Does Union Membership Benefit Immigrant Workers in Hard Times? Evidence from Ireland

Tom Turner, Christine Cross and Michelle O’Sullivan

Introduction

Understanding labour force dynamics in the context of increasing immigration levels is an

issue that is of concern to organisations, trade unions and policy makers. This is particularly

true in Europe where despite the current global economic recession countries will

increasingly depend on immigrant labour in the 21st century to fill vacant positions. Driving

this need is a combination of demographic changes, the highly segmented labour market and

differentiated economies (OECD, 2003; Hix and Noury, 2007; Finch et al. 2009). Within

Europe, Ireland is an interesting case in relation to inward migration of labour. Since the late

1990s Ireland experienced rapid economic growth and a corresponding expansion in

employment. These developments changed Ireland from a country of emigration to one of

net immigration. Most of the inward flows can be attributed to the Irish government’s

decision not to restrict entry of the 10 EU accession States in 2004. Non-Irish nationals now

comprise a substantial portion of the population. While they accounted for just 2 per cent of

the employed labour force in 1994, this figure reached 16 per cent by 2006, only declining to

12 per cent in 2010 during the course of the current economic recession (CSO, 2006, 2011).

A growth in immigrant workers raises important issues for trade unions. Immigrant

workers tend to be more likely than national employees to work in precarious employments,

characterised by lower pay, job insecurity, poor job quality and a lack of control of work

tasks (McKay et al., 2011; Cranford et al., 2003; Turner and O’Sullivan, forthcoming). Such

jobs can be difficult to unionise as Immigrant workers can be fearful of voicing concerns over

their pay and conditions particularly where the work is insecure and there is employer

hostility (Dundon et al., 2007). The possibility that immigrants will work for lower pay may

be a concern to trade unions which fear that this will lead to unemployment for their members

and a ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of wages (Dundon et al., 2007; Krings, 2009). These

problems facing both immigrants and national workers can arguably be alleviated by

immigrants joining unions and benefiting from better wages and working conditions.

Immigrant workers present a potential pool of new members for trade unions that could partly

stem the significant declines in membership and density. Union density has been declining

across the European Union, from 27.8% in the EU27 in 2000, to 23.4% in 2008 (European

Commission 2011). The fall in union membership and density has occurred in most countries

but has tended to be smaller in those countries with strong social democratic parties (Schmitt

and Mitukiewicz 2011). While the number of workers joining unions increased in the boom

period of ‘the Celtic Tiger’ in the late 1990s nevertheless there was a steady decline in union

density. Clearly the proportion of workers joining unions failed to keep pace with the

expansion in the numbers employed in the labour market. Much of this decline occurred in

the private sector of the economy. Union density in the private sector declined from over 40

per cent in 1990 to 22 per cent by 2008 (D’Art et al, 2013). In response to membership

decline trade unions particularly in liberal market economies like Ireland have placed a

greater emphasis on organising activities that target the unorganised including immigrants

(Turner et al, 2011). In order to attract immigrant workers trade unions need to provide

convincing evidence that membership delivers real material benefits.

This paper examines whether union membership conveys such material benefits to

immigrants working in the private sector of the economy. Using the 2008 National

Employment Survey, a matched survey of firms and employees, this paper examines the

unionisation rates of immigrant workers and identifies whether trade union membership and

collective bargaining coverage benefits immigrant workers when compared to Irish nationals

(both union and non-union) in terms of wages and benefits. The paper begins with a review

of the role of trade unions in the workplace followed by a discussion of the relationship

between trade unions and migrant workers.

The Benefits of Union Membership

The classic definition of the function or role of trade unions is provided by the Webbs 1 as ‘a

continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining and improving the

conditions of their working lives’. Workers embraced trade unions as an instrument with

which to exert some influence on wage determination and check the exercise of absolute and

arbitrary employer power. Collective bargaining evens up the asymmetrical power imbalance

inherent in the employment relationship by increasing the market power of workers to

negotiate wage raises while non-union individual workers rely on individual sources of power

such as skill and expertise. Research indicates that the majority of workers join unions to

improve their pay and working conditions. Union membership is attractive to the extent 1 Beatrice and Sidney Webb (1920) A History of Trade Unions.

that it is instrumental in achieving these goals (Crouch, 1982; Waddington and Whitson,

1997). Conversely dissatisfaction with wages and conditions of employment is likely to

increase the propensity of workers to regard unions more favourably (Hartley, 1992:

169-170). This instrumental role of trade unions or in Flanders (1970) terms acting in their

‘vested interest’ can be gauged with regard to the level of members’ wages and conditions

relative to non-union workers. A major reason for being in a union is the extra pay or

premium that accrues to members particularly in Anglo-Saxon countries2. In the US for

example the union wage premium averaged around at least 17 per cent between 1973 and

2002 (Hirsch, 2004; Hirsch and Schumacher (2004) Blanchflower and Bryson, 2003). Data

for the UK indicates a lower union wage premium that is declining over time from the mid-

1990s reaching at best 10 per cent or lower by 2002 (Blanchflower and Bryson, 2004).

Estimates for the wage gap in Canada for 1999 were 14.4 per cent but this falls to 7.7 per cent

when the gap is adjusted for employee and workplace characteristics (Fang and Verma, 2002:

20). In the Irish case Callan and Reilly (1993) estimated a union membership mark-up of

over 20 per cent for a sample of male non-agricultural workers (1167) in all sectors based on

a 1987 survey of income, distribution and poverty. A comparative study of nine countries that

included Ireland reported a similar wage gap (Freeman, 1994).

