The formation of an organized working class: Factors influencing working class identity and trade union support.

Enku Michael C. Ide 2011 University of Kentucky

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 The formation of an organized working class: Factors influencing working class identity and trade union support. Many social theorists, particularly since Marx, have debated the question of economic class. According to Marx, objective class location is based in the relation to the means of production. Those who own the means of production, the bourgeoisie or capitalist class is said to rule society while those who must sell their labor power, the proletariat or working class is said to be dominated and their labor power exploited. These conditions create the structural backdrop for social conflicts particularly over working conditions, work time, and pay. The working class only becomes aware of itself as a class through political struggle, whereas the bourgeoisie was already aware of itself as a class. Weber took up this theme as well, indicating that classes are only statistical categories until there is a status-based identity and an understanding of shared issues. For Weber, class was based in the monopolization of market opportunities, either in work and earnings or in consumption. Further, according to Bourdieu, middle class experiences early in life generate embodied cultural capital which is carried on throughout the life-course. Marx indicated that the trend of capitalism, in its ideal form, is to create two great classes and that the middle classes would disappear. History has not borne this out as government policy and regulations have helped in the formation and sustaining of the middle or professional class. However, large economic changes impact the class system, with some authors now speaking of the proletarianization of the middle class, as professional jobs change. Specifically, many middle class jobs are increasingly managed (leading to a decline in worker autonomy) and pay and job security are in decline. One response to this trend, particularly in higher education among non-tenured teaching workers, has been unionization. People of color and whites likely have a different relationship to class identification. Middle class or professional identity is culturally coded as white whereas, particularly for 2

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 Black Americans, the general reference group is working class or lower class people. Although great strides have been made in the formation of a Black middle class, a much larger portion of Black males has been incarcerated due to increased law enforcement in Black communities and increased prosecution of Black offenders. This has had dramatic implications for the entire Black community. Historically excluded from the higher positions in the private economy, Black people have historically sought public sector work in higher percentages than whites. Within this segmented labor market, the public sector has also seen more persistent unionization providing an economically stabilizing effect for the Black community. Unions in the US have a complicated relation to class. Before World War II, many militant union locals were led by communists, socialists, and anarcho-syndicalists who organized based in their belief in the revolutionary potential of the working class. During the McCarthy era, red baiting drove many radicals out of the labor movement. Unions responded by supporting business and government (often against the interests of their workers). We live with this legacy today, with the current rallying-cry of the AFL-CIO being protecting Americas middle class even when representing working-class people. According to this formulation, class is not based in the relation to the means of production, but rather on salary (and therefore consumption patterns) and job security. This could be seen as a hegemonic function of big labor incorporating the ideology of the ruling class into their framing. Regardless, for those interested in working class issues, labor unions are a key component. Labor organizing has been in crisis for years, particularly in the private sector. Today, the largest organized employment segment is the public sector, although these unions are under political scrutiny and attack in many states. By quantitatively analyzing factors that influence working class identity and trade union support, we can come to a better understanding 3

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 of the relations between class identity and union organizing today. In order to accomplish this, I will run binary and multinomial logistic regressions addressing the following hypotheses: Hypotheses related to factors influencing working class identity: A.1Marxist Theory: Relations to the means of production. The probability of self-identifying as working class will be reduced if the respondent or respondents spouse is selfemployed, thereby controlling the means of production, even when controlling for income. A.2Marxist Theory: Class domination. Working class job characteristics will increase the probability of self-identifying as working class. A.3Weberian Theory: Income. Lower income, and therefore exclusion from middle class consumption, will be positively associated with an increased probability in selfidentifying as working class. A.4Weberian Theory: Prestige: According to Weber, class and status are closely related but distinct hierarchies. As such, higher occupation prestige should be significantly related to class identification. A.5Cultural Theory: Segmented labor market. Being a person of color will increase the likelihood of self-identifying as working class. A.6Bourdieu Theory: Cultural capital. Having a high income and prestige among parents will decrease the odds of self-identifying as working class. A.7Bourdieu Theory: Institutional cultural capital. Increased years of education will decrease the predicted probability of self-identifying as working class. Hypotheses related to factors influencing trade union support: B.1 Marxist Theory: Proletarianization of work. Support for unions will increase among those with low job security and lower benefits. B.2 Bourdieu Theory: Social capital. An affinity for other workers (strong bonding capital), as well as a distrust of management at work (weak bridging capital), will be positively associated with support for trade unions. B.3 Cultural Theory: People of color will be more supportive of trade unions. B.4 Political Theory: Being conservative will lead to decreased support for trade unions. B.5 Union Theory: Unions have long been the main organizing body of the working class. However, current union messaging often relies on a middle class discourse, with AFLCIO claiming to be rebuilding the middle class and supporting working families. As such, working class identified people are hypothesized to not significantly support trade unions more than middle class identified people.

