com/article/179452/jobs-vs-environment-how- counter-divisive-big-lie.
Brecher, Jeremy. 2015. Climate Insurgency: A Strategy for Survival. New York: Paradigm. Brecher, Jeremy, and Tim Costello. 1990. Building Bridges: The Emerging Grassroots Coalition
of Labor and Community. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Brecher, Jeremy, Tim Costello, and Brendan Smith. 2000. Globalization from Below: The
Power of Solidarity. Cambridge: South End Press.
Collins, Chuck. 2014. “Can We Earn a Living on a Living Planet? The Need for Jobs, and the Ecological Limits to Growth.” American Prospect, October 13. http://prospect.org/article/ must-environmentalists-and-labor-activists-find-themselves-odds-each-other.
Dewey, Scott. 1998. “Working for the Environment: Organized Labor and the Origins of
Environmentalism in the United States, 1848-1970.” Environmental History 3:45-63. Durban, Kathie. 1998. Tree Huggers: Victory, Defeat & Renewal in the Northwest Ancient
Forest Campaign. Seattle: Mountaineers Books.
Foster, John Bellamy. 1993. “The Limits of Environmentalism without Class: Lessons from the
Ancient Forest Struggle of the Pacific Northwest.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 4:11-41.
Goodstein, Eban. 1999. The Trade-Off Myth: Fact and Fiction about Jobs and the Environment.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Harden, Blaine. 2007. “Conservation Group, Unions Joining Forces.” Washington Post, January 16. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/15/AR2007011501022.html
Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Kazis, Richard, and Richard L. Grossman. 1982. Fear at Work: Job Blackmail, Labor and the
Environment. New York: Pilgrim Press.
Klein, Naomi. 2014. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Leopold, Les. 2007. “The Man Who Hated Work and Loved Labor: The Life and Times of Tony
Mazzocchi.” White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
Mayer, Brian. 2009. Blue-Green Coalitions: Fighting for Safe Workplaces and Healthy
Communities. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press/ILR Press.
Obach, Brian K. 2004. Labor and the Environmental Movement: The Quest for Common
Ground. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Patashnik, Eric M. 2008. Reforms at Risk: What Happens after Major Policy Changes Are
Enacted? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Peck, Roxy, and Jay L. Devore. 2011. Statistics: The Exploration and Analysis of Data.
Belmont: Cengage Learning.
Rose, Fred. Coalitions across the Class Divide: Lessons from the Labor, Peace, and
Environmental Movements. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Silverman, Victor. 2004. “Sustainable Alliances: The Origins of International Labor
Environmentalism.” International Labor and Working-Class History 66:118-35.
Sweeney, Sean. 2012. “Earth to Labor: Economic Growth is No Salvation.” New Labor Forum
21:10-13.
Uehlein, Joe. 2010. “Earth Day, Labor, and Me.” Common Dreams, April 19. http://www.com- mondreams.org/views/2010/04/19/earth-day-labor-and-me.
United Auto Workers. 1970. “Gaylord Nelson and Earth Day: The UAW Steps Up for Earth
Day.” April 24. http://nelsonearthday.net/collection/coalition-uawflyer.htm.
United Steelworkers of America. 2006. “Securing Our Children’s World: Our Union and the Environment.” May 5. http://assets.usw.org/resources/hse/Resources/securingourchildren- sworld.pdf.
Author Biographies
Todd E. Vachon is a doctoral candidate at the University of Connecticut where his research and teaching interests include labor and labor movements, the sociology of work, environmental sociology, and social stratification. His previously published works have explored a variety of labor-related issues, including the relationship between teacher unionization and high school student achievement and the effect of globalization and labor market transformation on union density in U.S. metropolitan areas. His dissertation will explore the relationship between union- ization and environmentalism in a comparative perspective.
Jeremy Brecher is cofounder of the Labor Network for Sustainability, a historian, and the author of numerous books on labor and social movements, including Strike!, Brass Valley, History from Below, Building Bridges, Global Visions, Global Village or Global Pillage, and Globalization from Below. He is also a regular contributor to The Nation magazine, and his cur- rent work focuses on the topic of labor and climate change, including his most recent book Climate Insurgency: A Strategy for Survival.