Map A
State favorability rankings
| State | Four-category favorableness of legal environment for private sector bargaining, 2017 |
|---|---|
| Alabama | 0 |
| Alaska | 1 |
| Arizona | 0 |
| Arkansas | 0 |
| California | 2 |
| Colorado | 0 |
| Connecticut | 1 |
| Washington D.C. | |
| Delaware | 2 |
| Florida | 0 |
| Georgia | 0 |
| Hawaii | 2 |
| Idaho | 0 |
| Illinois | 1 |
| Indiana | 0 |
| Iowa | 0 |
| Kansas | 0 |
| Kentucky | 0 |
| Louisiana | 0 |
| Maine | 1 |
| Maryland | 1 |
| Massachusetts | 2 |
| Michigan | 0 |
| Minnesota | 1 |
| Mississippi | 0 |
| Missouri | 0 |
| Montana | 1 |
| Nebraska | 0 |
| Nevada | 0 |
| New Hampshire | 0 |
| New Jersey | 0 |
| New Mexico | 1 |
| New York | 2 |
| North Carolina | 0 |
| North Dakota | 0 |
| Ohio | 0 |
| Oklahoma | 0 |
| Oregon | 2 |
| Pennsylvania | 0 |
| Rhode Island | 2 |
| South Carolina | 0 |
| South Dakota | 0 |
| Tennessee | 0 |
| Texas | 0 |
| Utah | 0 |
| Vermont | 1 |
| Virginia | 0 |
| Washington | 2 |
| West Virginia | 0 |
| Wisconsin | 0 |
| Wyoming | 0 |
Source: Freeman (2006) "Will Labor Fare Better Under State Labor Relations Law?" Based on 1996 update by Kim Rueben of the NBER Valletta-Freeman state public sector labor law data set (http://www.nber.org/publaw/)
This chart appears in:
Previous chart: « Increases in coverage in “Favorable and Actionable” states needed to offset losses in “Unfavorable” states
Next chart: Covariates from these models: ECLS-K 1998–1999 and 2010–2011 »