What Did Teachers’ Unions Do During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Evidence Based on Returns on Teacher Unionization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presents a timely and empirically grounded investigation into how unionization affected public school teachers’ labor market outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its relevance lies in addressing a critical gap in labor economics and education policy by utilizing a robust difference-in-difference framework and nationally representative CPS data. The inclusion of heterogeneity analysis by gender, race, and teaching level offers valuable nuance and policy relevance. However, the paper could benefit from a more concise introduction, a broader international context in the literature review, and a deeper discussion of methodological limitations. These improvements would help position the findings within global research trends and enhance the clarity and impact of the paper.

 

1. Introduction (p. 1–2): Consider streamlining the discussion to focus more directly on the research questions and avoid repetition. Some background sections are overly detailed for the introduction.

2. Literature Review (p. 2–5): The review is well-referenced but would benefit from the inclusion of more international studies on union effects during crises to better situate the study within global scholarship.

3. Methodology (p. 10): Expand briefly on the assumptions of the DID model, especially the justification for parallel trends. While the event study is helpful, a few sentences clarifying how covariates were selected and how robustness was assessed would be valuable.

4. Subgroup Analysis (Tables 3 & 5): Acknowledge and discuss the issue of multiple hypothesis testing, especially given the number of comparisons made. If no correction method is used, justify this decision.

5. Limitations (Discussion): The paper could more directly address potential biases from the exclusion of imputed earnings data and the limitations of using CPS-reported union membership. A paragraph dedicated to this would enhance transparency.

6. Figures 1–3: Improve figure labels and ensure axis labels and legends are legible when printed. Standardizing the y-axes across time trend figures could help with interpretation.

7. Language and Tone: While overall clarity is good, there are a few instances where simplification would improve readability (e.g., abstract: “offers empirical data” → “provides empirical data”). A light language revision is recommended, especially in the abstract and introduction.

8. Policy Implications (Conclusion): The conclusion could benefit from a more direct summary of how unions might leverage these findings in future negotiations or public health emergencies.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

This manuscript presents a timely and empirically grounded investigation into how unionization affected public school teachers’ labor market outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its relevance lies in addressing a critical gap in labor economics and education policy by utilizing a robust difference-in-difference framework and nationally representative CPS data. The inclusion of heterogeneity analysis by gender, race, and teaching level offers valuable nuance and policy relevance. However, the paper could benefit from a more concise introduction, a broader international context in the literature review, and a deeper discussion of methodological limitations. These improvements would help position the findings within global research trends and enhance the clarity and impact of the paper.

 

1. Introduction (p. 1–2): Consider streamlining the discussion to focus more directly on the research questions and avoid repetition. Some background sections are overly detailed for the introduction.

Response: Thank you for your comment. I have revised the introduction to be more concise.

 

2. Literature Review (p. 2–5): The review is well-referenced but would benefit from the inclusion of more international studies on union effects during crises to better situate the study within global scholarship.

Response: I have included the following subsection in the literature review:

 

“International Studies on Public Education and Teachers’ Unions during COVID-19

Internationally, trade unions have played a pivotal role in responding to the COVID-19 crisis, consistently emphasizing the active involvement of workers in social dialogue. These efforts have been central to advancing labor and social agendas aimed at fostering resilience and empowerment in the face of global disruptions (International Labour Organization, 2021). Within the public education sector, emerging literature highlights significant increases in teacher stress and burnout during the pandemic, which have contributed to worsening rates of teacher attrition and exacerbated longstanding teacher shortages (Bakeman, 2020; Carver-Thomas, Leung, & Burns, 2021; Diliberti, Schwartz, & Grant, 2021; Hodges et al., 2020; García & Weiss, 2020; Barnum, 2021). According to the Forward to School report by Education International (2020), teachers' unions across various countries actively advocated for enhanced support systems for educators, including resources targeting mental health and overall well-being. Moreover, European educators' unions have specifically underscored the disproportionate challenges faced by teachers and students with disabilities, calling for expanded access to health services and social support in light of persistent informational and structural barriers.”

 

3. Methodology (p. 10): Expand briefly on the assumptions of the DID model, especially the justification for parallel trends. While the event study is helpful, a few sentences clarifying how covariates were selected and how robustness was assessed would be valuable.

