Union vs Non-Union in Construction: The Debate We Can’t Ignore

As the son of a Teamster, you might think I’d fall squarely on the side of Unions in this debate.  But my father had his share of concerns about how the Union did business and was able to instill in me a healthy skepticism for both sides of the argument.

So the question is -- are unions the answer to the Construction Labor Crisis in America? It’s not just about wages or benefits, but also about training, flexibility, culture, risk, and what kind of workforce the industry needs at this point in history. Here’s a breakdown of the issues, not to settle the debate, but to frame it with clarity, challenge assumptions, and get the industry looking at this from a different perspective.

The Four Problems Plaguing Construction

Construction and Trade jobs face significant headwinds in 2025 and beyond.  These workforce challenges fall into four basic categories:

1.      The Silver Tsunami is here.  Older workers are retiring, by some estimates, at 10,000 per day.  Those individuals are taking decades of institutional knowledge with them.  This leaves not only a labor vacuum, but a leadership vacuum as well.

2.      An Aging Industry low on teachers.  Those workers in industry approaching retirement, have a very limited time to pass down their knowledge and skills to the next generation.  But one major problem is that most older workers are not very good teachers. And companies are not properly facilitating good knowledge transfer from older workers to younger workers.

3.      A Young Workforce that never learned how to learn.  Those workers in the industry who are entering, often with little to no experience, need to consume training from older workers at accelerated rates.  Unfortunately, the learning style of younger workers is very different than it was 30 years ago. 

4.      Hit the Ground Running is the name of the game.  Companies are struggling to backfill older worker retirements as quickly as possible – but with vastly less qualified individuals.  As a result, companies are trying to hired experienced workers to produce on day one from a pool of candidates who have little to no experience. 

What do we mean by “union” vs “non-union”?

Union work typically means workers are represented by a trade union (e.g., a local of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (UBC), etc.). Contracts (collective bargaining agreements) define wages, benefits, work conditions and often seniority or assignment rules.

Non-union (open shop) means workers are hired by contractors without the union affiliation; wages and benefits are negotiated (or not) individually or at the company level; there may be more variation in training, protocols and protections.

The Case for Unions

Many companies don’t have the time, money, or desire to develop structured training programs for their workers. They’re advertising entry level jobs, but expecting 1 to 2 years of experience in an effort to get someone who can produce results from day 1.  Without a structured training program it’s difficult to support new workers and develop future leaders.

Further, companies are often worried about paying a new worker a higher wage without having assurances that they are “worth” the wage.  Thus, the pay is not matching the pressure.

Unions solve several of the problems that companies are experiencing when it comes to attracting and support new workers.  Set wage standards and negotiated contracts provide competitive wages and job security.  Guaranteed benefits like health, pension/retirement accounts, and paid sick leave can appeal to higher quality candidates.

Predictable hours and defined shift/overtime structures as bargained for by the Union, can help less experienced workers expectations with the role match better to real world conditions.

Union apprenticeships offer a debt-free pathway with high earnings and benefits.  As a result, there are traditionally less training obstacles and fewer labor-shortage issues as these union programs invest in apprenticeship, skill development and thus a more stable skilled workforce.

Younger generations, in an increasingly expensive world, value workplace protections.  Not just the assurance of equal pay for equal skill regardless of gender/race/age, but also the protections from dismissal and the support provided by Union representatives in the event there are legitimate concerns.

From a workforce development and training perspective, Union programs offer a structured curriculum, paid training, and a pathway to journeyman status from day 1.

The Downside of Unions

Unions are not without their cost – both real and imagined.  Membership comes with financial dues which can be hundreds or thousands of dollars per year.  Proponents would argue the benefits far outweigh the dues, but they are still worth mentioning. 

Because Unions represent groups of workers – they can use that power in various ways.  ON such way is work stoppages/strikes.  If a negotiation fails, union workers may be asked to strike, which means risk of no income during that time, with little to no option to abstain from the strikes.  At least not without personal or professional cost.

Unions typically work on a seniority rules system, some would say understandably.  Advancement, shift assignments or preferred jobs may go by seniority, meaning less-experienced workers wait their turn.  This is by no means unique to Unions but may be exacerbated by them.

Entrance barriers can exist with Union labor, though as fewer and fewer people get into the trades, this has become less of an issue in recent history.  Still, in many places, getting into a union program may be competitive, have waiting lists or require geographic flexibility. 

In some areas, contractors and owners may be hesitant to work with Unions as the agreements may impose stricter rules, reporting, oversight, and limit contractor flexibility.  In those areas where every trade is in a Union this is less an issue, but those areas with options may see more contractors favoring cheaper labor of the complexity of Union interactions.

For the employee, there may be a perceived reduction in flexibility as well: rules around job assignments, overtime, etc, may limit how a workforce is managed.  While some would say that is the entire purpose of the Union, for a less experienced workforce it may come as a surprise and feel negative in the short term.

The Case for Non-Union

From a contractor or owner perspective, there are potentially lower labor costs (or at least more flexible cost structures) because wages/benefits may not be fixed by a collective bargaining agreement.  This greater flexibility for contractors – specifically hiring/firing decisions, assignments, overtime, jobsite crews may be faster or more tailored – can also give them the ability to better budget and put money into specific elements like training, or bonuses, and other worker incentives.

 Critics of Unions would point to more merit-based advancement in Non-Union areas.  This is, in essence, in response to the “Seniority” claims – in other words non-union shops may reward individual performance rather than pure seniority.

Another potential advantage is that training and exposure may be more varied or entrepreneurial: non-union workers might work across diverse contractors/projects, gaining a broader range of experience.  Union work can often be specialized to one single trade or task – which can (potentially) restrict a workers potential for growth.

It has to be stated that younger generations, driven by social media, are more entrepreneurial.  For workers who want to start their own business one day, non-union may have fewer structural constraints and may provide earlier opportunities for entrepreneurship.  The opportunity to diversify their skill sets and to move more freely from one department or even one company to another can better support that goal.

The Downside of Non-Union

Perhaps the biggest, and most frustrating, issue for workers in Non-Union settings is inconsistency.  Varying levels of skill, experience, and training can produce wildly different results from one department, or organization, to the next.  This can impact productivity, quality, and overall job satisfaction – which often times leads to turnover and employee retention issues.

Benefits may be less generous or less certain with far fewer Non-Union areas offering pensions, health coverage, and job security.  The power dynamic largely tilts to the employer here and can make employees feel expendable – or outright prove they ARE expendable to a certain degree.

As a result the turnover risk may be higher, with both perceived and real job security anxiety and far fewer protections.  This can lead to higher churn.  With that comes not just the worker experience while at the job, but can also be broadcast more readily on social media leading to a more widespread negative opinion of the industry.

While there will always be Federal, State, and Local legal protections, without a Union – at least for workers - fewer protections exist in disputes/grievances, and there is absolutely less collective power for the employee(s).

My Take

I believe the “union vs non-union” debate is somewhat outdated as a binary. The real differentiator is how well the workforce is managed, trained and led. Whether you’re in a union shop or an open shop, if you invest in training, skills progression, leadership of crews, and create a culture of accountability + growth, you win. On the flip side, a union shop that is complacent, with weak training or leadership, won’t outperform an agile non-union shop that is proactive.

Closing Thought

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. Market, geography, project size, company culture and workforce mix all matter. What does matter is that you understand the trade-offs, make a deliberate choice, and then crucially build out your training, leadership, and workforce strategy to make that choice work. Whether your team is union, non-union, or a blend, the real value is in how you lead the people and grow the skills.