A second core function of trade unions is to act as a ‘sword of justice’ to ensure

fairness and due process in the workplace and often in the wider society. In this role unions’

move beyond the notion that the employment relationship is a purely economic transaction

where market based outcomes are viewed as fair, simply because they are produced by

market exchange (Budd, 2005). Unions attempt to operate within a moral arena that calls for

judgements of fairness and justice in market outcomes such as ‘a fair days pay for a fair days

work’. Essentially unions negotiate the space between moral dispositions and norms and the

apparent economic imperatives of a market society (Sayer, 2000). In this regard trade unions

traditionally affect the shape of the pay structure by ensuring lower levels of income

dispersion among union members compared to non-members (Metcalf et al, 2001; Metcalf,

1982). Unions act to reduce levels of income inequality by raising the wages of workers at

the bottom of the income hierarchy and/or lowering the wages paid to the top earners

2 The union wage premium has received less attention in Continental Europe partly because in these countries collective bargaining often has almost universal coverage to include non-union workers as well as the unionised (Bryson, 2007; Visser, 2006). In five countries France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden the union wage premium is zero (Bryson, 2007: 39). Studies of union wage premiums in European countries tend to be on the effect of different bargaining levels (such as multi-employer versus single-employer) on pay dispersion (Dell’Aringa and Pagani, 2007).

(through social and political pressures). One of the most significant ways in which this is

achieved is through the collective bargaining process, where employers and trade unions

negotiate on pay and terms and conditions of employment for specified groups of employees

(Freeman and Medoff, 1984; Hirsch, 2004; Turner, 2012). Overall, workers covered by

collective bargaining arrangements tend to have higher wages, lower levels of wage

inequality, better non-wage benefits, better seniority protection and better grievance systems

and lower quit rates (Freeman and Medoff, 1984).

Immigrants and the Irish labour force

Immigration has been a relatively new feature in the Irish labour force. Inward flows

occurred in a period of unprecedented growth in the Irish labour market. Between 1996 and

2006 the overall labour force increased by almost 50 per cent from 1.3 to 1.9 million (CSO,

2006) during the time period referred to as the ‘Celtic Tiger’. Initially this growth in jobs was

filled by increased participation of women in the labour market, but latterly immigrant

workers became an increasingly important source in the expansion of the labour market.

Indeed, positive net migration accounts for 60 percent of the significant increase in the

population between 2002 and 2006 (CSO, 2007). Figures for the allocation of PPS numbers

(personal public service numbers, which are required to work in Ireland) to immigrants

between 2002 and 2007 indicate that over 390,000 were from Poland alone, making the

Polish group the largest group of immigrants (apart from UK immigrants) (CSO, 2008).

As noted by Dundon et al. (2007:502) two contrasting images of foreign workers in

Ireland exist; the first image is that of highly skilled foreign workers who are central to

Ireland’s economy and work in the information technology and computer software industries,

and the second is of non-Irish national workers who are viewed as ‘a source of cheap labour,

easily disposable and found in the tertiary labour market’. Paradoxically, overall, immigrants

have higher mean levels of education compared to native workers (Cross and Turner, 2007).

Over 26 per cent of natives report reaching only either primary or lower second level,

compared to 12 per cent of immigrants, while 28 per cent of immigrants have third level

qualifications compared to 20 per cent of natives (Turner, 2010). Nevertheless, immigrants

particularly from the accession states tend to be predominantly employed in relatively low

skill occupations in the private sector and when compared to native Irish workers are under-

represented in the high skill occupations such as managers, professionals and associate

professionals and over-represented in craft, personal services, plant operatives and labouring

jobs (Fitzgerald, 2006: 19). Immigrant workers are twice as likely to be covered by a Joint

Labour Committee (JLCs) accounting for 25 per cent of all workers covered (Turner and

O’Sullivan, forthcoming). JLCs are tripartite statutory bodies with employer and union

representatives that set minimum legally binding wage rates and conditions for workers

where collective bargaining is poorly developed and pay relatively low such as in hotels,

catering, security, contract cleaning and retail sectors.

What unions can do for immigrant workers

There is an explicit premise in much of the literature that unions are good for immigrants and

can deliver significant benefits (see Milkman, 2007; Tillie, 2004; Fitzgerald and Hardy,

2010). Evidence from the US indicates that union representation substantially improves the

pay and benefits received by immigrants (Schmitt, 2010). More significantly perhaps

unionisation has the biggest impact on the wages and benefits of immigrant workers in the 15

lowest-wage occupations, raising wages by almost 20 per cent and more than doubling health

and retirement plan coverage rates (Schmitt, 2010). Beyond the immediate instrumental and

material benefits of union membership it can be argued that unions provide wider social

advantages to immigrant workers. Being a member of a trade union can strengthen the role of

the workplace as a mechanism for the social integration of immigrants into the host country.

When immigrants secure employment and start to participate in the work life of the host

society then social integration and community involvement are likely to follow (Borjas, 1995;

Putnam, 2000). Immigrants can establish social relationships with indigenous locals at the

workplace facilitating cultural and economic integration (Valenta, 2008). Thus the workplace

is crucial to the overall integration process of immigrants and exclusion from work is a

source of more general exclusion from society. Union membership appears to increase

immigrant social networks and individual social capital and is associated with higher levels

of political participation (Tillie, 2004). However in this paper the focus is primarily on the

instrumental benefits of union membership and representation.

Why are immigrant workers reluctant union joiners?