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 SAMPLE I draw from the 2010 General Social Survey. Because I am interested in looking at work characteristics for both of my statistical tests, I have limited my sample to those who are working full time, working part time, or are temporarily not working. I thus dropped any observations that were listed as retired, in school, keeping house, laid off or other. Because this research is focused on factors influencing working class identity in relation to middle class identity, observations were dropped if coded as upper class or lower class. Further, not all questions were asked of all respondents. In order to have comparable tests across my models, I then dropped all observations which were missing data on the dependent variables of interest, resulting in a sample size of N=860.

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 Table 1: Sample Descriptive Characteristics: General Social Survey (2010) (N=860) Binary Logistic Regression Models M Variable (Percent) SD N Minimum Maximum Dependent Variable Working class 0.55 0.50 860 0 1 Independent Variables High job security 0.49 0.50 860 0 1 Work benefits very good 0.38 0.49 860 0 1 Occupation prestige (fam. avg.) 44.80 12.78 860 17 86 Business owner 0.16 0.37 860 0 1 High work autonomy 0.56 0.50 860 0 1 Business owner 0.16 0.37 860 0 1 High work autonomy 0.56 0.50 860 0 1 High income (family of origin) 0.22 0.41 860 0 1 Parental occupational prestige 44.70 12.99 860 17 86 Not low income 0.70 0.46 860 0 1 High occupational prestige 0.50 0.50 860 0 1 Interaction Variables: Not low income*Family education years 10.33 7.05 860 0 20 Family education years * High 7.64 7.90 860 0 1 Occupation prestige Multinomial Logistic Regression Models Dependent Variable Union support 2.43 Independent Variables Occupation prestige (fam. avg.) 44.80 Person of color 0.20 Work benefits very good 0.38 Working class 0.55 Years of education 14.27 Low income 0.30 Low job security 0.15 Co-workers helpful 0.51 Does not trust management 0.18 Not conservative 0.67 Low income (family of origin) 0.33

0.80 12.78 0.40 0.49 0.50 2.90 0.46 0.35 0.50 0.38 0.47 0.47

860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860

1 17 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 86 1 1 1 20 1 1 1 1 1 1

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 Binary Logistic Regression: The likelihood of self-identifying as Working Class. MEASURES Dependent Variable: For my first set of models, I was interested in looking at factors that influence subjective class identity as working class. The GSS 2010 asks respondents their subjective class identity, with possible categories being lower class, working class, middle class, and upper class. I generated a dummy variable for Working Class, with working class coded as 1 and middle class coded as 0, which I used as my dependent variable in my first set of models.

Independent Variables: To test variables that impact respondents likelihood of self-identifying as working class, I ran five models. In the first model, I included independent variables of white, education years, and business owner. White was generated by creating a dummy variable based in the GSS variable race, with possible outcomes of white, black, and other. For the variable White, the race outcomes of black and other were coded as 0, while the outcome of white was coded as 1. The GSS 2010 includes a self-report of how many years of education a person has, ranging from 0 to 20, as well as the number of years of education of the respondents spouse or partner. Because class is often based in the nuclear family and not the individual, I created a variable, Education years (fam.) which was the average of the respondents and the respondents spouses education years if information was provided for both individuals. When information was only provided for the respondent, this number was used without modification. The GSS also includes variables asking if respondents and their spouses are self-employed. From these variables, I created the dummy variable Business owner coded as 1 if a respondent or spouse is self-employed and coded as 0 if neither is self-employed. 7

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 In Model 2, I added characteristics of the respondents employment. The GSS records occupational prestige for respondents and their spouses. Using these variables, I created the interval-ratio variable Family occupation prestige as the mean of the respondents occupational prestige and that of their spouse. If only the respondents occupational prestige was listed, this score was used without alteration. In one model, I used the term high occupational prestige in place of family occupational prestige, to allow the creation of an interaction term between high occupational prestige and years of education. To create this variable, I re-coded the Family occupation prestige variable, with a prestige score of 45.5 or above (roughly the median prestige score) as high family prestige and all scores below 45.5 as not high family prestige. The variable Not low income was generated from the GSS variable income06, which provided 25 possible income ranges from $1,000 and under to $150,000 and over. I combined these categories into 3 categories, lowincome ranging from under $1,000 to $34,999, mid-income ranging from $35,000 to $74,999, and high income ranging from $75,000 to $150,000 or over, creating dummy variables from each possible categorical outcome. I then generated a dummy variable not low income as the inverse of low income to more easily compare the effects of having a lower income compared to medium or high income. The GSS includes a variable concerning work security, based in the statement that their job security is good, with possible outcomes of very true, somewhat true, not too true, and not at all true. From these outcomes I created the dummy variable high work security, coded as 1 indicating a respondent reported very true. The GSS also includes a variable concerning freedom at work, based in the statement that a respondent has a lot of freedom to decide how to do [their] job. Possible ordinal outcomes are very true, somewhat true, not too true, and not at all true. Work autonomy is central 8

