Skip to main content

Union wage advantage grows by $1.71 per hour

Union wages compared to non-union wages

The gap between union and non-union wages in Ontario has grown significantly since the start of the recession in 2008, increasing by $1.71 per hour, Statistics Canada data indicates.

The hourly union advantage grew by 34 cents per hour each year on average.  For a full time worker, that means the advantage for having union coverage in your workplace is growing by about $663 per year. 

Compared to five years ago, that means the union wage advantage for an employee working full time hours has grown by $3,334 per year.

In July 2008, the union premium was already considerable at 26.5% ($25.75 average wage per hour for those with union coverage versus $20.35 for those without, a $5.40 an hour difference).

Five years later, in July 2013, the union premium had grown to 31.7%.  Union wages averaged $29.56 in 2013 versus $22.45 for workers without union coverage.  That is a $7.11 advantage for workers with union coverage.

Temporary Workers: the biggest advantage?
Unionized temporary employees are especially far ahead of their non-union counterparts, with the union premium growing from 55.1% in 2008 to 60.9% in 2013.  For permanent employees, the gap grew from  to 21.4% to 26.1%.

Women Workers Especially Benefit
The union premium is also especially marked for women workers.  The union advantage for women workers in Ontario was 37.9% in July 2008 and is now 41%.  That is $8.41 per hour extra.  For men the difference is less but still quite large, at 17.5% in 2008 and 24.3% now (with a $5.91 per hour premium in July 2013).

Canada-wide data
Across Canada, the union premium is not quite so marked, and the premium has grown more slowly over the last five years.

Still, with the gap growing from 23.7% to 25.1% (from a $4.65 per hour  premium to a $5.56 per hour premium) the union advantage is quite large and growing.

As in Ontario, temporary workers across Canada especially benefit from workplaces with union coverage.  The gap is currently $7.85 per hour.  For temporary workers, however, the dollar gap is only somewhat larger than 2008, when the union premium was $6.80.  As well, the percentage difference has slightly shrunk, from just over 49% to just under 49%.

The union premium across Canada for women workers is also especially large, but grew only slightly over the five years, from 35.1% to 35.7% (or from $6.06 per hour to $7.09 per hour).

Union coverage means higher wages, especially for women and temporary workers
The gap between union and non-union wages is quite marked and it is growing.  The advantage of being employed in a unionized workplace is especially marked in Ontario and the benefit is growing especially quickly there.  Women and temporary workers especially benefit from union coverage, and, in Ontario, the union premium for women workers and temporary workers is growing at a significant pace.

Update: Someone asked me about if union dues offset the union advantage.  For the extra $1.71 an hour earned by unionized employees over the last five years compared to non-union employees, take off about 3 cents in union dues.  (If union dues are  1.5%, the exact amount would be  2.57 cents. With 2% union dues, the amount would be 3.42 cents.)  And a lot of that would be gained back as union dues are tax exempt.  

Photo: ecstaticist

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ford Plans to Cut Health Care Worker Benefits by $250 million

Attack on health care worker benefits: The Ontario Ford government has specifically targeted in the Budget health care worker compensation  through cuts in premium payments (e.g. shift payments), overtime, and sick leave. "Improving" scheduling is also part of the plan.  The stated goalis to cut $250 million annually through such changes by 2021-22.

This is squarely aimed at hourly paid employees. Managers don't get overtime and premium payments, and they are not likely to be targeted by attendance management programs or scheduling "improvements". 

With about half a million hourly paid employees working in health care a $250 million cut would mean about a cut of about $500 per employee per year.  

The Ford government claims in the Budget that this will have "no impact on patient care or front-line staff."

In fact, a $500 cut may be low -- as it will be especially hard to harvest such amounts from contracted, for-profit corporations (e.g. in home care).  T…

Are health care administrative expenses out of control in Ontario?

The Progressive Conservative government has justified its health restructuring plans with the claim that administrative expenses are much higher in Ontario than in Canada. 
When introducing the reforms, health minister Christine Elliott claimed, “Over the last five years, Ontario has spent 30% more than the Canadian average in administrative expenses on its health care system.”  
Elliott did not indicate her source of information. Presumably, however, the Progressive Conservatives are referring to the CIHI simplified and user friendly “Your Health System” graphs. Those graphs show “administrative expenses” in Ontario at 5.8% in Ontario while it is 4.5% in Canada.  
This CIHI measure is actually fairly narrowly defined. It is the percentage of “the legal entity’s” total expenses associated with the administrative, finance, human resources and communications functional centres.
However “the legal entity” used for this estimate is [1] only for certain types of health care providers, and [2] …

PC Government Plans Many More Health Care Cuts

The Financial Accountability Office (FAO) Budget and Economic review has identified planned government spending savings that come via [1] announced program changes (program cuts like the government’s cut to OHIP+), [2] announced efficiency targets (identified areas where the government hopes it will find savings without service cuts), and [3] cuts that have not yet been announced by the government.
While the government has identified some spending cuts of type 1 or 2 above, the government’s spending plan needs billions of dollars in extra, unidentifiedand unannounced cuts to meet its savings targets according to the FAO (type 3 cuts, as above). For health care, this amounts to $5.2 billion in unidentified and unannounced cost savings needed for the government’s health spending plan to work in 2023-24.  Even though the cuts identified to date have been major and painful, $5.2 billion is many times more than the cuts announced and implemented to date. [1]
The unidentified and unannounced …