The Formation of an Organized Working Class
-
Upload
michael-ide -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of The Formation of an Organized Working Class
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 1/30
The formation of an organized working class: Factors influencing working class identity
and trade union support.
Enku Michael C. Ide
2011
University of Kentucky
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0
Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View,
California, 94041, USA.
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 2/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
2
The formation of an organized working class: Factors influencing working class identity
and trade union support.
Many social theorists, particularly since Marx, have debated the question of economic
class. According to Marx, “objective” class location is based in the relation to the means of
production. Those who own the means of production, the bourgeoisie or capitalist class is said to
rule society while those who must sell their labor power, the proletariat or working class is said
to be dominated and their labor power exploited. These conditions create the structural backdrop
for social conflicts particularly over working conditions, work time, and pay. The working class
only becomes aware of itself as a class through political struggle, whereas the bourgeoisie was
already aware of itself as a class. Weber took up this theme as well, indicating that classes are
only statistical categories until there is a status-based identity and an understanding of shared
issues. For Weber, class was based in the monopolization of market opportunities, either in work
and earnings or in consumption. Further, according to Bourdieu, middle class experiences early
in life generate embodied cultural capital which is carried on throughout the life-course.
Marx indicated that the trend of capitalism, in its ideal form, is to create two “great
classes” and that the middle classes would disappear. History has not borne this out as
government policy and regulations have helped in the formation and sustaining of the middle or
professional class. However, large economic changes impact the class system, with some
authors now speaking of the “proletarianization” of the middle class, as professional jobs change.
Specifically, many middle class jobs are increasingly managed (leading to a decline in worker
autonomy) and pay and job security are in decline. One response to this trend, particularly in
higher education among non-tenured teaching workers, has been unionization.
People of color and whites likely have a different relationship to class identification.
Middle class or professional identity is culturally coded as “white” whereas, particularly for
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 3/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
3
Black Americans, the general reference group is working class or lower class people. Although
great strides have been made in the formation of a Black middle class, a much larger portion of
Black males has been incarcerated due to increased law enforcement in Black communities and
increased prosecution of Black offenders. This has had dramatic implications for the entire
Black community. Historically excluded from the higher positions in the private economy,
Black people have historically sought public sector work in higher percentages than whites.
Within this segmented labor market, the public sector has also seen more persistent unionization
providing an economically stabilizing effect for the Black community.
Unions in the US have a complicated relation to class. Before World War II, many
militant union locals were led by communists, socialists, and anarcho-syndicalists who organized
based in their belief in the revolutionary potential of the working class. During the McCarthy
era, “red baiting” drove many radicals out of the labor movement. Unions responded by
supporting business and government (often against the interests of their workers). We live with
this legacy today, with the current rallying-cry of the AFL-CIO being “protecting Americas
middle class” even when representing working-class people. According to this formulation,
class is not based in the relation to the means of production, but rather on salary (and therefore
consumption patterns) and job security. This could be seen as a hegemonic function of big labor
incorporating the ideology of the ruling class into their framing.
Regardless, for those interested in working class issues, labor unions are a key
component. Labor organizing has been in crisis for years, particularly in the private sector.
Today, the largest organized employment segment is the public sector, although these unions are
under political scrutiny and attack in many states. By quantitatively analyzing factors that
influence working class identity and trade union support, we can come to a better understanding
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 4/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
4
of the relations between class identity and union organizing today. In order to accomplish this, I
will run binary and multinomial logistic regressions addressing the following hypotheses:
Hypotheses related to factors influencing working class identity:
A.1 Marxist Theory: Relations to the means of production. The probability of self-identifying
as working class will be reduced if the respondent or respondent’s spouse is self -
employed, thereby controlling the means of production, even when controlling for
income.
A.2 Marxist Theory: Class domination. Working class job characteristics will increase the
probability of self-identifying as working class.
A.3 Weberian Theory: Income. Lower income, and therefore exclusion from middle class
consumption, will be positively associated with an increased probability in self-
identifying as working class.
A.4 Weberian Theory: Prestige: According to Weber, class and status are closely related but
distinct hierarchies. As such, higher occupation prestige should be significantly related to
class identification.
A.5 Cultural Theory: Segmented labor market. Being a person of color will increase the
likelihood of self-identifying as working class.
A.6 Bourdieu Theory: Cultural capital. Having a high income and prestige among parents
will decrease the odds of self-identifying as working class.
A.7 Bourdieu Theory: Institutional cultural capital. Increased years of education will
decrease the predicted probability of self-identifying as working class.
Hypotheses related to factors influencing trade union support:
B.1 Marxist Theory: Proletarianization of work. Support for unions will increase among
those with low job security and lower benefits.
B.2 Bourdieu Theory: Social capital. An affinity for other workers (strong bonding capital),
as well as a distrust of management at work (weak bridging capital), will be positively
associated with support for trade unions.
B.3 Cultural Theory: People of color will be more supportive of trade unions.