 

Response: In the revised manuscript, I have added the followings:

 

“The parallel trends assumption states that, in the absence of treatment, the treated and control groups would have exhibited similar trends in their outcomes over time. This ensures that any post-treatment differences between the groups can be attributed to the treatment effect, rather than to pre-existing differences in their trajectories.”

 

“X represents the vector of control variables, which includes the same set of variables used in Equation (1) for the employment gap and in Equation (2) for the wage gap between union and non-union teachers”

 

4. Subgroup Analysis (Tables 3 & 5): Acknowledge and discuss the issue of multiple hypothesis testing, especially given the number of comparisons made. If no correction method is used, justify this decision.

Response: I did not perform multiple hypothesis testing. The impact of COVID on union teachers relative to non-union teachers was estimated separately for each teacher subgroup

 

5. Limitations (Discussion): The paper could more directly address potential biases from the exclusion of imputed earnings data and the limitations of using CPS-reported union membership. A paragraph dedicated to this would enhance transparency.

Response: In the revised manuscript, I have included the following paragraph in the discussion section:

 

“It is important to note that the CPS does not distinguish between union members covered by a collective bargaining agreement and those who are not, as it assumes that all union members are covered by collective bargaining agreements. This assumption is likely to fail for public school teachers because each state has its own labor laws regarding public sector employees. Moreover, excluding imputed earnings from the CPS can introduce several biases. Since imputed data are used to replace missing values, the imputation process may not fully reflect the characteristics of non-respondents, who are often more likely to be in lower income brackets. Their exclusion can lead to inflated average income estimates and understate poverty rates. Moreover, omitting imputed earnings may bias estimates of wage differentials, particularly when nonresponse rates differ across groups. Future research could utilize alternative micro-level datasets that offer more accurate information on union status of public school teachers.”

 

6. Figures 1–3: Improve figure labels and ensure axis labels and legends are legible when printed. Standardizing the y-axes across time trend figures could help with interpretation.

Response: Figures 1 (employment) and 2 (wages) illustrate both the time trends and overall levels of each variable. Standardizing the y-axes would obscure differences in overall levels. Note that Figure 2 presents real earnings, which account for changes in the general price level of the economy.

 

7. Language and Tone: While overall clarity is good, there are a few instances where simplification would improve readability (e.g., abstract: “offers empirical data” → “provides empirical data”). A light language revision is recommended, especially in the abstract and introduction.

Response: I have revised abstract and introduction.

 

8. Policy Implications (Conclusion): The conclusion could benefit from a more direct summary of how unions might leverage these findings in future negotiations or public health emergencies.

Response: In the revised manuscript, I have included the following paragraph in the conclusion section:

 

“There has been a strong anti-union sentiment and growing resistance to labor unions in the U.S. public sector. States such as Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Wisconsin are among the most recent to adopt right-to-work laws—bringing the total to 26. These laws allow employees to opt out of union membership while enjoying the same benefits of collective bargaining agreement in the same bargaining unit, which can contribute to declining unionization rates and potentially weaken the bargaining power of teachers unions. In 2011, Tennessee eliminated collective bargaining for public school teachers. In February 2025, Utah enacted legislation banning collective bargaining for all public sector workers. Given the constructive role unions have played during public emergencies, this recent wave of anti-union measures and increased legislative barriers may be steering the education system in a less favorable direction.”

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents an interesting investigation into the actions and effects of Teachers‘ Unions’ action during the COVID 19 pandemic. It takes a particular approach in comparing the benefits of membership versus non-membership, with variations in conditions, benefits and job projections.  All of this is very well documented and graphed, which is much appreciated.
However, there are three elements that need attention and, if the author(s) deem it necessary, should be incorporated as improvements:
1. The article, and all the research, is constructed from the viewpoint of the American education system and the unions' teachers.  This, although very representative for the domestic system, lacks validity for other education systems and their unions, so it would be desirable to incorporate some contextual information to understand the functioning and the differences that can be established between this system and that of potential readers in other countries.
2.  The bibliography presented here records a wide range of reference years consistent with the range of years of analysis of economic and social phenomena; however, it is necessary to update the references for the last 10 years (only 17 of the total), given the large production in this respect.
3. The use of the first person in the writing of a scientific article is strange.  This is often used in the abstract and in other sections of the article.  It is suggested that this use be reviewed, as it is not consistent with the rest of the article nor is it common in the scientific literature consulted.

