Worldwide Attitudes
Volume 1996-03-25
Date: 25 March 1996
© copyright M.D.R. Evans 1996
Public opinion on trade
unions in Australia: continuity and change
M.D.R. Evans
Are trade unions the laudable architects of the
"workingman's paradise" or economic dinosaurs impeding microeconomic reform and
the emergence of an efficient economic system in Australia? Public opinion on this issue
covers a wide spectrum. In 1990, Kelley, Bean, and Headey said: "Dyed-in-the-wool
supporters are exceedingly rare, but views ranging from mild support to stout opposition
are well represented." That summary still applies today, although there have been
some changes over time.
The 1995 National Social Science Survey, conducted as a
module of the 1995 ISSS included a set of questions on attitudes towards trade unions,
some of which we also asked in previous years, reaching back into the early stages of
economic reform.
Aspects of opinion on trades unions
Do people have mostly positive feelings, or mostly
negative feelings about trade unions? We can find the answer using a "Michigan
feeling thermometer" (ISR 1952), a widely used method of eliciting a summary response
to organizations (e.g. trade unions) or social groups (e.g. the working class) or
political leaders (e.g. John Howard or Kim Beazley). Respondents are shown a drawing of a
thermometer which ranges from 0 (labeled "very cold or unfavourable") to 100
(labeled "very warm or favourable"), with many intermediate labels, and
respondents are invited to assess a wide variety of social actors and ideas (Kelley, Bean,
Evans and Zagorski, 1995: 8-9).
In 1995, Australians, on average, rated trade unions at
39. This is well below the neutral point of 50. But it is a small but statistically
significant gain in popularity over the score of 36 which Australians accorded trade
unions in 1987. Perhaps the most important shift is that fewer Australians give trade
unions the lowest possible rating of 0: 20% gave that rating in 1987, but slightly fewer,
16%, rated trade unions at 0 in 1994, and just 11% gave ratings this extreme in 1995.
Interestingly, this mellowing of intensely negative feelings towards trade unions seems to
be just that: there is no substantial increase in very positive feelings towards trade
unions. Fewer people detest them, but not many more have come to love them. In sum,
extreme hostility to trade unions was fading through 1995, although whether this will
continue in the face of the ACTU's more politically aggressive approach in 1996 remains to
be seen.
We also asked "In general, how good a job would you say the trade unions
are doing for the country as a whole?" Here
again there are strong signs that trade unions have "come in from the cold",
that they are seen as paying some attention to the national good as well as their
sectional interests. In 1987, fully 21% said that trade unions were doing a
"terrible" job for the country as a whole, but that answer was given by only 8%
in 1995. "No good at all" was the answer given by 12% in 1987 and 10% in 1995.
"Not very good" was chosen by 32% in 1987 and in 1995. "Fairly good"
was chosen by 29% in 1987, and drew more respondents, 43% in 1995. "Very good"
drew 5% in 1987, 6% in 1995. and just 1% said that trade unions do an "excellent
job" for the country as a whole in both 1987 and 1995. In summary, Australians have
not come to embrace trade unions as public spirited organizations (the top ratings remain
equally rare) but many fewer anathematize them as doing a "terrible" job (down
by 13%).
We also asked whether trade unions have too much power.
Very few Australians see trade unions as having too little power. 1% in 1995 thought that
trade unions had "far too little power" (1% in 1990), and another 5% thought
"too little power" (2% in 1990). In 1995, 38% saw the power of trade- union
power as being "about right", up 10% from the 28% who gave this rating in 1990.
This was the most commonly chosen response category in 1995, but not in 1990. The
perception that trade unions have "too much power" was 37% in 1995 (31% in
1990). Finally, 19% of Australians held that trade unions had "Far too much
power" in 1995. This was substantially down from the 38% who held this view in 1990.
In sum, it seems far to say that few Australians see the past decade of economic reform as
having excessively curbed the power of trade unions (only a handful see unions as having
too little power). Majority opinion (56%) suggests that some further diminution of union
power is desirable, although a substantial minority (38%) think that we have come to the
right balance, and it is noteworthy that the fraction seeing unions as "far too
powerful" has declined substantially.