B.4 Political Theory: Being conservative will lead to decreased support for trade unions.
B.5 Union Theory: Unions have long been the main organizing body of the working class.However, current union messaging often relies on a middle class discourse, with AFL-
CIO claiming to be “rebuilding the middle class” and supporting “working families.” As
such, working class identified people are hypothesized to not significantly support trade
unions more than middle class identified people.
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 5/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
5
SAMPLE
I draw from the 2010 General Social Survey. Because I am interested in looking at work
characteristics for both of my statistical tests, I have limited my sample to those who are working
full time, working part time, or are temporarily not working. I thus dropped any observations
that were listed as retired, in school, keeping house, laid off or other. Because this research is
focused on factors influencing working class identity in relation to middle class identity,
observations were dropped if coded as upper class or lower class. Further, not all questions were
asked of all respondents. In order to have comparable tests across my models, I then dropped all
observations which were missing data on the dependent variables of interest, resulting in a
sample size of N=860.
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 6/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
6
Table 1: Sample Descriptive Characteristics: General Social Survey (2010) (N=860)
Binary Logistic Regression Models Variable
M
(Percent) SD N Minimum Maximum
Dependent Variable
Working class
0.55 0.50 860 0 1 Independent Variables
High job security 0.49 0.50 860 0 1
Work benefits very good 0.38 0.49 860 0 1
Occupation prestige (fam. avg.) 44.80 12.78 860 17 86
Business owner 0.16 0.37 860 0 1
High work autonomy 0.56 0.50 860 0 1
Business owner 0.16 0.37 860 0 1
High work autonomy 0.56 0.50 860 0 1
High income (family of origin) 0.22 0.41 860 0 1
Parental occupational prestige 44.70 12.99 860 17 86
Not low income 0.70 0.46 860 0 1High occupational prestige 0.50 0.50 860 0 1
Interaction Variables:
Not low income*Familyeducation years 10.33 7.05 860 0 20
Family education years * HighOccupation prestige
7.64 7.90 860 0 1
Multinomial Logistic Regression Models
Dependent Variable
Union support 2.43 0.80 860 1 4
Independent Variables
Occupation prestige (fam. avg.) 44.80 12.78 860 17 86
Person of color 0.20 0.40 860 0 1
Work benefits very good 0.38 0.49 860 0 1
Working class 0.55 0.50 860 0 1
Years of education 14.27 2.90 860 2 20
Low income 0.30 0.46 860 0 1
Low job security 0.15 0.35 860 0 1
Co-workers helpful 0.51 0.50 860 0 1
Does not trust management 0.18 0.38 860 0 1
Not conservative 0.67 0.47 860 0 1Low income (family of origin) 0.33 0.47 860 0 1
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 7/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
7
Binary Logistic Regression: The likelihood of self-identifying as “Working Class.”
MEASURES
Dependent Variable:
For my first set of models, I was interested in looking at factors that influence subjective
class identity as working class. The GSS 2010 asks respondents their subjective class identity,
with possible categories being lower class, working class, middle class, and upper class. I
generated a dummy variable for Working Class, with working class coded as 1 and middle class
coded as 0, which I used as my dependent variable in my first set of models.
Independent Variables:
To test variables that impact respondents’ likelihood of self -identifying as “working
class,” I ran five models. In the first model, I included independent variables of white, education
years, and business owner. “White” was generated by creating a dummy variable based in the
GSS variable “race,” with possible outcomes of “white,” “black,” and “other.” For the variable
White, the race outcomes of “black” and “other” were coded as 0, while the outcome of “white”
was coded as 1. The GSS 2010 includes a self-report of how many years of education a person
has, ranging from 0 to 20, as well as the number of years of education of the respondents’ spouse
or partner. Because class is often based in the nuclear family and not the individual, I created a
variable, “Education years (fam.)” which was the average of the respondent’s and the
respondent’s spouse’s education years if information was provided for both individuals. When
information was only provided for the respondent, this number was used without modification.
The GSS also includes variables asking if respondents and their spouses are self-employed.
From these variables, I created the dummy variable “Business owner” coded as 1 if a respondent
or spouse is self-employed and coded as 0 if neither is self-employed.
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 8/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
8
In Model 2, I added characteristics of the respondent’s employment. The GSS records
“occupational prestige” for respondents and their spouses. Using these variables, I created the
interval-ratio variable “Family occupation prestige” as the mean of the respondent’s occupational
prestige and that of their spouse. If only the respondent’s occupational prestige was listed, this
score was used without alteration. In one model, I used the term “high occupational prestige” in
place of “family occupational prestige,” to allow the creation of an interaction term between
“high occupational prestige” and years of education. To create this variable, I re-coded the
“Family occupation prestige” variable, with a prestige score of 45.5 or above (roughly the
median prestige score) as “high family prestige” and all scores below 45.5 as “not high family
prestige.” The variable “Not low income” was generated from the GSS variable “income06,”
which provided 25 possible income ranges from $1,000 and under to $150,000 and over. I
combined these categories into 3 categories, “lowincome” ranging from under $1,000 to
$34,999, “mid-income” ranging from $35,000 to $74,999, and “high income” ranging from
$75,000 to $150,000 or over, creating dummy variables from each possible categorical outcome.
