The AFL-CIO, which commissioned the poll, said the union had never seen support levels that high.
The AFL-CIO, which commissioned the poll, said the union had never seen support levels that high.
As labor activity is surging across the country, polling has found that young people are saying they favor unions at overwhelmingly high levels — support that labor organizers say is “unprecedented.”
According to polling by GBAO conducted for the AFL-CIO, a whopping 88 percent of people under 30 say they approve of labor unions, while 90 percent say they approve of strikes. This is a far higher proportion of support than other groups, with 69 percent of those aged 30 to 49 supporting unions and 67 percent of those over 50 saying the same. Support for strikes is at 72 percent for both age groups.
This is an extraordinary show of support for the labor movement among young people, as the AFL-CIO noted. “Nearly 9 in 10 (88%) people under 30 view unions favorably,” the union wrote in a press release. “We’ve never seen a number that high, which is testament to the deep desire of young people to act collectively to demand respect and dignity on the job.”
Overall, the poll found that 71 percent of voters back unions. Approval cuts across party lines, with 91 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents and even a slim majority of Republicans, 52 percent, saying they back labor unions. Support for strikes is higher, at 75 percent overall.
The poll results were released as AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler and Secretary-Treasurer Fred Redmond delivered a State of the Unions address this week.
“The idea of a union may sound complicated, but in reality, unions are just a group of people coming together. They are about each of us becoming the most powerful version of ourselves that we possibly can,” Shuler said in her speech. “People in this country have been searching for their power for a long time now, young people especially.”
Indeed, people under 30 overwhelmingly agreed that it should be easier for people to form a union, at 70 percent, and that unions are needed now more than ever, at 77 percent. Seventy percent agreed with the statement that “society would be better with more people in a union.” Support for these statements was far lower among older voters, hovering around 50 percent.
“Every day, more and more working people are finding out that the labor movement is the solution to low wages and unsafe workplaces, to inequality and discrimination. That the labor movement is the only institution in America that has the infrastructure and reach to address and vanquish oppression in all its forms…. That life truly is better in a union,” said Redmond.
The polling comes as labor activity has reached a fever pitch. Workers at companies like Starbucks and Trader Joe’s have been unionizing locations across the U.S., while hundreds of thousands of workers have gone on strike or voted to authorize a strike this summer. Strikes by Writers Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild contributed to July being one of the busiest months for strikes in several decades, one Washington Post analysis earlier this month found.
Meanwhile, thousands of workers may go on strike soon. Last week, 97 percent of workers at the Big Three automakers — Ford, General Motors and Stellantis — voted to strike if automakers can’t reach a deal with workers before their current contract expires on September 14. On Wednesday, flight attendants for American Airlines also voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike, with over 99 percent approval.
My daughter is 12 and I'm already teaching her about the importance of unions, the concept of minimum wage=minimum effort, the idea that you can tell your boss to eat shit, and that a workplace is not "family". I want her to know that employers WILL try to take advantage of her, and that she has the right to demand better.
That is actually a great way to teach kids these things. I was nine when my mom took me to her workplace as she was organizing strike monitors. I passively learned a lot. Admittedly between 59-69% of the workforce of my country belongs to unions so it is pretty much generally thought that unions are amazing. I have belonged to one if I was working in Finland either since I was 18 or 19. But that original experience with all the union work that goes behind the scenes is one of my foundational experiences.
I'm an adjunct professor. The only reason I have health insurance and get paid a reasonable wage is due to the hard work my union puts in. Non-unionized people in my position live on absolute poverty wages and have to work twice as hard to survive. Any young person who dislikes unions is a bootlicking moron.
Hopefully it's a non-voting position. I can see a lot of good reasons for the owner/executive of a company to be on a union's board, such as:
give perspective of the company's financials so unions can make reasonable demands - if the company goes under, the union won't be able to keep everyone employed
discuss issues before it comes to a union vote - basically sidestep formalities to get results faster
But if the owner is a voting member of the board, I can see that being an issue.
I’m the operations manager for a construction company that is signatory to 8 different trade unions. Just about every single union out there has an advisory board that includes employers.
Also, for those who don’t know, it costs a company a significant amount of money to join & be part of a union. I’m all for unions and am happy to see people learning more about them, but they certainly aren’t for every company. A lot of mom & pop small businesses likely couldn’t afford to join if their employees organized.
Just about every single union out there has an advisory board that includes employers.
Absolutely not true. I believe you are confusing a Labor Management Committee - which is a common space for the Union and bosses to meet and discuss issues.
Bosses are not in legitimate Unions.
Source: I serve in an elected position in a sizable Union where I also serve on a Labor Management Committee.
Secondly, Unions are for the Workers - not the bosses. To hell with "costs." Enough sympathy for these people. If they can't afford to pay their workers a good wage and provide them a quality work/life balance, they don't deserve to be in business.
This is a common conservative talking point to dissuade people from seeking fair pay.
Small business owners are frequently guilty of wage theft, commit frequent labor violations, and lean on their employees to work exorbitant hours the most. These businesses frequently fail within the first year, leaving their employees to find a new job anyway.
It would be better for everyone if the employees were protected from the start, and had to find new jobs sooner rather than later. If the business can't afford benefits and a decent wage, they should step aside for someone who can
Seems logical imo. With the bigger companies working towards profits more and more over being the "family" companies they once were the workers need more power to push back. This maybe wasn't needed as much 50 years back but nowadays the Amazons and Teslas of our world try to squeeze their workers for everything they can.
This is interesting, but I'm not sure how much weight I'd give to a poll commissioned by the AFL-CIO (an organization that benefits immensely if the poll is pro-union) and run by a polling organization styling itself as the "Democratic pollster of the year." Truthout has also failed fact checks on MBFC and has been noted to "publish misleading reports", so I wonder how much rigor they put into vetting this poll.
This is not to say that unions are bad or supporting unions is bad. But if we're going to call out biased sources and questionable approaches, we should do regardless of whether we like the conclusions.
It's patently absurd to denigrate a poll because it was commissioned by someone with a vested interest in the results. That's got to be at least 95% of all polls.
Questioning GBAO's credentials is a fundamentally reasonable move, though. Let's see what we can find out.
GBAO makes a lot of money from DNC campaigns. That implies their focus is on political matters, if there was any doubt. I'm not sure what else it implies. It certainly means they are routinely hired to help campaigns win, such as in this example, but that tells us nothing about how they go about it.
GBAO is 81% accurate when it comes to predicting political races. As you can see in the infographic on the linked source, that makes them above-average in accuracy, but a far cry from the most accurate around. That implies their analysis of their own results is probably good but not great.
All in all I'm not seeing anything particularly sus here. They have above-average accuracy in calling races and are very popular among DNC PACs, both of which are routine statements for political pollsters.
If something is very popular amongst one specific group, there's generally a reason for that. As a group bias towards certain topics.
Example. Taking away rights to abortion is popular amongst republicans. Does it mean their views/ predictions/ polls are accurate? No. Because generally a biased party trying to collect poll data will target the promotion of said polls to a demographic that is likely to agree with what they're polling.