We also asked "When you hear of a strike, are your sympathies generally
for or against the strikers?" The
overwhelmingly majority felt neutral or slightly against the strikers, and this has
changed little since 1987: in 1995, 3% feel their sympathies "always for" the
strikers (3% in 1987), in 1995 15% are "usually for" the strikers (9% in 1987),
so that about two Australians in ten are mostly sympathetic to strikers. In 1995, 49% said
that they were "sometimes for, sometimes against" the strikers (51% in 1987). In
1994 26% felt "usually against" the strikers, and another 6% "always
against" them (25% and 13% in 1987).
These answers are closely related, as shown by
correlation coefficients ranging from .52 to .63 in 1995. And they all tap one underlying
attitude, which we might call "pro-unionism"; factor analyzing these items
reveals just one factor, or underlying dimension, and the factor loadings are strong,
ranging between .7 and .8 (they have a minimum of zero and a maximum of 1). Accordingly,
we make a scale of "pro-unionism" that combines the answers to these questions.
Who support unions and who opposes? (As shown by
multiple regression analysis)
Not surprisingly, trade union members are much more
supportive of trade unions. Being a trade union member makes one 10 points out of 100 more
pro-union. This is one of the two largest effects in our model and is highly statistically
significant.
Some aspects of social origins matter in ways closely
similar to findings for 1994 (Evans 1995). If one's parents were supporters of the
Coalition, one tends to be about 10 points less pro-union. This is the second very
important effect in the model. Religion does not matter in 1995 although I found a small
effect in 1994 -- probably one should doubt the effect, but keep an eye on it. Men are
significantly less pro-union than women, although the difference is small, about 2 points
out of 100.
Social class matters a bit, but not a great deal. The
educated are a little more sympathetic, with someone who left school at year 10 being
about 3 points less pro-union that a university graduate. And blue collar workers, all
else equal, are 3 points more pro-union. People with high family incomes are a little less
sympathetic to unions.
Does it matter to the vote? (Multiple regression
analysis)
Attitudes towards trade unions have long been one of
the "elephants" in Australian voting patterns. The most extensive analysis to
date, by Jonathan Kelley, Clive Bean, and Bruce Headey in 1990 about voting intentions,
concluded that attitudes towards trade unions were the single most important ideological
force leading people to support Labor or the Coalition. In 1995, pro-unionism remains an
extremely important political issue, with strongly pro-union people being virtually all
committed to Labor and Strongly anti-union people to the coalition, as shown by the metric
regression coefficient of 0.01. In terms of assessments of political leaders, note that
attitudes towards trade unions strongly influenced opinions on the Labor leader, Mr.
Keating, even aside from political party identification (metric regression coefficients of
0.45), and had a weaker influence on warmth towards the conservative leader, Mr. Howard,
(metric regression coefficient of 0.28).
References
Bean, Clive S. 1988 "Politics and the
Public." pp 45-57 in Australian Attitudes. edited by Jonathan Kelley and Clive
S. Bean. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Bean, Clive S. 1991. "Comparison of
National Social Science Survey Data with the 1986 Census." National Social Science
Survey Report 2(6):12-19. [ISSN 1031-4067]
Bean, Clive S. & Jonathan Kelley. 1989.
"Keating would Cost ALP Votes" National Social Science Survey Report 1(4):2-3.
[ISSN 1031-4067]
Bean, Clive S. & Anthony Mughan. 1989.
"Leadership Effects in Parliamentary Elections in Australia and Britain"
American Political Science Review 83: 1166-1179.
Evans, MD.R. 1995. "Attitudes Towards
Trade Unions." WwA 1995-03-27:1-8.
Grattan, Michelle 1993. "Immigration and
the Australian Labor Party" Pp 127-143 in The Politics of Australian Immigration
(James Jupp & Marie Kabala, eds.) Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Kelley, Jonathan. 1988 "Political
Ideology in Australia." pp 58-80 in Australian Attitudes. edited by Jonathan
Kelley and Clive S. Bean. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Kelley, Jonathan. 1995. "Public Images of
Foreign and Domestic Political Leaders: Australian Evidence". International Social
Science Journal 1995, No. 146 (forthcoming).
Kelley, Jonathan. 1996. "Attitudes
Towards Political Leaders in Australia, 1995." WwA 1996-01-14:1-8.
