LITERATURE REVIEW AND BACKGROUND

The linkage between LGBTQ+ and labor issues speaks to long-standing debates among political scientists and activists about how workers’ identities inform union mobilization (Frymer Reference Frymer2008; Olson Reference Olson1965; Schickler Reference Schickler2016; Strolovitch Reference Strolovitch2007; Warren Reference Warren2010; Warren and Cohen Reference Warren and Cohen2000). Agenda-setting research has long argued that political divisions are a risk for organizing (Olson Reference Olson1965). Studies also find that organizers often represent the interests of advantaged members at the expense of marginalized groups (Strolovitch Reference Strolovitch2007; Warren and Cohen Reference Warren and Cohen2000). Scholars reveal that public-sector unions and unions with larger constituencies of women are more responsive to marginalized groups (Bielski Boris Reference Bielski Boris2010) and that unions vary in political participation (Stepan-Norris and Zeitlin Reference Stepan-Norris and Zeitlin2002; Warren Reference Warren2010). A small literature examines the relationship between LGBTQ+ and labor politics (Frank Reference Frank2014), focusing primarily on alliance formation (Brantley Reference Brantley2020; Heersink and Lacombe Reference Heersink and Lacombe2023; Mayo-Adams Reference Mayo-Adam2020) but not the broader representation of LGBTQ+ issues.

Scholarship demonstrates that interactions between labor and LGBTQ+ activists date back to the 1970s. Ng and Rumens (Reference Ng and Rumens2017, 109–20) described how LGBTQ+ labor mobilization took place in two phases: (1) activists opposed the classification of homosexuality as a disease; and (2) they shifted focus to LGBTQ+ workplace issues. The 1974 San Francisco Coors strike exemplifies the first success of that second phase. Unions and gay activists boycotted Coors’ anti-gay and anti-union hiring practices, decreasing their share of the California beer market from 43% to 14% (Bain Reference Bain and Hunt1999). Following the strike, gay and lesbian activists attempted to use bargaining to secure partner benefits and workplace protections and to promote visibility. For example, in 1982, New York Village Voice workers in District 56 of the United Auto Workers secured health insurance for “spouse equivalents” almost 10 years before the first large corporation (Holcomb Reference Holcomb and Hunt1999). During the same period, workers formed caucuses to pressure national unions on gay rights and anti-discrimination (Frank Reference Frank and Hunt1999), which culminated in the AFL-CIO recognizing PAW in 1997.

However, since the 1990s and as union influence has waned, labor historians and political scientists have given less attention to LGBTQ+-union activism and have questioned alliance effectiveness. Balay’s (Reference Balay2014) study of steelworkers in Indiana, for example, found that LGBTQ+ steelworkers were closeted, harassed, and unsupported in local chapters. Other related studies about workplace anti-discrimination and transgender-inclusive healthcare focused on federal and corporate solutions while ignoring unions as remedies (Bender-Baird Reference Bender-Baird2011; McNamara Reference McNamara2020). Within the LGBTQ+ movement, class-based politics remain at the margins (Wuest Reference Wuest2023). Currently, there are few systematic analyses of LGBTQ+ issue representation in the labor movement. A notable exception is Kelly and Lubitow’s (Reference Kelly and Lubitow2015) study of PAW’s campaigns since 1994. They conducted interviews with labor organizers, studying the politics of PAW in isolation. As a result, there is relatively little known about how the representation of LGBTQ+ issues varies based on the positionality of labor-union actors. Our study addresses this gap by examining the symbolic and substantive representation of LGBTQ+ issues within PAW and the AFL-CIO. We also broaden the methodological approach beyond interviews through a qualitative analysis of union materials. Thus, our analyses can help political science to understand how LGBTQ+ workers’ concerns are linked to broader issues of inequality.

LGBTQ+ REPRESENTATION AND AGENDA SETTING

We posited that labor union actors represent LGBTQ+ people and issues by engaging in symbolic and substantive representation. We expected that their positionality produces variation in the representation of LGBTQ+ issues. Within the context of labor politics, these union actors can engage in symbolic representation through low-cost statements that provide recognition to LGBTQ+ issues but do not commit organizational resources or take follow-up actions (e.g., statements that condemn or support policy, celebrate LGBTQ+ history, and propose symbolic advocacy). They can engage in substantive representation through calls for collective action and resource mobilization, such as urging members to take part in a boycott or march, planning education campaigns, and writing model contract language for LGBTQ+ issues. Because the AFL-CIO communicates with a majority non-LGBTQ+ audience, it should be more likely to engage in symbolic rather than substantive representation. We expected that PAW is more likely to engage in substantive representation because it organizes LGBTQ+ workers and attempts to influence the AFL-CIO. Moreover, because LGBTQ+ workers are marginalized intersectionally, we expected that they are more likely to advocate for issues that affect other marginalized groups.