Despite the instrumental advantages of union representation and collective bargaining

immigrant workers appear reluctant to join trade unions. A national level survey in 2005

indicated that Irish workers are almost three times more likely to be union members than their

immigrant counterparts (Turner et al, 2008). At 14 per cent, union density among immigrants

compares poorly with 37 per cent of Irish workers. A survey of Polish immigrant (the largest

single non-Irish national group in Ireland) indicated that only 8 per cent of respondents

reported being a member of a trade union (Turner et al, 2008). A number of factors suggest

possible differences in union availability and union joining for immigrant workers. Union

availability is extensive in the public sector where unions are accorded a high level of

legitimacy and opposition is negligible; more extensive in industry than services and in large

firms than small firms. Immigrant workers have less opportunity to acquire union jobs due to

their limited access to highly unionised public sector jobs (Defreitas, 1993:299). Immigrants

are more likely to work in low skilled jobs in the services sector and in smaller firms in the

retail and construction sectors, contributing to lower unionisation levels in these sectors

(Grünell and van het Kaar, 2003). Consequently, immigrant workers are less likely than Irish

nationals to work in organisations with a union presence. Hence union availability is likely to

be lower for immigrant workers than Irish nationals.

Aside from the limited access to unionised sectors there are also a number of

additional reasons to expect immigrant workers will have a lower propensity to join a union.

Even where a union is available immigrant workers may not be aware of its existence

because of language difficulties and limited social contacts in the workplace (Howe, 2004;

Fang and Heywood, 2006). Moreover, because of their marginalisation, immigrant workers

are likely to be vulnerable to employer pressure not to join and less likely to speak out against

employers for any injustices or unfair treatment for fear of employer retaliation (Dundon et

al., 2007; Ness, 1998; Holgate, 2005). Immigrants often find themselves in secondary labour

markets characterised by low skills and wages. In this market the right ‘attitudes’ rather than

‘skills’ are the important qualities that employers want. Immigrants provide willing

subordinates, a good work ethic and know their place (Waldinger and Lichter, 2003: 36-41).

These factors can be compounded by a lack of understanding about Irish trade unions and

how they work. In low skill occupations in the private sector and smaller firms, these factors

are likely to be more pronounced as immigrants are more open to employer scrutiny.

In terms of individual characteristics, immigrants are generally young and young

workers are often perceived to be less likely to join unions. Immigrant workers are unlikely to

be part of any social network where the ‘reputation’ effect from being a union member has

any meaning. Unless informed, immigrants will not be cognisant of any social custom or

‘norm’ regarding union membership. Similarly, immigrants are likely to have little sense of

solidarity with Irish workers or have any ideological affinity with Irish trade unions. A

substantial proportion of immigrants usually expect to return home. With temporary migrant

labour, jobs are merely a means to an end – to save and send money back home, the true

location of their social identity (Piore, 1979).

In addition to the position and characteristics of individuals, trade union attitudes and

policies with regard to migrants may be an important factor. It has been argued in other

national contexts, that trade unions’ slow response to structural changes has contributed to the

lack of membership from non-standard employments (Burgess, 2000). Kahmann (2006: 186)

is less sanguine, arguing that ‘trade union responses to labour migration can be situated on a

continuum ranging from exclusion to inclusion, expressing a tension inherent in unionism on

the question of labour migration’. However, others believe that unions have not pursued a

restrictive approach and have focused more on organising migrants (Haus, 2002; Milkman,

2006; Watts, 2002). In Ireland, Dundon et al. (2007) suggest that union responses to

migration have differed somewhat depending on the type of migrant. They suggest that union

bargaining over wages and conditions was generally confined to EU/EEA immigrant workers

while union activities with regard to non-EU/EEA immigrant workers concerns were limited

to non-traditional union concerns. In this regard, unions engaged in ‘soft organising’ - with

attempts to make unions attractive to migrants, initiating anti-discrimination campaigns,

providing free information on employment rights and language training. However,

immigrants have seemingly not been included in union structures and Dundon et al. (2007:

516) argue that union efforts had not had ‘a significant impact on the membership of any of

the unions interviewed’.

For those immigrant workers that are unionised, this paper examines whether membership is

of benefit to them both in comparison to non-unionised immigrants and unionised Irish

workers. Specifically, we address the following questions:

1. The extent of collective bargaining coverage levels of immigrant workers compared

to Irish nationals in the private sector?

2. Does union representation benefit unionized immigrant workers compared to non-

union immigrant workers?

3. Does union representation deliver the same benefits for unionized immigrant workers

as for comparable Irish national workers?

4. Are there differences in the benefits of representation for low paid and high paid

immigrant workers?

Methodology

The National Employment Survey (NES) is a workplace and earnings survey by the Central

Statistics Office (CSO). The reference month for the 2008 NES was October 2008. The

survey provides measures of individual characteristics such as union membership, collective

bargaining coverage, sector, occupation, age, sex and educational attainment. It provides data

on individual employee earnings including overtime and shift allowances, together with

weekly hours worked. Public sector employees are excluded from our analysis for two

reasons. First the majority of employees in the public sector are union members and second,

collective agreements tend to extend universally to all employees in the public sector. The

particular benefit of the NES is that it is a matched employer-employee survey. The employer

completes a questionnaire with basic organisational details and practices and certain payroll-

type details for the sample of employees. Each employee in the sample chosen completed a

questionnaire, providing information on age, gender, educational attainment, nationality,

length of time in paid employment and other job-related characteristics (CSO, 2011).

In total 9000 enterprises were sampled and almost 5000 enterprises responded - a

response rate of over 50 per cent. Almost 100,000 employees from these enterprises were

sampled and 65,535 completed the questionnaire – a response rate of over 60 per cent. In

total 22 per cent (14,619) of respondents worked in the public sector and 78 per cent (50,916)

in the private sector. To ensure that the NES is representative of the national labour force, a

comparison is made with the National Quarterly Household Survey (CSO, Standard Report

on Methods and Quality for NES) and a survey weight is provided by CSO that allows the

NES to be grossed up to the employed labour force of approximately 1.6 million employees.

