Union Membership Trends in the United States

Order Code RL32553 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Union Membership Trends in the United States August 31, 2004 Gerald Mayer Economic Analyst Domestic Social Policy Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Union Membership Trends in the United States Summary Union membership in the United States has declined significantly in recent decades. The number of union members peaked in 1979 at an estimated 21.0 million. In 2003, an estimated 15.8 million workers were union members. As a percent of employed workers, union membership peaked in 1954 at 28.3%. In 2003, 11.5% of employed workers were union members. Most studies find that, after controlling for individual, job, and labor market characteristics, the wages of union workers are in the range of 10% to 30% higher than the wages of nonunion workers. The wage premium is generally greater for less skilled, less-educated, and younger workers and larger for private than public sector workers. Union members generally receive better or more generous fringe benefits than similar nonunion workers. Job tenure tends to be greater and quit rates lower among unionized workers. However, the wage premium may have declined in recent years. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) monthly Current Population Survey (CPS) show that the level of union membership varies among different groups. Union members are more likely to be male, white, middle-age, work in the private sector, and have a high school degree or some college. The rate of union membership is greater among men than women and higher among older than younger workers. In 2003, 12.3% of men were union members, compared to 10.5% of women; 14.7% of workers ages 45 to 64 were union members, compared to 5.0% of workers ages 16 to 24 and 11.3% of workers ages 25 to 44. Although the level of union membership is greater among white than black workers, in 2003 15.6% of black workers were union members, compared to 11.0% of white workers. Also, although union members are more likely to be employed in the private than public sector, in 2003, 37.2% of public sector employees were union members, compared to 7.2% of private sector employees. In 2003, 12.6% of workers with a bachelor’s or advanced college degree were union members, compared to 6.6% of workers with less than a high school education and 11.9% of workers with a high school degree or one to three years of college. In 2003, almost three-fourths (73.6%) of union workers with a bachelor’s or advanced degree worked in the public sector, mostly for state and local governments. The largest percentage of these employees (43.6%) were teachers. In 2003, unionization was greatest in New York, Hawaii, Michigan, Alaska, New Jersey, and Washington. Unionization was lowest in North Carolina, South Carolina, Arkansas, Mississippi, Arizona, and South Dakota. Finally, in 2002, the most unionized occupations were precision production workers and operators (18.3% and 17.6%, respectively). The most unionized industries were public administration (32.3%) and transportation, communications, and utilities (27.4%). This report will be updated periodically. Contents Major Federal Collective Bargaining Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Legislation in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Governments and Collective Bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Government Intervention in Labor Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Distribution of Earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Collective Voice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Economic Effects of Labor Unions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Private and Public Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Job Tenure and Quit Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Profits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Trends in Union Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Characteristics of Union Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Hispanic Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Private and Public Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Level of Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Appendix A: Annual Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Appendix B: Data and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Confidence Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 List of Figures Figure 1. Union Membership as a Percent of Employment, 1930-2003 . . . . . . . 11 Figure 2. Union Membership Rates of Men and Women, 1994-2003 . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 3. Union Membership Rates by Age, 1994-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 4. Union Membership Rates by Race, 1994-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 5. Union Membership Rates by Hispanic Origin, 1994-2003 . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 6. Union Membership Rates by Level of Education, 1994-2003 . . . . . . 15 Figure 7. Union Membership Rates in the Public and Private Sectors, 2003 . . . 16 Figure 8. Union Membership Rates by Level of Government, 2003 . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 9. Union Membership Rates by Industry, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 10. Union Membership Rates by Occupation, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 11. Union Membership Rates by Region, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 12. Union Membership Rates, by State, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 List of Tables Table A1. Union Membership in the United States, 1930-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table A2. Union Membership in the United States by Gender, 1994-2003 . . . . 