I then generated a dummy variable “not low income” as the inverse of “low income” to more
easily compare the effects of having a lower income compared to medium or high income. The
GSS includes a variable concerning work security, based in the statement that their job security
is good, with possible outcomes of “very true,” “somewhat true,” “not too true,” and “not at all
true.” From these outcomes I created the dummy variable “high work security,” coded as 1
indicating a respondent reported “very true.”
The GSS also includes a variable concerning freedom at work, based in the statement that
a respondent has “a lot of freedom to decide how to do [their] job.” Possible ordinal outcomes
are “very true,” “somewhat true,” “not too true,” and “not at all true.” Work autonomy is central
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 9/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
9
in the literature concerning the “proletarianization” of previously middle class jobs, with
autonomy seen as a central characteristic of middle class jobs and a lack of autonomy as marking
working class jobs. As such, I created a dummy variable, “high work autonomy” from this
variable indicating that the respondent reported to this question as “very true.” Benefits
(including health insurance) are also seen as a hallmark of middle class jobs. The GSS asked
respondents about their satisfaction with their work benefits, asking respondents to reply to the
statement, “[my] fringe benefits are very good.” I recoded these responses into the dummy
variable “Benefits very good” with “very true” coded as 1 and other possible responses
(“somewhat true,” “not too true,” and “not true at all”) coded as 0. The GSS includes variables
indicating the occupational prestige of respondents and their spouses. The mean of these
occupational prestige scores was averaged in order to generate the variable “Family occupational
prestige.” When prestige scores were only given for the respondent, these were included without
alteration.
In Model 3, I added terms to address the respondent’s family of origin. I created the
variable “Parents’ occupation prestige” as the mean of the respondent’s fathers’ occupational
prestige and the respondent’s mothers’ occupational prestige. As there were no observations
missing either of these variables, the mean of the two scores was valid for all observations. To
further investigate the effects that the family of origin has on current class identification, I used
the GSS variable “incom16” which measured the respondent’s family income when the
respondent was 16 years old. Possible outcomes were “far below average,” “below average,”
“average,” “above average,” and “far above average.” If respondent’s answered “far above
average” or “above average,” this was coded as a dummy variable “High income (fam. of
origin).
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 10/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
10
In Models 4 and 5, I included interaction terms. Model 4 included an interaction term
between “not low income” and “education years.” Model 5 introduces the interaction variable
“white*high occupational prestige.” In order to create the Model 5 interaction term, I had to
generate a categorical variable from the interval ratio “Family prestige” variable, which ranges
from 17 to 86. Scores of 45 and greater, roughly the highest 45th percentile, were coded as a 1 in
the dummy variable “High family prestige.”
Model specification: Tests of model fit
Across my three base models (without interaction terms), LRχ
2
test of nested models
found that each subsequent model improves the likelihood over the previous model. An LRχ 2
test between model 2 and model 3 (LRχ 2=16.62; p<0.001) indicates that the full model improves
the likelihood of the model relative to the restricted model. An LRχ 2 test between model 1 and
Model 2 (LRχ 2=41.27; p<0.001) indicates that the full model improves the likelihood of the
model relative to the restricted model. BIC’ tests also provide strong support for each
subsequent model relative to the restricted model, with a BIC’ difference of 7.49 providing
strong support for Model 2 in relation to Model1 and a BIC’ providing positive support for
Model 3 in relation to Model 2. An LRχ 2 test further indicates that Model 4, with the interaction
term improves the likelihood of the previous model (LRχ 2=12.09; p<0.001). A BIC’ test also
provides weak support for Model 5, including the second interaction term, over Model 3, with a
difference in BIC’ of 0.16. Tests for multicolinearity were administered to each model,
indicating that these models do not violate the multicolinearity assumption, with R2 not going
above 0.36 and 1.57 as the largest variance inflation factor across each model.
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 11/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
11
ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS
Table 2: Binary Logistic Regression, Odds Ratios of self-identifying as “working class.”
General Social Survey (N=860)Model 1: Model 2: Model 3:
Demographics Jobcharacteristics
Family of origin
Variables Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio
White 0.52*** 0.60* 0.63*
Education years (fam.) 0.69*** 0.74*** 0.76***
Business owner 0.62* 0.63* 0.63*
Not low income — 0.46*** 0.44***
High work security — 0.76 0.73
High work autonomy — 0.77 0.75
Benefits very good — 0.81 0.80
High income (fam. of origin) — — 0.52**
Parents occupation prestige — — 0.99
Family occupation prestige — 0.99 0.99
High occupation prestige — — — Interaction Variables
— — — Not low income* Education
Education * High occupationalprestige
— — —
LRX 2
171.52*** 212.79*** 229.41*** Adjusted Count R
2 0.35 0.38 0.39***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05
Omitted Categories: POC, non-business owner, low income, low work security, low work
autonomy, benefits not very good, not high income (fam. of origin), not high occupation prestige.