The main measures used in this paper are those relating to union membership, coverage of the

firm by a collective agreement, hourly earnings and pension and healthcare benefits provided

by the employer.

Results

Table 1 outlines the labour market characteristics separately of all host country nationals and

non-Irish (immigrants) in the private sector of the economy. Focusing first on Irish nationals

and gender we can see that males account for a higher proportion of employees (54%) in the

private sector and a higher proportion of union members (57%) than females (columns 1 and

2). Union members tend to be over represented in the older age categories. Workers in the 46

to 55+ categories comprise 27 per cent of employees but 39 per cent of union membership.

Lower levels of education and working in industry tend to be more closely associated with

union membership. Unionised workers are less likely to have a third level qualification, 33

per cent compared to 41 for the overall population and more likely to have a second level

education or less, 66 per cent compared to 57 per cent. Professional workers make up 29 per

cent of employees but only 18 per cent of union members. Alternatively, service/manual

workers account for almost half (48%) of union members and 42 per cent of the population.

A minority of workers in the private sector (31%) are covered by a collective agreement

while 69 per cent of union members are covered.

Turning then to the labour market characteristics of non-Irish workers in the private

sector, there are similarities and differences with national workers (columns 3 and 4).

Principle differences are with age, education and occupation. A majority of immigrant

workers (53%) are in the younger, 25 to 35 age category. A substantially higher proportion of

immigrant workers, 32 per cent compared to 19 per cent of nationals have been educated to

degree or higher level. These higher educated immigrants make up 27 per cent of unionised

immigrants compared to 11 per cent of unionised nationals. Yet immigrant workers are more

likely to work in service/manual jobs, 56 per cent compared to 42 per cent of nationals, and a

higher proportion of these workers account for union membership, 59 per cent compared to

48 per cent of nationals.

When we examine union membership, overall, 24 per cent of all nationals in the

private sector are union members compared to 14 per cent of immigrant workers (columns 5

and 6). Union density levels for nationals are relatively higher for workers over 46 years of

age, with lower levels of education, employed in industry and in white collar/skilled and

service/manual occupations. Union density levels for non-Irish workers are relatively higher

among older workers (though there are small numbers in this category), among the lower

educated, those employed in industry and health and education. However, there appears to be

only a weak relationship between working in white collar/skilled and service/manual

occupations and the propensity to join a union.

Table 1: Characteristics of Private sector all employees, Immigrants and union density rates, NES 2008

Private sectorIrish national

workers (excluding

immigrants)

Private sectorNon-Irish employees

Union density rate

All Union All Union All Immigrants

Density all / / / / 24 14

Male 54 57 56 58 25 15Female 46 43 44 42 23 13

Under 25 16 9 14 12 14 1225-35 33 27 53 53 20 1436-45 24 25 22 20 25 1346-55 17 26 8 11 36 1955+ 10 13 3 4 32 22

Primary/none 25 32 14 20 31 19High second 32 34 24 26 25 15Tech/Diploma 24 23 30 27 24 13Degree+ 19 11 32 27 13 12

Industry 32 37 27 37 28 19Construct/trans

29 24 34 25 20 10

Accomm/Retail

6 7 10 7 25 9

Health/educ 11 12 11 13 26 17Rest 22 20 19 18 / /

Full time 78 82 85 83 25 14Part time 22 18 15 17 20 16

Professional 29 18 22 17 15 11WC/Skilled 29 34 23 24 28 15Service/Manual

42 48 56 59 28 15

Covered CA 31 69 25 65 / /Not covered CA

69 31 75 35 / /

N (grossed up figures)

997122 238315 186554 26003 997122 186554

Appropriate weights appliedSource: National Employment Survey 2008.

In table 2 the raw mean hourly earnings for union and non-union nationals and non-Irish are

compared. The mean hourly earnings of both national and non-Irish union members appear to

be larger albeit moderately than non-union workers. Both national and non-Irish workers

covered by a collective agreement enjoy even higher mean earnings than that provided by

union membership. As table 1 indicated only around two thirds of union members are

covered by a collective agreement and in Ireland union members not covered are generally

excluded from any of the benefits. Compared to unionised and covered workers wage

dispersion levels as measured by the standard deviation and variance are higher among non-

union workers and those not covered by a collective agreement. Thus wage inequality tends

to be higher among non-union workers and this is also the case for non-Irish workers. Yet the

mean hourly earnings for immigrant workers are considerably lower than Irish nationals.

Although immigrant workers appear to benefit from unionisation compared to non-union

immigrants their mean hourly earnings fall well below that of even non-union nationals.

Table 2: Mean hourly earnings by unionisation and collective agreement coverage (using earnings1)

Private sectorIrish national workers (excluding

immigrants)N=997122

Private sector Non-Irish employees by unionisation (N=186554)

Average hourly earnings

Union Non-union

Covered by CA

Notcovered

Union Non-union

Covered by CA

NotCovered

Mean €20.0 €19.4 €21.7 €18.6 €16.9 €16.1 €17.1 €15.9

St. Dev. 9.96 13.7 12.6 12.9 8.7 10.2 9.7 10.1

Variance 99 188 159 167 76 104 94 102Appropriate weights appliedSource: National Employment Survey 2008.