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 in the literature concerning the proletarianization of previously middle class jobs, with autonomy seen as a central characteristic of middle class jobs and a lack of autonomy as marking working class jobs. As such, I created a dummy variable, high work autonomy from this variable indicating that the respondent reported to this question as very true. Benefits (including health insurance) are also seen as a hallmark of middle class jobs. The GSS asked respondents about their satisfaction with their work benefits, asking respondents to reply to the statement, [my] fringe benefits are very good. I recoded these responses into the dummy variable Benefits very good with very true coded as 1 and other possible responses (somewhat true, not too true, and not true at all) coded as 0. The GSS includes variables indicating the occupational prestige of respondents and their spouses. The mean of these occupational prestige scores was averaged in order to generate the variable Family occupational prestige. When prestige scores were only given for the respondent, these were included without alteration. In Model 3, I added terms to address the respondents family of origin. I created the variable Parents occupation prestige as the mean of the respondents fathers occupational prestige and the respondents mothers occupational prestige. As there were no observations missing either of these variables, the mean of the two scores was valid for all observations. To further investigate the effects that the family of origin has on current class identification, I used the GSS variable incom16 which measured the respondents family income when the respondent was 16 years old. Possible outcomes were far below average, below average, average, above average, and far above average. If respondents answered far above average or above average, this was coded as a dummy variable High income (fam. of origin). 9

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 In Models 4 and 5, I included interaction terms. Model 4 included an interaction term between not low income and education years. Model 5 introduces the interaction variable white*high occupational prestige. In order to create the Model 5 interaction term, I had to generate a categorical variable from the interval ratio Family prestige variable, which ranges from 17 to 86. Scores of 45 and greater, roughly the highest 45th percentile, were coded as a 1 in the dummy variable High family prestige.

Model specification: Tests of model fit Across my three base models (without interaction terms), LR2 test of nested models found that each subsequent model improves the likelihood over the previous model. An LR2 test between model 2 and model 3 (LR2=16.62; p<0.001) indicates that the full model improves the likelihood of the model relative to the restricted model. An LR2 test between model 1 and Model 2 (LR2=41.27; p<0.001) indicates that the full model improves the likelihood of the model relative to the restricted model. BIC tests also provide strong support for each subsequent model relative to the restricted model, with a BIC difference of 7.49 providing strong support for Model 2 in relation to Model1 and a BIC providing positive support for Model 3 in relation to Model 2. An LR2 test further indicates that Model 4, with the interaction term improves the likelihood of the previous model (LR2=12.09; p<0.001). A BIC test also provides weak support for Model 5, including the second interaction term, over Model 3, with a difference in BIC of 0.16. Tests for multicolinearity were administered to each model, indicating that these models do not violate the multicolinearity assumption, with R2 not going above 0.36 and 1.57 as the largest variance inflation factor across each model.

10

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681

ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS Table 2: Binary Logistic Regression, Odds Ratios of self-identifying as working class. General Social Survey (N=860) Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Demographics Job Family of origin characteristics Variables Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio White 0.52*** 0.60* 0.63* Education years (fam.) 0.69*** 0.74*** 0.76*** Business owner 0.62* 0.63* 0.63* Not low income 0.46*** 0.44*** High work security 0.76 0.73 High work autonomy 0.77 0.75 Benefits very good 0.81 0.80 High income (fam. of origin) 0.52** Parents occupation prestige 0.99 Family occupation prestige 0.99 0.99 High occupation prestige Interaction Variables Not low income* Education Education * High occupational prestige LRX2 Adjusted Count R2

171.52*** 0.35

212.79*** 0.38

229.41*** 0.39

***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05 Omitted Categories: POC, non-business owner, low income, low work security, low work autonomy, benefits not very good, not high income (fam. of origin), not high occupation prestige.