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 12/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
12
Table 2 continued: Binary Logistic Regression, Odds Ratios of self-
identifying as “working class.” General Social Survey (N=860)
Model 4: Model 2:
InteractionTerm1
Interaction Term2
Variables Odds Ratio Odds Ratio
White 0.60* 0.61*
Education years (fam.) 0.91 0.83***
Business owner 0.65* 0.66
Not low income 16.93** 0.45***
High work security 0.75 0.73
High work autonomy 0.74 0.74
Benefits very good 0.81 0.82
Hi income (fam. of origin) 0.50*** 0.51***Parents occupation prestige 0.99 0.99 Family occupation prestige 0.99 — High occupation prestige — 7.22
Interaction Variables 0.77*** — Not low income* Education
Education * High occupationalprestige
— 0.85*
LRX 2
241.50*** 236.33***
Adjusted Count R2 0.42 0.40
In order to test variables that influenced respondents’ self -identification as working class,
I ran five binary logistic models, with “working class” as my outcome of inter est compared to
“middle class.” In Model 1, I found that race (coded White), average family education years,
and whether or not the respondent and/or spouse was self-employed to be significant. On
average, the odds of self-identifying as working class are decreased by a factor of 0.52 for whites
relative to people of color, holding covariates constant (p<0.01). The odds of self-identifying as
working class are estimated to decrease by 31% for every additional year of education, averaged
between respondent and spouse, all else equal (p<0.001). Being a self-employed or having a
self-employed spouse is estimated to decrease the odds of self-identifying as working class by a
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 13/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
13
factor of 0.62, holding covariates constant (p<.05). An LRχ 2 test suggests that the model
provides improvement in fit over a model with no covariates (LRχ 2=171.52; p<0.001). Further,
the Pseudo-R2 indicates that our covariates improve the likelihood of the model by 15%.
In Model 2, I added characteristics of employment to Model 1, including work security,
autonomy, income, occupational prestige and benefits. All variables from Model 1 retained
significance. On average, the odds of self-identifying as working class are decreased by a factor
of 0.60 for whites relative to people of color, holding covariates constant (p<0.05). The odds of
self-identifying as working class are estimated to decrease by 26% for every additional year of
education, averaged between respondent and spouse, all else equal (p<0.001). Being a self-
employed or having a self-employed spouse is estimated to decrease the odds of self-identifying
as working class by a factor of 0.63, holding covariates constant (p<.05). Not having a low
income (under $35,000/year) is estimated to decrease the odds of self-identifying as working
class by a factor of 0.46 (p<0.001), all else equal. An LRχ 2 test suggests that the model provides
improvement in fit over a model with no covariates (LRχ 2=212.79; p<0.001). Further, the
Pseudo-R2 indicates that our covariates improve the likelihood of the model by 18%.
In Model 3, I also added variables concerning respondents’ family of origin. In this
model, I found that on average, the odds of self-identifying as working class are decreased by a
factor of 0.63 for whites relative to people of color, holding covariates constant (p<0.05). The
odds of self-identifying as working class are estimated to decrease by 24% for every additional
year of education, averaged between respondent and spouse, all else equal (p<0.001). Being a
self-employed or having a self-employed spouse is estimated to decrease the odds of self-
identifying as working class by a factor of 0.63, holding covariates constant (p<.05). Not having
a low income (under $35,000/year) is estimated to decrease the odds of self-identifying as
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 14/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
14
working class by a factor of 0.44 (p<0.001), all else equal. Coming from a family of origin with
a high income is estimated to decrease the odds of self-identifying as working class by a factor of
0.52 (p<0.01), all else equal. An LRχ 2 test suggests that the model provides improvement in fit
over a model with no covariates (LRχ 2=229.41; p<0.001). Further, the Pseudo-R
2indicates that
our covariates improve the likelihood of the model by 19%.
In models 4 and 5, I also added interaction terms to better understand the moderated
impact of my independent variables. Across these interaction models, non-constitutive
independent variables were found to vary only slightly. In Model 4, an interaction model
suggests that the effects of additional years of education differ by whether or not a respondent
has a low income (OR=0.77; p<0.001). Specifically, for those without a low income, each
additional year of education is associated with a 30% decrease in odds of self-identifying as
working class, holding covariates constant. In addition, each additional year of education is
associated with a decrease in odds of 9% for those with low income, holding covariates constant.
This relationship is shown in Graph 1.
Graph 1: Interaction effect on probability of self-identifying as
working class: Income catagories by education years.
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 15/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
15
As we can see, the impact of education on the probability of self-identifying as working
class is significantly different depending on whether or not the respondent has a low income
(under $35,000/ year). Specifically, for those with low income, the effect of education is three
times less than for those with medium or high income.