Kelley, Jonathan. 1996. "Ethnic
Sympathies and Politics in Australia." WwA 1996-01-15: 1-8.
Kelley, Jonathan & M.D.R. Evans. 1995.
"Class and Class Conflict in Six Western Nations". American Sociological
Review 60 (April):157-178.
Kelley, Jonathan., Clive S. Bean, and Bruce
Headey. 1990. "The Big Issues in Australian Politics." National Social
Science Survey Report 2(1):8-10
Kelley, Jonathan, Clive S. Bean, M.D.R. Evans
& Krzysztof Zagorski. 1996. Australia, 1995: International Social Science Survey.
Codebook and Machine Readable Data File (Preliminary). Canberra: International Social
Science Survey, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University.
Kelley, Jonathan, Clive S. Bean, M.D.R. Evans
& Krzysztof Zagorski. 1995. Questionnaire: International Social Science Survey/
Australia 1995. Canberra: International Social Science Survey, Institute of Advanced
Studies, Australian National University.
Marks, Gary N. 1993a. "Intra- and
Extra-familial Political Socialization: The Australian Case and Changes over Time,
1967-1990. Electoral Studies 12: 128-157.
McAllister, Ian and Jonathan Kelley. 1983.
"Changes in the Ethnic Vote in Australia, 1967-79". Politics: The Journal of
the Australasian Political Studies Association. 18: 98-107.
Rubenstein, Colin. 1993. "Immigration and
the Liberal Party of Australia" Pp 144-160 in The Politics of Australian
Immigration (James Jupp and Marie Kabala, eds.) Canberra: Australian Government
Publishing Service.
Appendix: Results
a. Feeling thermometer: "Trade unions"
--------------------------------------------
1987 1994 1995
Value Label Value % % %
--------------------------------------------
Very cold 0 19.7 16.2 11.2
1-9 .6 1.1 1.2
10-14 1.9 3.0 2.7
Quite cold 15-19 10.3 8.5 11.4
20-24 1.8 2.3 2.4
25-29 .6 .6 .4
Fairly cold 30-34 12.1 10.3 11.9
35-39 .3 .3 .3
40-44 12.6 11.7 14.0
45-49 .3 1.0 .5
Indifferent 50-54 16.0 16.2 18.2
55-59 .5 .4 .3
A bit warmer 60-64 10.2 13.6 12.3
65-69 .4 .2 .3
Fairly warm 70-74 6.5 6.8 6.8
75-79 .3 1.1 .4
80-84 .8 1.3 .8
Quite warm 85-89 2.5 3.3 2.9
90-94 .3 .2 .4
95-99 .1 .1 0
Very warm 100 2.2 1.9 1.5
----- ----- ----
100% 100% 100%
--------------------------------------------
Mean 36 39 39
Std dev 26 26 24
Valid cases 1449 1236 2296
b."In general, how good a job would you say the
trade unions are doing for the country as a
whole?" Percent giving each answer
-------------------------------------------
1987 1994 1995
-------------------------------------------
Excellent 1 1 1
Very good 5 6 6
Fairly good 29 40 43
Not very good 32 31 32
No good at all 12 11 10
Terrible 21 10 8
------- ----- -----
100% 100% 100%
--------------------------------------------
c. "When you hear of a strike, are your
sympathies generally for or against the
strikers?" Percent giving each answer
-----------------------------------------------
1987 1990 1994 1995
-----------------------------------------------
Always for them 3 2 4 3
Usually for them 9 8 14 15
Sometimes for them 51 58 44 49
Usually against 25 22 28 26
Always against 13 10 10 6
----- ---- ---- ----
100% 100% 100% 100%
------------------------------------------------
"There should be stricter laws controlling
the activities of trade unions." Percent giving
each answer.
-----------------------------------------------
1987 1990
------------------------------------------------
Definitely 48 44
Probably 31 31
Neutral, mixed feelings
Probably not 13 17
Definitely not 6 8
----- -----
100% 100%
-----------------------------------------------
d. "Do trade unions have too much power?"
Percent giving each answer
----------------------------------------------
1990 1994 1995
----------------------------------------------
Far too much power 38 24 19
Too much power 31 34 37
About right 28 37 38
Too little power 2 4 5
Far too little power 1 2 1
----- ----- ----
100% 100% 100%
Means, Standard deviations, and correlations
among scale items 1995.
Mean: SD: Correlations:
a b c d
a 39.09 24.18 1.0 .629 .533 .529
b 46.53 20.56 1.0 .560 .528
c 45.51 21.79 1.0 .518
d 32.99 22.00 1.0
Mean StDev N Label
e PROUNION 41.03 18.23 2330 Pro-trade union (scale)
f TUMemb .23 .42 2338 Union member
g FaTUMemb .36 .48 2338 Father union member
h Male .49 .50 2256 Male (=1)
i AGE 49.03 15.82 2259 Age (years)
j UrbanNow 70.22 31.04 2199 Urban resident now
k Educ 11.89 3.01 2338 Education (years)
l BlueC .28 .45 2017 Occ. now: Blue collar
m Farm .04 .20 2017 Occupation now: Farm
n FamInc 47.86 42.19 2044 Family income ($A 000s)
o CathKid .27 .44 2322 Reared a Catholic
p AthstKid .06 .23 2322 Reared in "No religion"
q lnChAtt .79 1.81 2273 Church going: ln(#days)
r tMedMig 59.57 19.23 2298Symp Migrants:Greek,Ital
s tAsiaMig 47.14 21.34 2290 Symp Migrants: Asian
t tBritMig 63.14 20.21 2302 Symp migrants: British
u PntParty .48 .40 2338 Parents pol. party
(cons high, no miss)
v PartyLab .48 .49 2104 Political party
(Labor high)
w tKeating 40.33 31.39 2301 Therm: Paul Keating
x tHoward 51.83 26.00 2304 Therm: John Howard
Minimum Pairwise N of Cases = 1827
Correlations:
a b c d e f g h
a 1.000 .629 .533 .529 .842 .212 .118 -.017
b .629 1.000 .560 .528 .827 .181 .115 -.072
c .533 .560 1.000 .518 .800 .186 .144 -.043
d .529 .528 .518 1.000 .789 .238 .145 -.006
e .842 .827 .800 .789 1.000 .245 .159 -.037
f .212 .181 .186 .238 .245 1.000 .090 .101
g .118 .115 .144 .145 .159 .090 1.000 -.001
h -.017 -.072 -.043 -.006 -.037 .101 -.001 1.000
i .007 -.015 -.059 -.084 -.041 -.193 -.088 .063
j .033 .044 .017 .031 .033 .021 .049 .042
k .019 .013 .006 .055 .028 .187 -.014 .028
l .072 .047 .125 .043 .090 -.017 .079 .127
m -.065 -.071 -.067 -.078 -.090 -.084 -.077 -.010
n -.086 -.119 -.122 -.064 -.118 .115 -.037 .026
o .026 .031 .071 .028 .047 .057 .001 -.008
p .007 .028 .032 .039 .033 .016 .013 .040
q -.052 -.025 -.054 -.063 -.054 -.053 -.052 -.081
r .161 .089 .060 .061 .120 .014 -.007 -.033
s .215 .155 .116 .123 .196 .060 -.024 -.043
t .103 .061 .024 .018 .063 -.036 -.009 -.029
u -.198 -.168 -.207 -.176 -.226 -.050 -.401 -.016
v .458 .414 .420 .420 .521 .178 .227 .011
w .548 .411 .377 .400 .537 .102 .099 .056
x -.317 -.335 -.374 -.340 -.408 -.149 -.181 .009
i j k l m n o p
a .007 .033 .019 .072 -.065 -.086 .026 .007
b -.015 .044 .013 .047 -.071 -.119 .031 .028
c -.059 .017 .006 .125 -.067 -.122 .071 .032
d -.084 .031 .055 .043 -.078 -.064 .028 .039
e -.041 .033 .028 .090 -.090 -.118 .047 .033
f -.193 .021 .187 -.017 -.084 .115 .057 .016
g -.088 .049 -.014 .079 -.077 -.037 .001 .013
h .063 .042 .028 .127 -.010 .026 -.008 .040
j -.043 1.000 .123 -.024 -.346 .097 .066 .031
k -.369 .123 1.000 -.342 -.117 .307 .037 .057