11

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681

Table 2 continued: Binary Logistic Regression, Odds Ratios of selfidentifying as working class. General Social Survey (N=860) Model 4: Model 2: Interaction Interaction Term2 Term1 Variables Odds Ratio Odds Ratio White 0.60* 0.61* Education years (fam.) 0.91 0.83*** Business owner 0.65* 0.66 Not low income 16.93** 0.45*** High work security 0.75 0.73 High work autonomy 0.74 0.74 Benefits very good 0.81 0.82 Hi income (fam. of origin) 0.50*** 0.51*** Parents occupation prestige 0.99 0.99 Family occupation prestige 0.99 High occupation prestige 7.22 Interaction Variables 0.77*** Not low income* Education Education * High occupational prestige LRX2 Adjusted Count R2

241.50*** 0.42

0.85* 236.33*** 0.40

In order to test variables that influenced respondents self-identification as working class, I ran five binary logistic models, with working class as my outcome of interest compared to middle class. In Model 1, I found that race (coded White), average family education years, and whether or not the respondent and/or spouse was self-employed to be significant. On average, the odds of self-identifying as working class are decreased by a factor of 0.52 for whites relative to people of color, holding covariates constant (p<0.01). The odds of self-identifying as working class are estimated to decrease by 31% for every additional year of education, averaged between respondent and spouse, all else equal (p<0.001). Being a self-employed or having a self-employed spouse is estimated to decrease the odds of self-identifying as working class by a 12

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 factor of 0.62, holding covariates constant (p<.05). An LR2 test suggests that the model provides improvement in fit over a model with no covariates (LR2=171.52; p<0.001). Further, the Pseudo-R2 indicates that our covariates improve the likelihood of the model by 15%. In Model 2, I added characteristics of employment to Model 1, including work security, autonomy, income, occupational prestige and benefits. All variables from Model 1 retained significance. On average, the odds of self-identifying as working class are decreased by a factor of 0.60 for whites relative to people of color, holding covariates constant (p<0.05). The odds of self-identifying as working class are estimated to decrease by 26% for every additional year of education, averaged between respondent and spouse, all else equal (p<0.001). Being a selfemployed or having a self-employed spouse is estimated to decrease the odds of self-identifying as working class by a factor of 0.63, holding covariates constant (p<.05). Not having a low income (under $35,000/year) is estimated to decrease the odds of self-identifying as working class by a factor of 0.46 (p<0.001), all else equal. An LR2 test suggests that the model provides improvement in fit over a model with no covariates (LR2=212.79; p<0.001). Further, the Pseudo-R2 indicates that our covariates improve the likelihood of the model by 18%. In Model 3, I also added variables concerning respondents family of origin. In this model, I found that on average, the odds of self-identifying as working class are decreased by a factor of 0.63 for whites relative to people of color, holding covariates constant (p<0.05). The odds of self-identifying as working class are estimated to decrease by 24% for every additional year of education, averaged between respondent and spouse, all else equal (p<0.001). Being a self-employed or having a self-employed spouse is estimated to decrease the odds of selfidentifying as working class by a factor of 0.63, holding covariates constant (p<.05). Not having a low income (under $35,000/year) is estimated to decrease the odds of self-identifying as 13

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 working class by a factor of 0.44 (p<0.001), all else equal. Coming from a family of origin with a high income is estimated to decrease the odds of self-identifying as working class by a factor of 0.52 (p<0.01), all else equal. An LR2 test suggests that the model provides improvement in fit over a model with no covariates (LR2=229.41; p<0.001). Further, the Pseudo-R2 indicates that our covariates improve the likelihood of the model by 19%. In models 4 and 5, I also added interaction terms to better understand the moderated impact of my independent variables. Across these interaction models, non-constitutive independent variables were found to vary only slightly. In Model 4, an interaction model suggests that the effects of additional years of education differ by whether or not a respondent has a low income (OR=0.77; p<0.001). Specifically, for those without a low income, each additional year of education is associated with a 30% decrease in odds of self-identifying as working class, holding covariates constant. In addition, each additional year of education is associated with a decrease in odds of 9% for those with low income, holding covariates constant. This relationship is shown in Graph 1. Graph 1: Interaction effect on probability of self-identifying as working class: Income catagories by education years.