Given the skewed asymmetrical nature of the earnings distribution in our sample (see

appendix) the dependent variable earnings per hour is best transformed into a logarithm of the

original variable to correct the distribution to a normal one. Regressing unionisation on the

log of hourly wage earnings indicates that national union members have an average union

premium of 9 per cent compared to non-union workers and this rises to 19 per cent for

workers covered by a collective agreement (table 3). Both unionised and covered immigrant

workers receive an hourly wage premium of 8 per cent. However such wage premiums

possibly reflect differences in human capital attributes such as education and skills and

employment factors such as firm size and sector. Controlling for these factors substantially

reduces the hourly earnings premiums for unionised for Irish and immigrant workers (table

3). The wage premium for national unionised workers decreases to 5 per cent and even more

dramatically to 6 per cent for workers covered by a collective agreement. For unionised

immigrants the decrease in the hourly earnings premium is less substantial falling to 6 per

cent for union membership and 4 per cent for coverage. Nevertheless union membership

appears to deliver a modest wage premium of a relatively similar magnitude to both nationals

and immigrant workers.

Table 3: Wage premiums by unionisation and collective agreement coverage (using earnings=sizeearns1)

Private sectorIrish national workers (excluding

immigrants)N=997122

Average hourly earnings

Private sector Non-Irish employees by unionisation (N=186554)

Average hourly earnings

Union Non-union

Covered Notcovered

Union Non-union

Covered NotCovered

Mean log wagea

2.94 2.88 3.0 2.84 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7

Wage premiuma

+9%b +19% +8% +8%

F scored 107*** 1061*** 667*** 1085***

N (unweighted)

431349 43139 7762 7762

With controlsc With controls

Wage premium

+5% +6% +6% +4%

F score 2926***

2941*** 461*** 463***

N (unweighted)

41105 41105 7502 7502

* F<0.05 ** F<0.01 ***F<0.001aThe independent variables union membership and collective agreement coverage were regressed on the dependent variable hourly log earnings (Weighted data used). bThe percentage difference is calculated from the exponential of the unstandardized regression coefficient for the variables union membership and collective agreement coverage in each equation. The F score for each equation is also given. cThe following controls were introduced into the regression equations: Gender, age, education, full time or part-time status, occupation, firm size, industrial sector, years of service (see table ??).

d F scores and Ns are un-weighted Source: National Employment Survey 2008.

As noted above union members tend to have lower levels of wage dispersion than non-union

workers. Unionised Irish members are less likely to be in the low pay category than non-

union nationals, 16 per cent compared to 27 per cent. Conversely, 51 per cent of national

unionised workers have average mean hourly earnings above the median compared to 40 per

cent of non-union nationals. A greater number of non-Irish compared to Irish national

workers are in the low pay category and a smaller number have above the median hourly

earnings. Even so unionisation makes a difference: 37 per cent of non-union immigrants are

low paid compared to 25 per cent of unionised workers and 31 per cent of unionised

immigrants compared to 25 per cent of non-union workers earn above the median.

In terms of working hours, unionised workers, both Irish nationals and particularly

immigrants, are more likely to work shifts (based on the employee survey). However, only 10

per cent of unionised nationals and 12 per cent of unionised immigrant workers receive a

shift allowance (based on the employer survey). Thus it appears that 29 per cent of nationals

and 41 per cent of unionised immigrants are unpaid for shift work. Although non-union

national and immigrant workers are less likely to work shifts they are also proportionately

less likely to get paid for working shifts. Immigrant workers on average work longer hours

per week but there is little difference between union and non-union workers. Unionised

workers particularly immigrants are more likely to work overtime than non-union workers. It

may be the case that non-union workers receive only a flat rather than a premium rate of pay

for extra working hours but it is not possible to verify this from the present survey.

Apart from a wage premium much of the evidence on the advantages of union

membership show that unionised workers tend to have higher levels of benefit coverage in

areas such as pensions than non-union workers. The data reveals that unionised national

workers in the private sector are more likely to be covered by a pension scheme than non-

union workers, 80 per cent compared to 58 per cent (table 4). Unionised immigrants are also

more likely to be covered by a pension scheme though at a lower level than unionised

nationals, 62 per cent compared to a 47 per cent of non-union immigrants. Health assurance

coverage is relatively similar for both union and non-union national and immigrant workers.

Table 4: Unionisation by pensions and Health insurancePrivate sector Irish nationals excluding

immigrants (N=997122)

Private Non-Irish employees sector by

unionisation (N=186554)

Union%

Non-union

%

Union%

Non-union%

Pensionsa 80 58 62 47Health Assurance 31 29 32 31

Low paid 16 27 25 37Up to median 33 33 44 38Above Median 51 40 31 25

Work shift work 39 18 53 39Get paid for shift work 10 3 12 5

Mean hours worked per week 34 33 36 36Mean hours overtime per week 1.3 0.4 1.96 0.9

a Respondents were asked: ‘Does your employer offer you (a) Pension schemes and (b) Health Assurance. Responses are scored 1=Yes; 0=No.Appropriate weights appliedSource: National Employment Survey 2008.

To further test the relationship between union membership and instrumental benefits table 5

uses multivariate analysis to compare the outcomes for union membership for Irish nationals

and immigrant workers. This allows us to control for the possible effects of individual human

capital attributes such as education, occupation and experience and also structural

characteristics such as firm size and sector. Unionised Irish nationals are 1.8 times more

likely to earn above the median and 1.3 times more likely to earn up to the median than non-

union workers (column 1). They are also more likely to work overtime, shift work and be

covered by a pension scheme (1.8 times) but are less likely to have employer paid health

assurance. A similar pattern emerges from a comparison of unionised immigrant workers

with non-union immigrants (column 2). Unionised immigrants are twice as likely to earn

above the median hourly pay, 1.5 times more likely to earn up to the median, work more

overtime hours, shift work, get paid for shift work, have wider pension coverage but less

likely to have paid health assurance. Column 3 compares unionised Irish nationals with

unionised non-national workers. Unionised nationals are twice as likely to receive above the

median hourly earnings, twice as likely to be covered by a pension scheme but less likely to

work overtime hours and shifts. Thus unionised nationals appear to enjoy greater benefits

from membership than non-nationals. Column 4 compares non-union Irish nationals with

unionised non-nationals. Non-union Irish nationals are almost three times less likely to work

overtime and 4 times less likely to work shift work than unionised immigrants but are 1.8

times more likely to be have employer paid health assurance. However there is little

difference in the substantive areas of earnings, pension coverage and paid shift work.