The presentation of the information, in its graphs and statistics, is attractive and appropriate.  Likewise, the visualisation of the formulas stands out for its clarity of construction. 

There are two suggestions for corrections that need to be addressed:

1. On page 10 (of 21), lines 306 and 340, the use of italics for formula elements causes reading difficulties. Although this is a characteristic of this type of text and exposition, it ends up generating major problems in comprehension, as is the case with line 340, where the coefficient cannot be read properly.
2. Line 378 reads ‘Where i, m, and t indicate individual, month, state, and years, respectively’. This wording lacks the subscript ‘s’, which indicates ‘state’ and which is present in the formula on line 377.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The article presents an interesting investigation into the actions and effects of Teachers‘ Unions’ action during the COVID 19 pandemic. It takes a particular approach in comparing the benefits of membership versus non-membership, with variations in conditions, benefits and job projections.  All of this is very well documented and graphed, which is much appreciated.

However, there are three elements that need attention and, if the author(s) deem it necessary, should be incorporated as improvements:

1. The article, and all the research, is constructed from the viewpoint of the American education system and the unions' teachers. This, although very representative for the domestic system, lacks validity for other education systems and their unions, so it would be desirable to incorporate some contextual information to understand the functioning and the differences that can be established between this system and that of potential readers in other countries.

 

Response: Thank you for the comment. I have included the following subsection in the literature review section to better situate the study within global scholarship.

 

“International Studies on Public Education and Teachers’ Unions during COVID-19

Internationally, trade unions have played a pivotal role in responding to the COVID-19 crisis, consistently emphasizing the active involvement of workers in social dialogue. These efforts have been central to advancing labor and social agendas aimed at fostering resilience and empowerment in the face of global disruptions (International Labour Organization, 2021). Within the public education sector, emerging literature highlights significant increases in teacher stress and burnout during the pandemic, which have contributed to worsening rates of teacher attrition and exacerbated longstanding teacher shortages (Bakeman, 2020; Carver-Thomas, Leung, & Burns, 2021; Diliberti, Schwartz, & Grant, 2021; Hodges et al., 2020; García & Weiss, 2020; Barnum, 2021). According to the Forward to School report by Education International (2020), teachers' unions across various countries actively advocated for enhanced support systems for educators, including resources targeting mental health and overall well-being. Moreover, European educators' unions have specifically underscored the disproportionate challenges faced by teachers and students with disabilities, calling for expanded access to health services and social support in light of persistent informational and structural barriers.”

 

2. The bibliography presented here records a wide range of reference years consistent with the range of years of analysis of economic and social phenomena; however, it is necessary to update the references for the last 10 years (only 17 of the total), given the large production in this respect.

 

Response: I have added three more recent studies on the role of unions during 2020-2021.

 

3. The use of the first person in the writing of a scientific article is strange. This is often used in the abstract and in other sections of the article.  It is suggested that this use be reviewed, as it is not consistent with the rest of the article nor is it common in the scientific literature consulted.

Response: In economics journals, it is customary for solo-authored papers to employ the first-person perspective.

 

The presentation of the information, in its graphs and statistics, is attractive and appropriate.  Likewise, the visualisation of the formulas stands out for its clarity of construction.

There are two suggestions for corrections that need to be addressed:

1. On page 10 (of 21), lines 306 and 340, the use of italics for formula elements causes reading difficulties. Although this is a characteristic of this type of text and exposition, it ends up generating major problems in comprehension, as is the case with line 340, where the coefficient cannot be read properly.

Response: I have unitalicized those coefficients. Thank you!

 

2. Line 378 reads ‘Where i, m, and t indicate individual, month, state, and years, respectively’. This wording lacks the subscript ‘s’, which indicates ‘state’ and which is present in the formula on line 377.

Response: I have added subscript ‘s’. Thank you!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx