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.
They’re young; not stupid. Unions are a smart choice.
In my country, near the start of smmer, a lot of teachers started a strike, which meant kids extended vacation
A lot of children liked the strike
Also fucks a lot of companies running on skeleton crews losing an extra few weeks of their staff bc “we need to look after the kids”
BUT WE’RE LIKE A (abusive) FAMILY!
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.
Sources:
https://twitter.com/GBAOStrategies (for GBAO taglines)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/truth-out/ truthout record (failed fact checks, bias, misleading reports)
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.
Studies and polls with vested interests are ALWAYS denigrated. Because they’re ALWAYS biased.
I STG if someone links me another mediabiasfactcheck 🫠
I am well aware of both the biases of the sources I read and the biases of the ones you read too
Calling out potential conflicts of interest and the risk of biased data is always important, whether we agree with the conclusions or not. Those who take offense to that fall into the “agenda before facts” category that a certain buffoon of an ex president so enjoyed occupying.
Edit: I’d be interested in hearing what you think “my” sources are. Might surprise you to find out that I strive to read stories from multiple perspectives, especially where the stories themselves are subject to spin.
And yet you still post something you know could be misleading and inaccurate. Says more about you than the people trying to point these things out.
This entirely depends on the union. The grocery chain near me has a union whose board features one of the owners of the fucking chain. Guess whose union is ineffective?
That’s not a union. That’s an auxiliary HR department.
That takes your money.
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.
They are voting and its causing significant issues with their hiring post COVID as the fast food place next door clearly advertises a starting pay at 33% higher than the minimum wage they offer.
I would recommend someone get in touch with the NLRB - it can be done anonymously, if needed.
Has to be Kroger or some offshoot of them. They used to pay decently well relative to other retail stores, about a decade ago. Now they pay less than everywhere else cuz “union tho”.
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.
Ha I see we found the carpenter in the group. Our CEO & myself are both current pipefitters bud. And you are correct, I was referring to the employer advisory board on which our CEO & myself sit for our company.
Costs don’t matter as much if you’re operating in an area with sufficient union market presence. Go try starting a union outfit in Idaho and see if your “to hell with costs” ideology holds up lol.
Most small mom & pop outfits fall into that category - their competition isn’t union so unionizing immediately puts them at a huge disadvantage. Outfits like Starbucks on the other hand, they can most certainly afford the added overhead burden.
This isn’t an advisory board. He is a union leader. They are that corrupt.
Can’t union members vote them on or off? I am not American but how I was taught is that unions are what members make them of. This works here but unions are also not for one job place but for job classes (academics, nurses, doctors and teachers unions are separate for example). This means that employee contracts are negotiated nationally with unions for different employers. It makes the system less likely to be abused.
