RecensionsBook Reviews

The Paradox of American Unionism by Seymour Martin Lipset and Noah M. Meltz, Ithaca: ILR Press, 2004, 226 pages, ISBN 0-8014-4200-1.[Record]

  • Joseph B. Rose

…more information

  • Joseph B. Rose
    McMaster University

This book explores two paradoxes. The central paradox is that Americans approve of unions more than Canadians, but have been far less inclined to join unions. The second paradox suggests that U.S. managers are less resistant to union organizing initiatives than their Canadian counterparts. These issues are explored by examining four hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that the surge in U.S. union density from 1938 to 1958 was an anomaly to the overall U.S. experience with unionism. Second, the higher public approval of unions in the United States is the result of a weak union movement. The corollary is that lower public approval of unions in Canada is because unions are relatively stronger. The third hypothesis is a major component of the paradox and submits that Americans experience greater difficulty joining unions than Canadians even though they express a greater desire or willingness to become union members. The fourth hypothesis states that Americans place greater emphasis on individual freedom, whereas Canadians stress the importance of collective rights for the group and the common good. The thrust of the argument advanced by the authors is that the relationship between attitudes and union density is best understood in terms of the differences between the value systems in the two countries. The book is organized into 11 chapters. Chapter one provides an overview of the study. This is followed by chapters providing a cross-national comparison of union density (which shows support for unions is associated with social democratic strength), a review of union growth in the United States and Canada (1901-2001), and a discussion of how social, political and economic factors have contributed to stronger legal protection for collective bargaining in Canada. Much of the material in these chapters would be familiar to industrial relations scholars. Chapters 5 and 6, which are based largely on the authors survey data, examine the two paradoxes and the extent of frustrated demand for union membership in the United States. Chapter 7 examines inter-state and inter-provincial differences in union density and finds differences within countries are greater than the difference between the two countries. Citing the importance of these factors for union expansion, chapters 8 and 9 examine the attitudes and behaviour of white-collar and professional employees toward unions in each country. Chapter 10 considers nonunion employee representation plans as a possible alternative to unions and finds the incidence of nonunion representation is similar in both countries (10 percent). The final chapter summarizes the evidence respecting the paradoxes related to union representation. The study draws heavily on a 1996 survey (3,245 telephone interviews) conducted for the authors by the Angus Reid Group (now Ipsos-Reid Group). The design of the survey questions was guided by earlier surveys of work, unions and related issues. In addition to exploring differences in attitudes toward unions among workers, managers and the public in the two countries, the survey examined various societal attitudes and values. Frankly, I have mixed feelings about this book. On the positive side, it is beautifully written – clear, concise and well organized. Considering the breadth of the topic and the extent of the survey research, it is impressive that the analysis is confined to less than 200 pages. That being said, the analysis itself is not entirely satisfactory as evidenced by the discussion of the main paradoxes. As well, the authors fail to consider several major studies bearing on the divergence of union density in Canada and the United States (including several comparative research articles and conference papers by Chaison and Rose). Let us consider what the authors consider anomalous. Despite differences in values (Canadians are more statist …