Unions and Traditionally Disadvantaged Workers: Evidence from Union Wage Premiums in Canada 2000 to 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well documented that unionised workers earn significantly more than their non-union counterparts. However, over the last three decades, the union wage premium along with overall union coverage has fallen in most industrialized economies. Though the principal causes are still under dispute, the effects of technological change, managerial opposition, globalization and other factors have clearly lessened the bargaining power of labour with respect to employers. Given the commensurate rise of non-standard work and inequality in most developed nations, this paper examines the extent to which unions can still provide some immunity against the pressures of these “new labour market realities”. Using data from the Canadian Labour Force Survey for the years 2000 – 2012 inclusive, we estimate union wage premiums amongst historically disadvantaged groups: i.e., youth, women, low wage workers, immigrants, Aboriginals and workers in non-standard jobs. The results suggest that across almost every dimension of vulnerability or disadvantage used in the paper, unions are associated with a larger than average positive impact on workers’ earnings. The findings support the powerful redistributive role that unions still play in contemporary economies especially for the most vulnerable
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".