14

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681

0
0

.2

.4

.6

.8

10 family years of education Not low income

15 Low income

20

As we can see, the impact of education on the probability of self-identifying as working class is significantly different depending on whether or not the respondent has a low income (under $35,000/ year). Specifically, for those with low income, the effect of education is three times less than for those with medium or high income. In Model 5, an interaction model suggests that the effects of additional years of education differ by whether or not a respondent has a high occupational prestige (OR=0.85; p<0.05). Specifically, for those with high occupational prestige, each additional year of education is associated with a 29% decrease in odds of self-identifying as working class, holding covariates constant. In addition, each additional year of education is associated with a decrease in odds of 8% for those without high occupational prestige, holding covariates constant. This relationship is shown in Graph 2. Graph 2: Interaction effect on probability of selfidentifying as working class: Occupational prestige by education years. 15

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681

1.5 0
0

.5

10 family years of education

15

20

High occupational prestige

Not high occupational prestige

As we can see, the impact of education on the probability of self-identifying as working class is significantly different depending on whether or not the respondent has a high occupational prestige. Specifically, for those with high occupational prestige, the effect of education is greater than for those without high occupational prestige.

Multinomial Logistic Regression: Probability of attitudes toward trade unions. MEASURES

Dependent Variable: The GSS 2010 includes the question Workers need strong unions, with responses including 1 strongly agree 2 agree 3 disagree and 4 strongly disagree. In order to test respondents view of trade unions, I reverse-coded this variable as Union support with the following possible outcomes: 1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, and 4 strongly

16

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 agree. With this scale as my dependent variable, I used multinomial regression to find characteristics that influence respondents views on the importance of trade unions.

Independent Variables: To test respondents likelihood of attitudes toward trade unions, I incorporated demographic variables and work-related variables. The first variable was POC (Person of Color which was the inverse of the above-mentioned variable white. I also used Education years, an interval-ratio GSS variable indicating the number of years of education of the respondent, ranging from 2 to 20. The independent variable Low income (Family of origin) was generated in the same manner as High income (Family of origin) used in the binary logistic regression, but was coded as 1 if the respondent indicated that their family income at age 16 was below average or very below average. I also created the dummy variable Working Class which is coded as 1 if the respondents subjective class identification was working class. The GSS includes a variable concerning work security, based in the statement that their job security is good, with possible outcomes of very true, somewhat true, not too true, and not at all true. From these outcomes I created the dummy variable low work security, coded as 1 indicating that a respondent reported not at all true. I was also interested in analyzing characteristics of respondents employment, benefits, and income. Low Income (Current) was coded as the inverse of Not low income (Current) described in the above binary logistic regression. Benefits very good is the same independent variable of the same name used in the above binary logistic regression. The variable Low work security was generated as a dummy variable coded as 1 if the respondent answered not too true or not at all true to the statement job security is good. 17

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 The GSS offered the statement coworkers can be relied on when r [the respondent] needs help. If this was answered as very true (as opposed to somewhat true, not too true, or not at all true), I coded the dummy variable Co-workers helpful as a 1. Further, the GSS asked about respondents relation to management at work. If respondents answered that they strongly disagree or disagree that they trust management, then this was coded as a 1 in the dummy variable Does not trust management. In this model, I also included Family occupational prestige, which was also used in the binary logistic above (see above for details regarding variable generation and coding). I also added a variable based in the GSS variable polviews which asked respondents to rank their political views in a seven-category range from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. If respondents listed themselves as extremely liberal to moderate, this was coded as a 1 in the dummy variable Not conservative.

Model specification: Tests of model fit: I originally ran ordinal regressions using the above-described dependent and independent variables. However, the Brant Test indicated that one of my variables violated the parallel regression assumption. While using ordinal logistic regression, I originally designed the test as a series of nested models. However, in running the multinomial regression I am only reporting the full model, which includes demographic information, work characteristics and political views. . An LR2 test (LR2=119.85; p<0.001) indicates that this model improves the likelihood of the model relative to a model with no covariates. Further, the Pseudo-R2 indicates that our covariates improve the likelihood of the model by 6%. Also, there were several variables of

18

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 interest which had to be dropped due to small N per cell, including those dealing with experiences of discrimination on the job.

ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS Relative risk ratios and predicted probabilities were found in relation to the likelihood of responding to the phrase workers need strong unions with possible outcomes being strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree.

Relative Risk Ratios and Predicted Probabilities Table 3a: Multinomial Logistic Regression Relative Risk Ratios of responses to the statement, Workers need strong trade unions. Base outcome category: Strongly Disagree. General Social Survey (N=860) Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Relative Risk Relative Risk Relative Risk Variable Ratio Ratio Ratio Person of color 1.04 2.51* 3.68** Education years 1.06 1.04 1.06 Working class 2.09** 1.85* 2.08* Coworkers helpful 0.98 1.03 1.86 Low income (fam. of 1.37 1.39 1.50 origin) Low income (current) 1.71 1.87 2.30* Benefits very good 1.14 0.90 1.80 19

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 Does not trust management Family occupational prestige Low work security Non-conservative LRX 2 Adjusted Count R2 1.10 1.00 0.88 2.25*** 119.85*** 0.10 1.51 1.00 1.10 3.03*** 3.47** 1.00 1.30 3.60***

