Union wage differentials for covered members and nonmembers in Great Britain.

The writer presents longitudinal estimates of covered union member and covered nonmember wage differentials in Britain. Using cross sectional estimates, he contends that covered union members receive a premium of about 10 percent over other workers but covered nonmembers have no noticeable wage dif...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Labor Research Vol. 21; no. 1; pp. 133 - 150
Autor principal: Hildreth, Andrew K. G.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Science & Business Media B.V. Winter 2000
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=510151433&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 510151433
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        01953613
        JLR
      jtl: Journal of Labor Research
      issn: 01953613
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Winter 2000
      vid: 21
      iid: 1
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
    artinfo:
      ui:
        510151433
        10.1007/s12122-000-1008-1
      ppf: 133
      ppct: 17
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: T
      tig:
        atl: Union wage differentials for covered members and nonmembers in Great Britain.
      aug:
        au: Hildreth, Andrew K. G.
      su:
        Labor union members
        Labor unions
        Wage differentials
        United Kingdom
      sug:
        subj:
          United Kingdom
          Labor union members
          Labor unions
          Wage differentials
      ab: The writer presents longitudinal estimates of covered union member and covered nonmember wage differentials in Britain. Using cross sectional estimates, he contends that covered union members receive a premium of about 10 percent over other workers but covered nonmembers have no noticeable wage differential. He notes that OLS estimates are downwardly biased, and he asserts that the true union wage differential is likely to be approximately 30-35 percent. He alleges that a large negative selection effect applies to union membership.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N