We also hypothesized that positionality shapes the contents of symbolic and substantive representation. That is, the AFL-CIO and PAW may vary in how they symbolically and substantively represent LGBTQ+ issues. On the one hand, if constituency groups successfully pressure dominant union actors, then we would expect alignment in representation between the AFL-CIO and PAW. On the other hand, dominant labor organizations and marginalized constituencies within them may promote different issues and strategies—even when representing the same group. Thus, by examining the relationship between union-actor positionality and representation, we can uncover whether labor-movement actors are unified on LGBTQ+ issues, which would provide insight into agenda setting and issue mobilization. Because there is limited research about the LGBTQ+ issue agenda in labor unions, we used an inductive approach to identify the contents of symbolic and substantive representation and agenda setting.

DATA AND METHODS

Our data were from two sources: (1) PAW resolutions and press releases issued between 1996 and 2022; and (2) LGBTQ+–related resolutions and press releases issued by the AFL-CIO between 2009 and 2021. Documents were coded using the software Taguette (Rampin and Rampin Reference Rampin and Rampin2021). We coded materials to capture the frequency and contents of symbolic and substantive representation and the LGBTQ+ issue agenda among union actors. Our inductive content analysis was guided by the following approach. First, members of the research team read and coded each document to identify key themes and subthemes. From this manual coding process, the team identified symbolic and substantive calls for action, which included the subthemes of solidarity, position taking, calling for boycotts, and building community spaces. In addition, we identified issues and policies that constitute the LGBTQ+ union agenda. This included specific LGBTQ+–focused policies, issues affecting other marginalized groups, and other concerns such as producing educational materials and campaigns.Footnote ¹ Second, all statements were coded to identify the union actors, which allowed for cross-group comparison. Third, after the data were coded, we summarized the frequency and contents of symbolic representation, substantive representation, and agenda setting using R.

SYMBOLIC AND SUBSTANTIVE REPRESENTATION

We first examined the frequency of symbolic and substantive representation to foreground our analysis of representation content. Representation content—85% (N = 22) of AFL-CIO and 72% (n = 225) of PAW—was classified for symbolic representation.Footnote ² PAW was almost twice as likely to engage in substantive representation with 28% (N = 87) of press releases, including calls for collective action, compared to 15% (N = 4) of AFL-CIO materials. The AFL-CIO was more likely to represent LGBTQ+ people by focusing on visibility within the labor movement, whereas PAW was more likely to comment on national LGBTQ+ policy debates (figure 1). The AFL-CIO often issued statements acknowledging the intersection between LGBTQ+ and workers’ rights (23%) as well as celebrating LGBTQ+ individuals (14%) and history (9%). PAW was more likely to issue statements that called for union actors and representatives to take political action (25% versus 14%). Likewise, 24% of PAW press releases took positions that opposed policies compared to 14% of AFL-CIO press releases. Thus, the AFL-CIO and PAW are not aligned in how they symbolically represent LGBTQ+ people.

Figure 1 Symbolic Representation Between AFL-CIO and PAW

PAW and the AFL-CIO also differed when they advocate for collective action. The AFL-CIO was most likely to engage in policy writing, such as providing model contract language related to LGBTQ+ issues. It also called for action that would build LGBTQ+ community in and out of the workplace, and it attempted to educate non-LGBTQ+ people about LGBTQ+ issues. Thus, the AFL-CIO dedicated resources to educating labor union members who were not LGBTQ+ and provided tools for local unions to improve working conditions for LGBTQ+ people. The AFL-CIO’s collective-action repertoire was limited compared to PAW. PAW took a broader approach to collective action, calling for boycotts, call-in campaigns, and marches among other forms of collective action (figure 2). Thus, the AFL-CIO and PAW also were not aligned regarding collective action concerning LGBTQ+ issues.

Figure 2 Substantive Representation Between AFL-CIO and PAW

These differences have implications for LGBTQ+ labor organizing. First, they suggest that the AFL-CIO is not taking cues from PAW. If that were the case, we would expect greater degrees of alignment in symbolic and substantive representation between the AFL-CIO and PAW. We found instead that they are discordant in their approaches. Second, and by extension, these differences imply that PAW’s influence on the AFL-CIO is limited, even when organizing around LGBTQ+ labor issues. Thus, LGBTQ+ workers face significant barriers to representation within the labor movement.

LGBTQ+ AGENDA SETTING

Next, we examined agenda setting by identifying which LGBTQ+ concerns receive attention from union actors. Of the AFL-CIO releases we reviewed, 24% discussed LGBTQ+ visibility through posts such as Pride Month Profiles, conventions about how to organize LGBTQ+ workers, and symbolic diversity resolutions. Conversely, PAW never specifically addressed visibility in the workplace (figure 3).Footnote ³ The varying emphasis on visibility is notable because visibility has been a cornerstone of LGBTQ+ activists’ demands for inclusion in institutions such as political parties (Proctor Reference Proctor2022). Furthermore, union actors who represent dominant groups typically avoid the promotion of LGBTQ+ visibility. Thus, we observed different patterns of representation in labor union materials examined in this study, which demonstrates variation in LGBTQ+ representation across institutions and actors.