***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05 Omitted Categories: White, Middle Class, Coworkers not helpful, Not low income (fam. of origin), Not low income (current), Benefits not very good, Trusts management, Not low work security, Conservative

Table 3b: Multinomial Logistic Regression Relative Risk Ratios of responses to the statement, Workers need strong trade unions. Base outcome category: Disagree. General Social Survey (N=860) Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Relative Risk Relative Risk Relative Risk Variable Ratio Ratio Ratio Person of color 0.96 2.42*** 3.54*** Education years 0.95 0.99 1.01 Working class 0.48** 0.88 1.00 Coworkers helpful 1.02 1.05 1.90* Low income (fam. of 0.58 0.81 0.88 origin) Low income (current) 0.73 1.37 1.68 Benefits very good 0.87 0.79 1.57 Does not trust 0.91 1.38 3.16*** management Family occupational 1.00 1.00 1.00 20

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 prestige Low work security Non-conservative LRX2 Adjusted Count R2 1.14 0.45*** 119.85*** 0.10 1.25 1.35 1.48 1.60

***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05 Omitted Categories: White, Middle Class, Coworkers not helpful, Not low income (fam. of origin), Not low income (current), Benefits not very good, Trusts management, Not low work security, Conservative

Table 3c: Multinomial Logistic Regression Relative Risk Ratios of responses to the statement, Workers need strong trade unions. Base outcome category: Agree. General Social Survey (N=860) Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Relative Risk Relative Risk Relative Risk Variable Ratio Ratio Ratio Person of color 0.40* 0.41*** 1.47 Education years 0.96 1.01 1.02 Working class 0.54* 1.13 1.13 Coworkers helpful 0.97 0.94 1.80* Low income (fam. of 0.72 1.23 1.08 origin) Low income (current) 0.53 0.73 1.23 Benefits very good 1.11 1.27 2.00* Does not trust 0.66 0.72 2.29** management Family occupational 1.00 1.00 1.00 21

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 prestige Low work security Non-conservative LRX2 Adjusted Count R2 0.91 0..33*** 119.85*** 0.10 0.80 0.74 1.18 1.19

***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05 Omitted Categories: White, Middle Class, Coworkers not helpful, Not low income (fam. of origin), Not low income (current), Benefits not very good, Trusts management, Not low work security, Conservative

Table 3d: Multinomial Logistic Regression Relative Risk Ratios of responses to the statement, Workers need strong trade unions. Base outcome category: Strongly Agree. General Social Survey (N=860) Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Relative Risk Relative Risk Relative Risk Variable Ratio Ratio Ratio Person of color 0.27** 0.28*** 0.68 Education years 0.94 0.99 0.98 Working class 0.48* 1.00 0.89 Coworkers helpful 0.54 0.53* 0.55* Low income (fam. of origin) 0.67 1.14 0.93 Low income (current) 0.43* 0.59 0.81 Benefits very good 0.56 0.64 0.50* Does not trust management 0.29** 0.32*** 0.44** Family occupational prestige 1.00 1.00 1.00 Low work security 0.77 0.68 0.85 22

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 Non-conservative LRX Adjusted Count R2

2

0.28*** 119.85*** 0.10

0.63

0.84

***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05 Omitted Categories: White, Middle Class, Coworkers not helpful, Not low income (fam. of origin), Not low income (current), Benefits not very good, Trusts management, Not low work security, Conservative

Being a person of color, compared to being white, is associated with a 151% (p<0.05) increase in the odds of agreeing and a 268% (p<0.01) increase in the odds of strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions relative to strongly disagreeing, all else equal. Being working class, compared to being middle class, is estimated to increase the odds of disagreeing, agreeing and strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions, relative to strongly disagreeing, by 109% (p<0.01), 85%(p<0.05), and 108%(p<0.05) respectively, holding covariates constant. Having a low income, compared to having a higher income, is estimated to increase the odds of strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions, relative to strongly disagreeing, by 130%, all else equal (p<0.05). Compared to those who trust management at work, those who do not trust management are estimated to have a 347% increase in the odds of strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions, relative to strongly disagreeing, all else equal (p<0.01). On average, compared to being non-conservative, being conservative is estimated to increase the odds of disagreeing, agreeing and strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions, compared to strongly disagreeing, by 125% (p<0.001), 203%(p<0.001) and 260% (p,0.001), respectively, holding covariates constant. Compared to being white, being a person of color is estimated to increase the odds of agreeing that workers need strong unions by 142% (p<0.001) and strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions by 254% (p<0.001), relative to disagreeing, all things equal. Those who do not trust management, compared to those who do trust management, are estimated to have an 23