Finally column 5 examines whether unionised non-nationals in the low pay category fare

differently from those with above the median earnings when controlling for all relevant

variables. Unionised immigrants in the high earnings category are slightly more likely to

work overtime hours, 2.6 times more likely to get paid for shift work and 4.8 times more

likely to be covered by a pension scheme. Thus it appears that compared to union members in

the low pay category unionised immigrants with above median earnings appear to enjoy more

benefits. Some caution however is required as the numbers in the regression equation are

relatively small and standard errors substantial.

Table 5: Union membership and comparative outcomes (unweighted) a

Private sector Irish

nationals1

Private sector Non-Irish nationals

2

Unionised nationals and

non-Irish3

Non-union Nats and unionised

non-Irish4

Unionised non-nationals: High pay v low pay

5Union=1

Non-union=0Union=1

Non-union=0Union Ir=1Union NI=0

Nonunion Ir=1Union NI=0

High pay=1Low pay=0

Above Median hourly earnings

1.8*** (0.05)

2.2***(0.1)

2.0***(0.1)

1.1 (ns) (0.1)

/

Up to median earnings

1.3***(0.05)

1.5***(0.01

1.2 (ns)(0.1)

-1.0 (ns)(0.1)

/

Ref category: Low payMean hours worked per week

1.0 (ns)(0.06)

1.0 (ns)(0.09)

1.0 (ns)(0.01)

-1.0 (ns)(0.01)

0.95**(0.01)

Mean hours overtime per week

1.8***(0.04)

1.9***(0.08)

-1.8***(0.08)

-2.9***(0.08)

1.3***(0.05)

Work shift work 3.5***(0.04)

1.9***(0.08)

-1.3***(0.08)

-3.9***(0.08)

-0.9(ns)(0.2)

Get paid for shift work

0.99 (ns)(0.05)

1.4***(0.1)

-0.9 (ns)(0.1)

-0.8 (ns)(0.1)

2.6***(0.3)

Pensions 1.8***(0.04)

1.4***(0.08)

2.1***(0.09)

1.2 (ns)(0.08)

4.8***(0.27)

Health Assurance -2***(0.03)

-1.7***(0.09)

-1.2 (ns)(0.08)

1.8***(0.08)

-0.7 (ns)(0.3)

% correct 81 85 90 96 83Nagelkerke R2 0.32 0.17 0.23 0.22 0.58Chi.sq 8860*** 685*** 1136*** 1763*** 347***N 37309 6876 9523 29878 626

* P<0.05 ** P<0.01 ***P<0.001a The following controls were introduced into the four regression equations: Gender, age, education, full time or part-time status, occupation, firm size, industrial sector, years of service . Source: National Employment Survey 2008.

Discussion and Conclusion

Using a robust national matched sample of employee/employer responses this paper

examined four questions regarding the unionisation of immigrant workers in the private

sector. First we examined the unionisation rates of immigrant workers compared to Irish

workers. In line with research internationally, we find that unionisation rates are lower for

immigrant workers than Irish workers, highlighting a lack of focus on recruiting immigrant

workers by trade unions in Ireland. However, we also see that certain individual and work

characteristics attract higher unionisation rates for both immigrant and Irish workers e.g. for

males, older workers, lower education levels, non-professional occupations, industry and

health/education sectors. The only category where immigrant and Irish national workers

differ is in relation to working hours.

Second, we addressed whether union membership and representation benefits

unionized immigrant workers compared to non-union immigrant workers. The instrumental

nature of union membership in terms of wage premium is confirmed here. Union membership

appears to deliver a modest wage premium of a relatively similar magnitude to both nationals

and immigrant workers. Wage inequality tends to be higher among all non-union workers

including immigrant workers than unionised Irish nationals and non-nationals. Unionised

immigrants are twice as likely to earn above the median hourly earnings, be paid for shift

work and have greater pension coverage than non-union immigrants. Consequently it can

plausibly be argued that union membership provides moderate instrumental benefits for

immigrant workers. However the small size of the earnings premium may be some concern as

one of the main identifiable benefits for recruiting new members is the wage premium

afforded to union members. While union membership is attractive to the extent that it is

instrumental in achieving material goals it is also the case that a significant reason for joining

a union is protection against unfair treatment and arbitrary management actions (Waddington

and Whitson, 1997).

A third question concerned whether union membership delivered the same benefits

for unionized immigrant workers as for comparable unionized Irish nationals. Our results

indicate that while immigrant workers benefit from unionisation compared to non-union

immigrants, their mean hourly earnings fall well below that of even non-union nationals.

Moreover though unionised immigrants are more likely to be covered by a pension scheme it

is significantly lower than unionised nationals. Thus unionised nationals appear to enjoy

greater benefits from membership than non-nationals. However a comparison of non-union

Irish nationals with unionised immigrant workers indicated little difference in the substantive

areas of earnings, pension coverage and paid shift work between the two groups. Lastly, the

question of possible differences in the benefits of representation for low paid and high paid

immigrant workers was examined. Results indicate that compared to union members in the

low pay category unionised immigrants with above median earnings seem to enjoy more

benefits.