Figure 3 Agenda Setting Between AFL-CIO and PAW

We also found that the AFL-CIO promoted structural policy; that is, it advocated for addressing issues through legislation and union-wide campaigns at similar rates to PAW (19% versus 25%). We considered this alignment to be important because despite representing a majority non-LGBTQ+ constituency, the AFL-CIO has advocated for meaningful policy change. Moreover, we did not find evidence of the AFL-CIO (or PAW) encouraging individualistic approaches (e.g., creating a welcoming environment for LGBTQ+ workers), which should be less likely to galvanize opposition from non-LGBTQ+ union workers. In conjunction with the AFL-CIO’s emphasis on visibility, these findings provide evidence that may explain why LGBTQ+ issues have been visible in recent labor organizing.

Although the AFL-CIO materials promote visibility and policy, we found that PAW was more likely to represent issues at the intersections of sexuality, gender, race, and class. PAW discussed issues affecting transgender people almost twice as often as the AFL-CIO (9% versus 5%) and it was twice as likely to discuss anti-discrimination (14% versus 7%). PAW also mentioned healthcare in 9% of its materials compared to 2% for the AFL-CIO. PAW discussed racism and immigration in 7% and 3% of its materials, respectively. Thus, PAW made explicit connections between LGBTQ+ issues and issues affecting other marginalized groups, whereas the AFL-CIO instead narrowly focused on LGBTQ+ union membership and workers’ rights. We speculated that these differences are due to the AFL-CIO representing the issues of marginalized constituencies in isolation rather than as interconnected.

The differences in agenda setting between the AFL-CIO and PAW have implications for LGBTQ+ labor activism. On the one hand, the AFL-CIO has promoted LGBTQ+ visibility and structural approaches to policy change. This evidence suggests that dominant labor-union actors have the capacity to improve the status and well-being of LGBTQ+ people, despite representing a majority non-LGBTQ+ constituency. On the other hand, we did not observe the AFL-CIO connecting LGBTQ+ issues to the issues of other groups. An implication of these differences is that dominant union actors may not be the best representatives for building broad coalitions unless they further link issues of sexuality, gender, race, and class. Our results also suggest, however, that union actors representing marginalized groups can facilitate the development of cross-group ties that could overcome their absence among dominant union actors.

LINKING LGBTQ+ AND CLASS ISSUES

One organizational goal of PAW is to expand the influence of labor in the LGBTQ+ movement. As a result, we examined how PAW framed class issues within the LGBTQ+ movement. PAW framed the LGBTQ+ and labor movements as deeply intertwined and mutually dependent. Many PAW statements cite the International Workers of the World’s slogan, “An Injury to One Is an Injury to All,” to encourage opposition to anti-union policies—even if they were not about sexuality and gender. Relatedly, PAW criticized companies that were anti-union while claiming to be pro-LGBTQ+, which PAW considered to be incompatible. For example, it used this approach when endorsing boycotts against Hyatt Hotels and condemning T-Mobile’s anti-union tactics in 2012. PAW accused both companies of “pinkwashing” (i.e., claiming to be allies of the LGBTQ+ community but not supporting their rights or the community) their anti-union policies. PAW also criticized the scoring metric of the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index for ignoring workers’ rights (PAW Admin 2017). Many companies with high index scores are anti-union. Thus, PAW’s advocacy reveals a tension between the upper-class bias of dominant LGBTQ+ organizations and the labor movement as well as the marginal position of labor within the LGBTQ+ movement.

We also found that PAW constructed opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—a trade deal between 12 Pacific Rim nations that the United States signed in 2016 and withdrew from in 2017—through an LGBTQ+ lens. Of the PAW press releases we reviewed about the TPP, 81% highlighted the anti-LGBTQ+ records of countries such as Malaysia and Brunei and 44% discussed the effect of the TPP on the cost of HIV/AIDS medications. By framing the TPP as anti-LGBTQ+, PAW likely is attempting to influence the broader LGBTQ+ community to oppose it. Moreover, it reveals the ways in which PAW constructed LGBTQ+ issues as interconnected with labor issues. Conversely, AFL-CIO publications opposing the TPP obliquely mentioned PAW’s concerns, focusing instead on single-axis class issues. For example, the Labor Advisory Committee on Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy report (2015) framed the TPP as “not in the economic interest of the United States” or for working families. Only one paragraph in the 122-page document mentions anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in partner nations. Relatedly, the “Drug Pricing Transparency” section of the report did not mention HIV/AIDS medications. Thus, the AFL-CIO merely buttressed class-based arguments with LGBTQ+-specific concerns, whereas PAW centered LGBTQ+ people in its opposition to an anti-labor trade deal.