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 increased odds of 216% of strongly agreeing that workers need strong trade unions compared to disagreeing (p<0.001), holding covariates constant. Those who are certain that their coworkers are helpful, compared to those who are not certain, are estimated to have an increased odds of 9% of strongly agreeing that workers need strong trade unions, relative to disagreeing that workers need strong trade unions, all else equal (p<0.05). Those who see their coworkers as helpful, compared to those who do not see their coworkers as helpful, are estimated to have an increased odds of 8% of strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions relative to agreeing, all things equal (p<0.05). Having very good benefits, compared to not having very good benefits, is associated with a 100% increase in strongly agreeing that workers need strong trade unions relative to agreeing that workers need strong trade unions, holding covariates constant (p<0.05). Compared to those who trust management, those who do not trust management are estimated to have an increase of 129% in odds of strongly agreeing that workers need strong trade unions relative to agreeing that workers need strong trade unions, all things equal (p<0.01).

Table 4. Predicted Probabilities of responses to the statement, Workers need strong trade unions.*General Social Survey (N=860) Ideal Type Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Holding all covariates constant** Person of Color 0.13 0.51 0.30 0.06 Working Class 0.08 0.38 0.47 0.07 Low Income 0.10 0.43 0.41 0.07 Does not Trust Management 0.16 0.40 0.37 0.07 Not Conservative 0.08 0.41 0.44 0.07 Person of Color Working Class 0.14 0.50 0.31 0.05 Middle Class 0.12 0.51 0.28 0.08 Low Income 0.17 0.54 0.26 0.04 Not Low Income 0.12 0.49 0.32 0.07 24

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 Does not Trust Management Trusts Management Not Conservative Conservative White Working Class Middle Class Low Income Not Low Income Does not Trust Management Trusts Management Not Conservative Conservative Not Conservative Working Class Middle Class Low Income Not Low Income Does not Trust Management Trusts Management Conservative Working Class Middle Class Low Income Not Low Income Does not Trust Management Trusts Management 0.26 0.12 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.18 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.48 0.50 0.53 0.45 0.34 0.34 0.39 0.32 0.38 0.33 0.37 0.28 0.40 0.41 0.45 0.39 0.42 0.40 0.32 0.31 0.37 0.29 0.35 0.31 0.22 0.32 0.28 0.33 0.52 0.46 0.45 0.51 0.41 0.51 0.48 0.49 0.46 0.41 0.39 0.46 0.35 0.46 0.49 0.42 0.43 0.47 0.39 0.47 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.11 0.08 0.14 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.18 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.22 0.13 0.19 0.13 0.17

*In all categories, variables not included are held constant: poc, educ, working class, coworkers helpful, low income family of origin, low income current, job benefits very good, no trust management, family occupational prestige, low work security, non-conservative **Omitted categories: white, middle class, not low income, trusts management, conservative Note: Presented values are predicted probabilities

Of the ideal types listed in Table 4, People of Color who do not trust management have the highest predicted probability of strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions, with a predicted probability of 0.26. The lowest predicted probability of strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions, 0.05, is shared amongst conservatives who trust management, conservatives that do not have a low income, middle class conservatives, white conservatives, and whites who trust management. Those with the highest predicted probability of agreeing that workers need strong unions, with a predicted probability of 0.54, are low income people of color. The lowest 25

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 predicted probability of agreeing that workers need strong unions is found among white conservatives, with 0.28. Those with the highest predicted probability of disagreeing that workers need strong unions are white people who self-identify as working class, with a predicted probability of 0.52. Those with the lowest predicted probability of disagreeing that workers need strong unions are low income people of color, with a predicted probability of 0.28. Those with the highest predicted probability of strongly disagreeing that workers need strong unions are middle class conservatives, with a predicted probability of 0.22. Those with the lowest predicted probability of believing that workers need strong unions are low income people of color and people of color who do not trust management, with a predicted probability of 0.04. Being a person of color, compared to being white, is associated with an increase of 0.16 and 0.07 in the predicted probability of agreeing or strongly agreeing, respectively, that workers need strong unions, and a decreased predicted probabilities of 0.19 and 0.04 in disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that workers need strong unions, all else equal. Being a working class, compared to being middle class, is associated with a decrease of 0.001 in predicted probability of agreeing that workers need strong unions and an increase of 0.05 and 0.01 in predicted probability of disagreeing and strongly agreeing, respectively, that workers need strong unions, all things equal. Being non-conservative, compared to being conservative, is associated with a decrease of 0.10 and 0.02 in predicted probability of strongly disagreeing and disagreeing, respectively, that workers need strong unions and an increase in 0.03 and 0.09 in agreeing and strongly agreeing, respectively, that workers need strong unions, all else constant. Believing your coworkers are helpful, compared to not believing your coworkers are helpful, is associated with an increase of 0.04 in predicted probability of strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions and a decrease in predicted probability of 0.03 of disagreeing that 26

