Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The union membership wage premium: an analysis using propensity score matching

By Alex Bryson

Abstract

This paper estimates the size of the union membership wage premium by comparing wage outcomes for unionised workers with ''matched'' non-unionised workers. The method assumes selection on observables. For this identifying assumption to be plausible, one must be able to control for all characteristics affecting both union status and wages. This requires very informative data. We illustrate the value of the rich data offered by the linked employer-employee Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS) 1998 in implementing this methodology. We estimate the union membership premium for the whole private sector, among workers in workplaces where at least some workers are covered by collective bargaining, and in occupations with pay set by collective bargaining. We find a raw 17-25% union premium in gross hourly wages for the private sector in Britain, depending on the sub-group used. However, post-matching this difference falls to between 3% and 6%. This indicates that the higher pay of unionised workers is largely accounted for by their better underlying earnings capacity, which is associated with their individual characteristics, the jobs they do and the workplaces they find themselves in

Topics: HD Industries. Land use. Labor
Publisher: London School of Economics and Political Science
Year: 2002
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:4953
Provided by: LSE Research Online

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2001). A Microeconometric Evaluation of Rehabilitation of Long-Term Sickness doi
  2. (2000). All Change at Work? British Employment Relations, 1980-98, as portrayed by the Workplace Industrial Relations Survey Series, doi
  3. (2001). An Evaluation of the Active Labour Market Programmes in Sweden’, IFAU Working Paper #2001: 5
  4. (1986). Collective Bargaining and Union Membership Effects on the Wages of Male Youths’, doi
  5. (1985). Constructing a Control Group Using Multivariate Matched Sampling Methods that Incorporate the Propensity Score’. doi
  6. (2001). Does It Still Pay to Be in a Union?’, Working Paper No. 1180, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.
  7. (1997). Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence From Evaluating a Job Training Programme’, doi
  8. (2001). Notes on the Economics of Labor Unions’.
  9. (1998). Propensity Score Matching Methods For NonExperimental Causal Studies’, doi
  10. (1986). Statistics and Causal Inference’, doi
  11. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects’. doi
  12. (1999). The Economics and Econometrics of Active Labor Market Programs’ doi
  13. (1988). The Trade Union Wage Gap In Britain: doi
  14. (2000). The Union Membership Wage Premium for Employees Covered by Collective Bargaining Agreements’, doi
  15. (2001). The Union Membership Wage-Premium Puzzle: Is There a Free Rider Problem’, Working Paper, Institute for Social and Economic Research, doi
  16. (1999). The Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS), 1997-8:
  17. (1991). Union Membership, Collective Bargaining Coverage and the Trade Union Mark-Up For Britain’, doi
  18. (1986). Union Relative Wage Effects: A Survey, doi
  19. (2001). Unions and the Sword of Justice: Unions and Pay Systems, Pay Inequality, Pay Discrimination and Low Pay’, doi
  20. (1984). What Do Unions Do?, Basic Books: doi
  21. (1999). What Has Happened to the Union Wage Differential doi
  22. (2002). You Can’t Always Get What You Want: Frustrated Demand for Union Membership and Representation in Britain’, Working Paper No. 1182, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.