In Model 5, an interaction model suggests that the effects of additional years of education
differ by whether or not a respondent has a high occupational prestige (OR=0.85; p<0.05).
Specifically, for those with high occupational prestige, each additional year of education is
associated with a 29% decrease in odds of self-identifying as working class, holding covariates
constant. In addition, each additional year of education is associated with a decrease in odds of
8% for those without high occupational prestige, holding covariates constant. This relationship
is shown in Graph 2.
Graph 2: Interaction effect on probability of self-identifying as working class: Occupational prestige byeducation years.
0
. 2
. 4
. 6
. 8
1
0 5 10 15 20family years of education
Not low income Low income
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 16/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
16
As we can see, the impact of education on the probability of self-identifying as working class is
significantly different depending on whether or not the respondent has a high occupational
prestige. Specifically, for those with high occupational prestige, the effect of education is
greater than for those without high occupational prestige.
Multinomial Logistic Regression: Probability of attitudes toward trade unions.
MEASURES
Dependent Variable:
The GSS 2010 includes the question “Workers need strong unions,” with responses
including “1 strongly agree” “2 agree” “3 disagree” and “4 strongly disagree.” In order to test
respondents’ view of trade unions, I reverse-coded this variable as “Union support” with the
following possible outcomes: “1 strongly disagree,” “2 disagree,” “3 agree,” and “4 strongly
0
. 5
1
1 . 5
0 5 10 15 20family years of education
High occupational prestige Not high occupational prestige
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 17/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
17
agree.” With this scale as my dependent variable, I used multinomial regression to find
characteristics that influence respondents’ views on the importance of trade unions.
Independent Variables:
To test respondents’ likelihood of attitudes toward trade unions, I incorporated
demographic variables and work-related variables. The first variable was “POC” (Person of
Color” which was the inverse of the above-mentioned variable “white.” I also used “Education
years,” an interval-ratio GSS variable indicating the number of years of education of the
respondent, ranging from 2 to 20. The independent variable “Low income (Family of origin)”
was generated in the same manner as “High income (Family of origin)” used in the binary
logistic regression, but was coded as 1 if the respondent indicated that their family income at age
16 was “below average” or “very below average.” I also created the dummy variable “Working
Class” which is coded as 1 if the respondent’s subjective class identification was “working
class.” The GSS includes a variable concerning work security, based in the statement that their
job security is good, with possible outcomes of “very true,” “somewhat true,” “not too true,” and
“not at all true.” From these outcomes I created the dummy variable “low work security,” coded
as 1 indicating that a respondent reported “not at all true.”
I was also interested in analyzing characteristics of respondents’ employment, benefits,
and income. “Low Income (Current)” was coded as the inverse of “Not low income (Current)”
described in the above binary logistic regression. “Benefits very good” is the same independent
variable of the same name used in the above binary logistic regression. The variable “Low work
security” was generated as a dummy variable coded as 1 if the respondent answered “not too
true” or “not at all true” to the statement “job security is good.”
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 18/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
18
The GSS offered the statement “coworkers can be relied on when r [the respondent]
needs help.” If this was answered as “very true” (as opposed to “somewhat true,” “not too true,”
or “not at all true”), I coded the dummy variable “Co-workers helpful” as a 1. Further, the GSS
asked about respondents’ relation to management at work. If respondents answered that they
“strongly disagree” or “disagree” that they trust management, then this was coded as a 1 in the
dummy variable “Does not trust management.” In this model, I also included “Family
occupational prestige,” which was also used in the binary logistic above (see above for details
regarding variable generation and coding). I also added a variable based in the GSS variable
“polviews” which asked respondents to rank their political views in a seven-category range from
“extremely liberal” to “extremely conservative.” If respondents listed themselves as “extremely
liberal” to “moderate,” this was coded as a 1 in the dummy variable “Not conservative.”
Model specification: Tests of model fit:
I originally ran ordinal regressions using the above-described dependent and independent
variables. However, the Brant Test indicated that one of my variables violated the parallel
regression assumption. While using ordinal logistic regression, I originally designed the test as a
series of nested models. However, in running the multinomial regression I am only reporting the
full model, which includes demographic information, work characteristics and political views. .
An LRχ 2
test (LRχ 2
=119.85; p<0.001) indicates that this model improves the likelihood of the
model relative to a model with no covariates. Further, the Pseudo-R2
indicates that our
covariates improve the likelihood of the model by 6%. Also, there were several variables of
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 19/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
19
interest which had to be dropped due to small N per cell, including those dealing with
experiences of discrimination on the job.
ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS
Relative risk ratios and predicted probabilities were found in relation to the likelihood of
responding to the phrase “workers need strong unions” with possible outcomes being “strongly
agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.”
