By Becky Wright, Executive Director, Unions 21 | 2 min
In a previous blog, we explained the recent polling work that we did with Stonehaven.
What kickstarted this piece of work was new legislation in the UK and Ireland, which will give us the chance to approach a whole new group of non-unionised workers. To think through what would connect with them, and how we can explain the importance of unions, we tested seven different pro-union messages.
We asked workers to rate each argument individually: they were all pretty convincing. The weakest scored 65%, the strongest 78%. Not much daylight between them.
But when we asked people to choose the most convincing argument? Two messages pulled ahead of the pack.
The clear winners and losers
In Ireland: "Strength in numbers" dominated. The idea that collective bargaining gives workers power they can't access alone resonated strongly.
In the UK: It was a tie between "strength in numbers" and a message about the tangible benefits unions have won in the past - paid holidays, sick leave, maternity rights.
The least convincing argument was about the future: technological change is accelerating, and unions can help workers navigate it so they don't get left behind.
This one fell flat despite feeling timely and forward-looking.
Our working theory is that the future feels too abstract and it asks workers to imagine a future problem rather than addressing a present reality.
What this means for your union’s messaging
If you're writing recruitment materials, web copy or campaign messaging, it is a reminder to craft messages that are either immediately tangible or deeply rooted in collective identity.
Victory messaging works because it's concrete and implies efficacy: here's what happened when workers were part of a union, here’s what you could have.
The strength in numbers message works because it speaks to a fundamental truth about power: you can't negotiate alone, but together you can.
Though, remember workers aren’t a monolith
It is entirely possible that this picture would look different if we broke it down by sector, age group or job type.
For example:
Do younger workers respond differently to the future-facing message?
Do "victories" arguments land better with workers in sectors where union density is still relatively high?
We don't have those answers yet. But maybe you do. If so, we’d love to hear from you and your union.