Implications

There are a number of implications we can derive from the data. Firstly, immigrants are an

untapped source of new members for those charged with union leadership. Given that

immigrants did not leave Ireland in the face of the most severe economic recession in decades

(CSO, 2011, Krings, 2009) and decided to remain in Ireland, they can be viewed as a long-

term source of new membership if specifically targeted by union organising campaigns. For

unions there is some scope for optimism as union membership levels among immigrant

workers tends to increase with age which can be viewed as a proxy for length of time in the

country. Indeed, studies generally indicate that immigrant integration into host country

networks increases with time. Length of residence in the country is likely to improve the

possibility that immigrants develop a closer affinity with local movements such as trade

unions. It may well be that immigrant workers over time have a greater propensity to join a

union because of increased contact with a peer network that includes (older) Irish workers.

While immigrants’ workers do benefit from union membership, their earnings and

benefits however, still lag behind Irish-national workers. Being a union member alone does

not guarantee higher wages. Over a third of unionised immigrants are in workplaces that do

not recognise or negotiate with unions and are therefore not covered by a collective

agreement. In such a scenario union membership may help immigrants in terms of

information and advice but these workers cannot benefit from any wage premium or

improved conditions associated with a collective agreement.

Of course the data does not provide a full picture of the potential benefits of unions

for immigrants. Unions also provide a collective voice for workers – ‘a sword of justice’

providing information and representation in individual and collective matters at work and

crucially, protection against arbitrary management treatment. However, the discrepancy

between average mean hourly earnings between Irish-nationals and immigrants is

problematic for both employees and unions. For unions, it raises questions as to how one

section of their membership (immigrants) appear not to benefit in the same extent as

unionised Irish-nationals. Unions may find it difficult to attract immigrants into the union if

there is a manifest differential in pay and conditions with Irish-national workers. Reducing

pay inequality will require stronger organisation of workers, a stronger focus on migrant

concerns in union agendas and particularly in collective bargaining, and effective

enforcement by state bodies of minimum pay rates.

References

Blanchflower, D.G. and A. Bryson (2004) 'What effect do unions have on wages now and would Freeman and Medoff be surprised?', Journal of Labor Research, XXV(3), Summer, pp. 383-414.

Blanchflower, D.G. and A. Bryson (2003),'Changes over time in union relative wage effects in the UK and the US revisited,' in J.T. Addison and C. Schnabel, eds. International handbook of trade unions. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 197–245.

Borjas, George, J. (1994) “The Economics of Immigration”. Journal of Economic Literature 32, 4: 1667-1717.

Budd, J. (2005) ‘Employment with a Human Face: The Author Responds’, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 17, No.3: 191-199.

Burgess, J. (2000) ‘Globalization, non-standard employment and Australian trade unions’, Asia Pacific Business Review, 6(3-4), 93-113.

Callan, T. and Reilly, B. (1993) ‘Unions and the Wage Distribution in Ireland’, The Economic and Social Review, Vol.24, No.4: 297-312.

Cross, C. and Turner, T. (2007) “Irish Workers Perceptions of the Impact of Immigrants: A Cause for Concern?” Irish Journal of Management 27, 2: 215-245.

CSO (2006) Quarterly National Household Survey: Quarter 4, 2005. Cork: Central Statistics Office.

CSO (2007), Foreign Nationals: PPSN Allocations and Employment, 2002-2006, December release, Central Statistics Office, Cork.

CSO (2008), Census 2006: Non-Irish Nationals Living in Ireland, Central Statistics Office, Cork.

CSO (2009) Quarterly National Household Survey, Quarter 2 2009 (September), Cork: Central Statistics Office.

CSO (2011) National Employment Survey 2008 and 2009. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Cranford, C., Vosko, L.F and Zukewich, N. (2003) ‘Precarious Employment In The Canadian Labour Market: A Statistical Portrait’, Just Labour, 3: 6-22.

Crouch, C. (1982) Trade Unions: The Logic of Collective Action. Fontana Paperbacks.

D’Art et al, (2013) ‘Introduction’ in Tom Turner, T., D’Art, D. and O’Sullivan, M. (eds – forthcoming) Are Trade Unions still Relevant? Union Recognition 100 Years On. Dublin: Orphen Press.

Defreitas, G. (1993) Unionization Among Racial and Ethnic Minorities, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46(2): 284-301.

Dundon, T., González-Pérez, M.A. and McDonough, T. (2007) ‘Bitten by the Celtic Tiger: Immigrant Workers and Industrial Relations in the New `Glocalized' Ireland’, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 28(4): 501-522.

European Commission (2011) Industrial Relations in Europe 2010, available at: http://bit.ly/kcid8h, accessed 13/02/2013.

Fang, T. and Heywood, J. Immigration, Ethnic Wage Differentials and Output Pay: Canadian Evidence from the WES, Paper presented at British Journal of Industrial Relations Workshop, 2006.

Fang, T. and Verma, A. (2002) ‘Union Wage Premium, Perspectives on Labour and Income (Statistics Canada, catalogue no. 75-001-XIE) 3, no. 9. September 2002, online edition.

Finch, Tim, Latorre, Maria C., Pollard, Naomi and Rutter, Jill (2009) “Shall We Stay or Shall We Go? Re-migration Trends among Britain’s Immigrants”. Institute for Public Policy Research, London.

Fitz Gerald, J. (2006) The Labour Force Needs of a Cosmopolitan Economy, 14th Annual John Lovett Memorial Lecture, March, University of Limerick.