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 workers need strong unions, all else equal. Not trusting management, compared to trusting management, is associated with an increase of 0.09 and 0.03 in predicted probability of strongly agreeing and agreeing that workers need strong unions, all else equal. Not trusting management is associated with a decrease of 0.10 and 0.03 in disagreeing and strongly disagreeing that workers need strong unions, holding covariates constant. Having a low income, compared to not having a low income, is associated with a 0.04 increase in strongly believing that workers need strong unions and a 0.04 decrease in strongly disagreeing that workers need strong unions, holding covariates constant. Having very good benefits, compared to not having very good benefits, is associated with an increase of 0.04 of predicted probability of strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions, all else equal.

Graph 3: Discrete Change Plot: Multinomial Logistic Regression of responses to the statement, Workers need strong trade unions. General Social Survey (N=860)

27

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681

Note: (-)=Strongly Disagree, (D)=Disagree, (A)=Agree, (+)=Strongly Agree

person of color-0/1 does not trust management-0/1 not conservative-0/1 working class-0/1 low income-0/1 benefits very good-0/1 Co-workers helpful-0/1

D D D A

D A + D A .03

+ A + D + D + +
.07 .12

A + A

-.19 -.15 -.1 -.06 -.02 Change in Predicted Probability for unionsupport

.16

The effects of being a person of color are the largest, increasing the predicted probability of agreeing that workers need strong unions and decreasing the probability of disagreeing that workers need strong unions, relative to whites. The effects of not trusting management are also large, with those who do not trust management being more likely to strongly agree less likely to disagree that workers need strong unions, relative to those who do trust management. Also, being non-conservative has an impact, with non-conservatives being more likely to agree and less likely to strongly disagree that workers need strong unions, compared to conservatives.

DISCUSSION 28

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 In relation to class identity, the data support the Marxist relations to the means of production hypothesis (A.1) but not the Marxist class domination hypothesis (A.2). While selfemployment was consistently negatively associated with working class identity, the data show that middle class job characteristics of security, high benefits, and autonomy do not significantly increase the odds of working class self-identification. The data support the Weberian income hypothesis (A.3) that class is subjectively understood as a relation to market opportunities, with income consistently being found as the largest predictor of class identity. However, the data do not support the Weberian prestige hypothesis (A.4), with occupational prestige having no significant impact on class identity. The data do support the Cultural segmented labor market hypothesis (A.5), with people of color being consistently more likely to self-identify as working class than whites. The data also support both the Bourdieu cultural capital and institutional capital hypotheses (A.6, A.7). A high-income family of origin and increased education were both consistently found to decrease the odds of self-identifying as working class. Interaction terms did indicate that education impacted ones likelihood of self-identifying as working class differently among those with high occupational prestige and not high occupational prestige, as well as between those with low income and those with medium to high income. Specifically, this institutionalized cultural capital has substantial benefits for those with medium to high income and those with high occupational prestige, increasing the likelihood that these individuals will self-identify as middle class. Among those with low income or without high occupational prestige, the institutional cultural capital of education does not as greatly increase the odds of self-identifying as working class. In relation to union support, the data do not support the Marxist proletarianization hypothesis (B.1), with job insecurity, high benefits and low income being generally insignificant in 29

Ide, Enku Michael SOC 681 predicting attitudes toward unions. Low income was found to increase strongly agreeing that workers need unions relative to strongly disagreeing, but had no impact on more moderate views. The data do support the Bourdieu social capital theory (B.2), with distrust of management (weak bridging capital) consistently improving the likelihood of strongly agreeing that workers need unions relative to all outcome categories. Seeing ones coworkers as helpful (bonding capital) is positively associated with strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions, compared to both agreeing and disagreeing. The data support the cultural theory hypothesis (B.3) and the political hypothesis (B.4), with people of color and non-conservatives consistently more likely to support trade unions. The data also support the class hypothesis (B.5), with working class identity having a significant yet ambiguous relationship to union support. Dropping observations of the unemployed and upper-class and lower-class identified people may mask some factors related to union support. Further, many aspects that may influence trade union support could not be tested with the available data, including the presence of a union organizer or advocate.

30