l .011 -.024 -.342 1.000 -.132 -.238 .001 .031
m .100 -.346 -.117 -.132 1.000 -.057 -.030 -.031
n -.167 .097 .307 -.238 -.057 1.000 .050 .009
o -.132 .066 .037 .001 -.030 .050 1.000 -.149
p -.155 .031 .057 .031 -.031 .009 -.149 1.000
q .126 -.043 .008 -.042 .065 -.043 .179 -.124
r .083 .117 .121 -.109 -.042 .040 .074 -.077
s -.037 .072 .215 -.138 -.045 .051 .047 -.028
t .175 .086 .004 -.038 -.022 -.037 -.042 -.082
u -.028 -.084 .142 -.134 .135 .100 -.060 -.055
v -.101 .092 -.009 .131 -.157 -.076 .085 .036
w -.036 .070 .012 .062 -.087 -.056 .104 .027
x .246 -.050 -.003 -.101 .099 .068 -.058 -.110
q r s t u v w x
a -.052 .161 .215 .103 -.198 .458 .548 -.317
b -.025 .089 .155 .061 -.168 .414 .411 -.335
c -.054 .060 .116 .024 -.207 .420 .377 -.374
d -.063 .061 .123 .018 -.176 .420 .400 -.340
e -.054 .120 .196 .063 -.226 .521 .537 -.408
f -.053 .014 .060 -.036 -.050 .178 .102 -.149
g -.052 -.007 -.024 -.009 -.401 .227 .099 -.181
h -.081 -.033 -.043 -.029 -.016 .011 .056 .009
i .126 .083 -.037 .175 -.028 -.101 -.036 .246
j -.043 .117 .072 .086 -.084 .092 .070 -.050
k .008 .121 .215 .004 .142 -.009 .012 -.003
l -.042 -.109 -.138 -.038 -.134 .131 .062 -.101
m .065 -.042 -.045 -.022 .135 -.157 -.087 .099
n -.043 .040 .051 -.037 .100 -.076 -.056 .068
o .179 .074 .047 -.042 -.060 .085 .104 -.058
q r s t u v w x
p -.124 -.077 -.028 -.082 -.055 .036 .027 -.110
q 1.000 .047 .067 .045 .081 -.125 -.048 .142
r .047 1.000 .687 .648 .012 .037 .141 .116
s .067 .687 1.000 .390 .050 .118 .222 -.008
t .045 .648 .390 1.000 .034 -.047 -.005 .195
u .081 .012 .050 .034 1.000 -.428 -.269 .250
v -.125 .037 .118 -.047 -.428 1.000 .652 -.537
w -.048 .141 .222 -.005 -.269 .652 1.000 -.347
x .142 .116 -.008 .195 .250 -.537 -.347 1.000
Ols Regressions predicting pro-union attitudes
Pro-Union PartyLaB tKeating tHoward
Metric Std Metr. Std Metr. Std Metr. Std
ProUnion -- ---- .01 .42 .45 .26 -.28-.20
Male -1.81 -.05 ns ns 4.17 .07 ns ns
AGE ns ns .00 -.06 ns ns .30 .18
UrbanNow ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
Educ .65 .11 ns ns ns ns .49 .06
BlueC 2.83 .07 .05 .05 ns ns ns ns
Farm ns ns -.12 -.05 ns ns ns ns
FamInc -.05 -.12 ns ns ns ns ns ns
CathKid ns ns .04 .04 2.75 .04 ns ns
AthstKid ns ns ns ns ns ns -4.91-.04
lnChatt ---- ---- -.02 -.07 ns ns .69 .05
tMedMig ---- ---- ns ns .14 .08 .10 .07
tAsiaMig---- ---- .00 .10 .14 .09 ns ns
tBritMig---- ---- -.00 -.07 -.14-.09 .15 .12
PntPty -9.76 -.21 -.38 -.31 ns ns ns ns
PtyLab ---- ---- ---- --- 32.55 .51 -20.66-.39
(Const)40.99 .32 -3.63 38.07
Mult. R .28 .63 .62
R Square .08 .40 .39
Adj R**2 .07 .40 .38
St Err 17.53 .38 20.48
F = 16.19 81.45 70.86
Sig F = .00 .00 .00
Visitors since 14 September 1998: 