Fitzgerald, I. and Hardy, J. (2010) ‘‘Thinking outside the box’? trade union organizing strategies and polish migrant workers in the United Kingdom’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(1), 131-150.

Flanders, A. (1970) Management and Unions: Theory and Reform of Industrial Relations. London: Faber and Faber.

Freeman, R. (1994) ‘American Exceptionalism in the Labor Market: Union/Nonunion Differentials in the United States and Other Countries’ in in Kerr, C. and Staudohar, P. (eds.) Labor Economics and Industrial Relations: Markets and Institutions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Freeman, R. and Medoff, J. (1984) What Do Unions Do? New York: Basic Books.

Grünell, M. van het Kaar, R. (2003) Migration and industrial relations. Available at http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2003/03/word/at0212203s.doc, Accessed 21 August 2006.

Hartley, J.(1992) ‘Joining a Trade Union’ in Hartley, J. and G. Stephenson (eds.) Employment Relations, Oxford: Blackwell.

Haus, L.A. (2002) Unions, Immigration, and Internationalization: NewChallenges and Changing Coalitions in the United States and France. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hirsch, B. (2004) ‘Reconsidering Union Wage Effects: Surveying New Evidence on an Old Topic’, Journal of Labor Research, 25(2): 233-266.

Hirsch, Barry T. and Edward J. Schumacher (2004) “Match Bias in Wage Gap Estimates Due to Earnings Imputation.” Journal of Labor Economics 22 (July)

Hix, Simon and Noury, Abdul (2007) “Politics, Not Economic Interests: Determinants of Migration Policies in the European Union”. International Migration Review 41, 1 March 2007: 182–205.

Holgate, J. (2005) ‘Organising Migrant Workers: A Case Study of Working Conditions and Unionization in a London Sandwich Factory’, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 19, No.3:463-480.

Howe, D. (2004) “British trade unions should organise a grand mobilisation to support migrant workers” New Statesman, 133(4675):13-13.

Kahmann, M. (2006) ‘The Posting of Workers in the German ConstructionIndustry: Responses and Problems of Trade Union Action’, Transfer, 12(2):183–96.

Krings, T. (2009) ‘A Race to the Bottom? Trade Unions, EU Enlargement and the Free Movement of Labour’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 15(1): 49-69.

McKay, S., Clark, N. and Paraskevopoulou, A. (2011) Precarious Work in Europe Causes and consequences for the Agriculture,Food and Tourism sectors. European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Union.

Metcalf, D. (1982) ‘Unions and the Distribution of Earnings, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol.16, No.2: 163-169.

Metcalf, D., Hansen, K. and Charlwood, A. (2001) ‘Unions and the Sword of Justice: Unions and Pay Systems, Pay Inequality, Pay Discrimination and Low Pay’, National Institute Economic Review, No. 176, April: 61-75.

Milkman, R. (2006) L.A. Story: Immigrant Workers and the Future of the U.S.Labour Movement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Ness, I. (1998) “Organising Immigrant Communities: UNITE’s Worker Center Strategy” in Bronfenbrenner, K., Friedman, S., Hurd, R.W., Oswald, R.A. and Seeber, R.L. (eds) Organising to Win. New York: Cornell University Press.

OECD (2003) Labour Shortages and the Need for Immigrants: A Review of Recent Studies, Part II. Accessed Januray 28th 2012. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/43/31857112.pdf

Piore, M. (1979) Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor and Industrial Societies. London: Cambridge University Press.

Putnam R (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Sayer, A. (2000) ‘Moral Economy and Political Economy’, Studies in Political Economy, Vol.61: 79-104.

Schmitt, J. (2010) Unions and Upward Mobility for Immigrant Workers. Center for Economic and Policy Research, March, Washington. www.cepr.net.

Schmitt, J. and Mitukiewicz, A. (2011) Politics Matter Changes in Unionization Rates in Rich Countries, 1960-2010. Washington: Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Tillie, J. (2004) ‘Social Capital of Organisations and their Members: Explaining the Political Integration of Immigrants in Amsterdam’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol.3, No.3: 529-541.

Turner, T. (2012) In Pursuit of Members interests: Trade Unions, Wage Premiums and earnings dispersion in the Irish private sector. paper presented at Lisbon conference.

Turner, T. (2010) “The Jobs Immigrants Do: Issues of Marginalisation in the Irish Labour Market”. Work, Employment and Society, 24, 2: 318-336.

Turner, T. and O’Sullivan, M. (forthcoming 2013) ‘Economic crisis and the restructuring of wage setting mechanisms for vulnerable workers in Ireland’, Economic and Social Review.

Turner, T., O'Sullivan, M. and D'Art, D. (2011) ‘Organising methods and member recruitment in Irish trade unions’, Employee Relations, Vol. 33, No. 5: 516 – 531.

Turner, T., D’Art, D. and O’Sullivan, M. (2008) ‘Union Availability, Union Membership and Immigrant Workers: An Empirical Investigation of the Irish Case’, Employee Relations, Vol.30, No.5:479-493.

Turner, Bryan S. (2007) “The Enclave Society: Towards a Sociology of Immobility”. European Journal of Social Theory 10, 2: 287-303.

Valenta M (2008) The workplace as an arena for identity and affirmation and social integration of immigrants. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 9 (2), Art. 14, available at http://nbn- resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0802140, (accessed 18 November, 2010).

Waddington, J. and Whitson, C. (1997) ‘Why Do People Join Unions in a Period of Membership Decline, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol.35, 4: 515-546.

Waldinger, R. and Lichter, m. (2003) How the Other Half Lives: Immigration and the Social Organisation of Labour. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Watts, J. (2002) Immigration Policy and the Challenge of Globalization. Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press.