Relative Risk Ratios and Predicted Probabilities
Table 3a: Multinomial Logistic Regression Relative Risk Ratios of responsesto the statement, “Workers need strong trade unions.” Base outcome category:Strongly Disagree. General Social Survey (N=860)
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Variable
Relative Risk
Ratio
Relative Risk
Ratio
Relative Risk
Ratio
Person of color 1.04 2.51* 3.68**
Education years 1.06 1.04 1.06Working class 2.09** 1.85* 2.08*
Coworkers helpful 0.98 1.03 1.86
Low income (fam. of origin)
1.37 1.39 1.50
Low income (current) 1.71 1.87 2.30*
Benefits very good 1.14 0.90 1.80
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 20/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
20
Does not trustmanagement
1.10 1.51 3.47**
Family occupationalprestige
1.00 1.00 1.00
Low work security 0.88 1.10 1.30
Non-conservative 2.25*** 3.03*** 3.60*** LRX
2 119.85***
Adjusted Count R2 0.10
***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05
Omitted Categories: White, Middle Class, Coworkers not helpful, Not low income (fam. of
origin), Not low income (current), Benefits not very good, Trusts management, Not low work
security, Conservative
Table 3b: Multinomial Logistic Regression Relative Risk Ratios of responsesto the statement, “Workers need strong trade unions.” Base outcome category:Disagree. General Social Survey (N=860)
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Variable
Relative Risk
Ratio
Relative Risk
Ratio
Relative Risk
Ratio
Person of color 0.96 2.42*** 3.54***
Education years 0.95 0.99 1.01
Working class 0.48** 0.88 1.00
Coworkers helpful 1.02 1.05 1.90*
Low income (fam. of origin)
0.58 0.81 0.88
Low income (current) 0.73 1.37 1.68
Benefits very good 0.87 0.79 1.57
Does not trustmanagement
0.91 1.38 3.16***
Family occupational 1.00 1.00 1.00
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 21/30
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 22/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
22
prestige
Low work security 0.91 0.80 1.18
Non-conservative 0..33*** 0.74 1.19
LRX 119.85***
Adjusted Count R2 0.10
***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05Omitted Categories: White, Middle Class, Coworkers not helpful, Not low income (fam. of
origin), Not low income (current), Benefits not very good, Trusts management, Not low work
security, Conservative
Table 3d: Multinomial Logistic Regression Relative Risk Ratios of responsesto the statement, “Workers need strong trade unions.” Base outcome category:Strongly Agree. General Social Survey (N=860)
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree
Variable
Relative Risk
Ratio
Relative Risk
Ratio
Relative Risk
Ratio
Person of color 0.27** 0.28*** 0.68
Education years 0.94 0.99 0.98
Working class 0.48* 1.00 0.89Coworkers helpful 0.54 0.53* 0.55*
Low income (fam. of origin) 0.67 1.14 0.93
Low income (current) 0.43* 0.59 0.81
Benefits very good 0.56 0.64 0.50*
Does not trust management 0.29** 0.32*** 0.44**
Family occupational prestige 1.00 1.00 1.00
Low work security 0.77 0.68 0.85
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 23/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
23
Non-conservative 0.28*** 0.63 0.84
LRX 2 119.85***
Adjusted Count R2 0.10
***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05
Omitted Categories: White, Middle Class, Coworkers not helpful, Not low income (fam. of
origin), Not low income (current), Benefits not very good, Trusts management, Not low work
security, Conservative
Being a person of color, compared to being white, is associated with a 151% (p<0.05)
increase in the odds of agreeing and a 268% (p<0.01) increase in the odds of strongly agreeing
that workers need strong unions relative to strongly disagreeing, all else equal. Being working
class, compared to being middle class, is estimated to increase the odds of disagreeing, agreeing
and strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions, relative to strongly disagreeing, by 109%
(p<0.01), 85%(p<0.05), and 108%(p<0.05) respectively, holding covariates constant. Having a
low income, compared to having a higher income, is estimated to increase the odds of strongly
agreeing that workers need strong unions, relative to strongly disagreeing, by 130%, all else
equal (p<0.05). Compared to those who trust management at work, those who do not trust
management are estimated to have a 347% increase in the odds of strongly agreeing that workers
need strong unions, relative to strongly disagreeing, all else equal (p<0.01). On average,
compared to being non-conservative, being conservative is estimated to increase the odds of
disagreeing, agreeing and strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions, compared to
strongly disagreeing, by 125% (p<0.001), 203%(p<0.001) and 260% (p,0.001), respectively,
holding covariates constant.
Compared to being white, being a person of color is estimated to increase the odds of
agreeing that workers need strong unions by 142% (p<0.001) and strongly agreeing that workers
need strong unions by 254% (p<0.001), relative to disagreeing, all things equal. Those who do
not trust management, compared to those who do trust management, are estimated to have an
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 24/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
24
increased odds of 216% of strongly agreeing that workers need strong trade unions compared to
disagreeing (p<0.001), holding covariates constant. Those who are certain that their coworkers
are helpful, compared to those who are not certain, are estimated to have an increased odds of
9% of strongly agreeing that workers need strong trade unions, relative to disagreeing that
workers need strong trade unions, all else equal (p<0.05).
Those who see their coworkers as helpful, compared to those who do not see their
coworkers as helpful, are estimated to have an increased odds of 8% of strongly agreeing that
workers need strong unions relative to agreeing, all things equal (p<0.05). Having very good
benefits, compared to not having very good benefits, is associated with a 100% increase in
strongly agreeing that workers need strong trade unions relative to agreeing that workers need
strong trade unions, holding covariates constant (p<0.05). Compared to those who trust
management, those who do not trust management are estimated to have an increase of 129% in
odds of strongly agreeing that workers need strong trade unions relative to agreeing that workers
need strong trade unions, all things equal (p<0.01).
Table 4. Predicted Probabilities of responses to the statement, “Workers need strong tradeunions.”*General Social Survey (N=860)
Ideal Type Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Holding all covariates constant**
Person of Color 0.13 0.51 0.30 0.06
Working Class 0.08 0.38 0.47 0.07
Low Income 0.10 0.43 0.41 0.07
Does not Trust Management 0.16 0.40 0.37 0.07
Not Conservative 0.08 0.41 0.44 0.07
Person of Color
Working Class 0.14 0.50 0.31 0.05
Middle Class 0.12 0.51 0.28 0.08
Low Income 0.17 0.54 0.26 0.04
Not Low Income 0.12 0.49 0.32 0.07
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 25/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
25
Does not Trust Management 0.26 0.48 0.22 0.04
Trusts Management 0.12 0.50 0.32 0.06
Not Conservative 0.15 0.53 0.28 0.04
Conservative 0.10 0.45 0.33 0.11
White
Working Class 0.07 0.34 0.52 0.08Middle Class 0.06 0.34 0.46 0.14
Low Income 0.08 0.39 0.45 0.08
Not Low Income 0.06 0.32 0.51 0.12
Does not Trust Management 0.13 0.38 0.41 0.08
Trusts Management 0.05 0.33 0.51 0.11
Not Conservative 0.07 0.37 0.48 0.08
Conservative 0.05 0.28 0.49 0.18
Not Conservative
Working Class 0.09 0.40 0.46 0.05
Middle Class 0.08 0.41 0.41 0.10
Low Income 0.11 0.45 0.39 0.05Not Low Income 0.08 0.39 0.46 0.08
Does not Trust Management 0.18 0.42 0.35 0.05
Trusts Management 0.07 0.40 0.46 0.07
Conservative
Working Class 0.06 0.32 0.49 0.13
Middle Class 0.05 0.31 0.42 0.22
Low Income 0.07 0.37 0.43 0.13
Not Low Income 0.05 0.29 0.47 0.19
Does not Trust Management 0.12 0.35 0.39 0.13
Trusts Management 0.05 0.31 0.47 0.17*In all categories, variables not included are held constant: poc, educ, working class, coworkers helpful, low incomefamily of origin, low income current, job benefits very good, no trust management, family occupational prestige,low work security, non-conservative**Omitted categories: white, middle class, not low income, trusts management, conservative Note: Presented values are predicted probabilities
Of the ideal types listed in Table 4, People of Color who do not trust management have
the highest predicted probability of strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions, with a
predicted probability of 0.26. The lowest predicted probability of strongly agreeing that workers
need strong unions, 0.05, is shared amongst conservatives who trust management, conservatives
that do not have a low income, middle class conservatives, white conservatives, and whites who
trust management. Those with the highest predicted probability of agreeing that workers need
strong unions, with a predicted probability of 0.54, are low income people of color. The lowest
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 26/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
26
predicted probability of agreeing that workers need strong unions is found among white
conservatives, with 0.28. Those with the highest predicted probability of disagreeing that
workers need strong unions are white people who self-identify as working class, with a predicted
probability of 0.52. Those with the lowest predicted probability of disagreeing that workers need
strong unions are low income people of color, with a predicted probability of 0.28. Those with
the highest predicted probability of strongly disagreeing that workers need strong unions are
middle class conservatives, with a predicted probability of 0.22. Those with the lowest predicted
probability of believing that workers need strong unions are low income people of color and
people of color who do not trust management, with a predicted probability of 0.04.
Being a person of color, compared to being white, is associated with an increase of 0.16
and 0.07 in the predicted probability of agreeing or strongly agreeing, respectively, that workers
need strong unions, and a decreased predicted probabilities of 0.19 and 0.04 in disagreeing or
strongly disagreeing that workers need strong unions, all else equal. Being a working class,
compared to being middle class, is associated with a decrease of 0.001 in predicted probability of
agreeing that workers need strong unions and an increase of 0.05 and 0.01 in predicted
probability of disagreeing and strongly agreeing, respectively, that workers need strong unions,
all things equal. Being non-conservative, compared to being conservative, is associated with a
decrease of 0.10 and 0.02 in predicted probability of strongly disagreeing and disagreeing,
respectively, that workers need strong unions and an increase in 0.03 and 0.09 in agreeing and
strongly agreeing, respectively, that workers need strong unions, all else constant.
Believing your coworkers are helpful, compared to not believing your coworkers are
helpful, is associated with an increase of 0.04 in predicted probability of strongly agreeing that
workers need strong unions and a decrease in predicted probability of 0.03 of disagreeing that
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 27/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
27
workers need strong unions, all else equal. Not trusting management, compared to trusting
management, is associated with an increase of 0.09 and 0.03 in predicted probability of strongly
agreeing and agreeing that workers need strong unions, all else equal. Not trusting management
is associated with a decrease of 0.10 and 0.03 in disagreeing and strongly disagreeing that
workers need strong unions, holding covariates constant.
Having a low income, compared to not having a low income, is associated with a 0.04
increase in strongly believing that workers need strong unions and a 0.04 decrease in strongly
disagreeing that workers need strong unions, holding covariates constant. Having very good
benefits, compared to not having very good benefits, is associated with an increase of 0.04 of
predicted probability of strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions, all else equal.
Graph 3: Discrete Change Plot: Multinomial Logistic Regression of responses to thestatement, “Workers need strong trade unions.” General Social Survey (N=860)
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 28/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
28
The effects of being a person of color are the largest, increasing the predicted probability
of agreeing that workers need strong unions and decreasing the probability of disagreeing that
workers need strong unions, relative to whites. The effects of not trusting management are also
large, with those who do not trust management being more likely to strongly agree less likely to
disagree that workers need strong unions, relative to those who do trust management. Also,
being non-conservative has an impact, with non-conservatives being more likely to agree and
less likely to strongly disagree that workers need strong unions, compared to conservatives.
DISCUSSION
Note: (-)=Strongly Disagree, (D)=Disagree, (A)=Agree, (+)=Strongly Agree
Change in Predicted Probability for unionsupport
-.19 -.15 -.1 -.06 -.02 .03 .07 .12 .16
D A+-
D A +-
D A+-
DA+-
D A+-
DA +-
D A +-
person of color-0/1
does not trust management-0/1
not conservative-0/1
working class-0/1
low income-0/1
benefits very good-0/1
Co-workers helpful-0/1
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 29/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
29
In relation to class identity, the data support the Marxist relations to the means of
production hypothesis (A.1) but not the Marxist class domination hypothesis (A.2). While self-
employment was consistently negatively associated with working class identity, the data show
that middle class job characteristics of security, high benefits, and autonomy do not significantly
increase the odds of working class self-identification. The data support the Weberian income
hypothesis (A.3) that class is subjectively understood as a relation to market opportunities, with
income consistently being found as the largest predictor of class identity. However, the data do
not support the Weberian prestige hypothesis (A.4), with occupational prestige having no
significant impact on class identity. The data do support the Cultural segmented labor market
hypothesis (A.5), with people of color being consistently more likely to self-identify as working
class than whites. The data also support both the Bourdieu cultural capital and institutional
capital hypotheses (A.6, A.7). A high-income family of origin and increased education were
both consistently found to decrease the odds of self-identifying as working class.
Interaction terms did indicate that education impacted one’s likelihood of self -identifying as
working class differently among those with high occupational prestige and not high occupational
prestige, as well as between those with low income and those with medium to high income.
Specifically, this institutionalized cultural capital has substantial benefits for those with medium
to high income and those with high occupational prestige, increasing the likelihood that these
individuals will self-identify as middle class. Among those with low income or without high
occupational prestige, the institutional cultural capital of education does not as greatly increase
the odds of self-identifying as working class.
In relation to union support, the data do not support the Marxist proletarianization hypothesis
(B.1), with job insecurity, high benefits and low income being generally insignificant in
8/3/2019 The Formation of an Organized Working Class
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-formation-of-an-organized-working-class 30/30
Ide, “Enku” MichaelSOC 681
predicting attitudes toward unions. Low income was found to increase strongly agreeing that
workers need unions relative to strongly disagreeing, but had no impact on more moderate views.
The data do support the Bourdieu social capital theory (B.2), with distrust of management (weak
bridging capital) consistently improving the likelihood of strongly agreeing that workers need
unions relative to all outcome categories. Seeing one’s coworkers as helpful (bonding capital) is
positively associated with strongly agreeing that workers need strong unions, compared to both
agreeing and disagreeing. The data support the cultural theory hypothesis (B.3) and the political
hypothesis (B.4), with people of color and non-conservatives consistently more likely to support
trade unions. The data also support the class hypothesis (B.5), with working class identity
having a significant yet ambiguous relationship to union support.
Dropping observations of the unemployed and upper-class and lower-class identified
people may mask some factors related to union support. Further, many aspects that may
influence trade union support could not be tested with the available data, including the presence
of a union organizer or advocate.