24 Table A3. Union Membership in the United States by Age, 1994-2003 . . . . . . 25 Table A4. Union Membership in the United States by Race, 1994-2003 . . . . . . 26 Table A5. Union Membership in the United States by Hispanic Origin, 1994-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table A6. Union Membership in the United States by Educational Attainment, 1994-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table A7. Union Membership in the United States in the Private and Public Sectors, 1994-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table A8. Union Membership in the United States by Level of Government, 1994-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table A9. Union Membership in the United States by Industry, 1994-2002 . . . 31 Table A10. Union Membership in the United States by Occupation, 1994-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table A11. Union Membership in the United States by Region, 1994-2003 . . . 33 Union Membership Trends in the United States Many factors affect the level and distribution of employment and earnings. Individuals with more education, work experience, and job training generally earn more. Savings and investment and technological advances can affect labor productivity and real earnings. Changes in consumer tastes can influence the demand for workers with different skills. Employment and earnings may also be affected by fiscal and monetary policy and by institutional factors. Institutional factors include government regulation of industry, immigration and trade policy, and labor unions. This report summarizes the major federal laws that give certain protections to employees who organize and bargain collectively. The report reviews the economic effects of labor unions and examines recent trends in union membership in the United States. Major Federal Collective Bargaining Laws The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) is the basic law governing relations between labor unions and private sector employers engaged in interstate commerce. The act does not cover supervisors and managers, agricultural laborers, domestic servants, and others.1 Separate federal laws apply to railroads, airlines, and federal employees. The NLRA is administered by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRA requires an employer to bargain with the representative selected by a majority of the firm’s employees. The act does not require secret-ballot elections. If a majority of employees indicate a desire to be represented by a union, an employer may voluntarily enter into collective bargaining. If an employer does not voluntarily recognize the union chosen by a majority of employees, a petition can be filed with 1 Agricultural laborers include crop and livestock workers and farmworkers who perform work that is incidental (e.g., sorters and packers) to the production of goods on the employer’s farm. National Labor Relations Board, Basic Guide to the National Labor Relations Act (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 28, available at [http://www.nlrb.gov]. (Hereafter cited as NLRB, Basic Guide to the NLRA..) Commerce Clearing House, Labor Relations, vol. 1 (Chicago: Commerce Clearing House, 2004), pp. 4168-4169. United States General Accounting Office, Collective Bargaining Rights: Information on the Number of Workers With and Without Bargaining Rights, Report No. GAO-02-835, Sept. 2002, pp. 1213. (Hereafter cited as GAO, Collective Bargaining Rights.) The GAO is now called the Government Accountability Office. CRS-2 the NLRB for a secret-ballot election. A petition may be filed by a union, a group of employees, or the employer.2 The Railway Labor Act of 1926 (RLA) gives railroad and airline employees the right to unionize. The act allows some supervisors (i.e., “subordinate officials”) to be union members.3 Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) provides collective bargaining rights to federal employees. The law applies to executive branch agencies, the Library of Congress, and the Government Printing Office. The law excludes supervisors, members of the armed services, and various agencies.4 According to a 2002 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 26 states and the District of Columbia have laws that provide collective bargaining rights to public employees. An additional 12 states have laws that give bargaining rights to specific groups of employees (e.g., teachers, firefighters, or state workers). Nine states provide bargaining rights to agricultural workers. Some state laws allow supervisors to be union members.5 2 In order to have a secret-ballot election, it is not necessary for a majority of employees to sign a petition or authorization cards (i.e., cards authorizing a union to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining). Employees may petition the NLRB for union representation if at least 30% of employees express a desire for union representation. NLRB, Basic Guide to the National Labor Relations Act, pp. 7-8. National Labor Relations Board, The NLRB: What it is, What it Does, National Labor Relations Board, p. 3, available at [http://www.nlrb.gov]. Workers may organize without the protections of the NLRA, but the employer would not be required to bargain. 3 Douglas L. Leslie (editor in chief), The Railway Labor Act (Washington: BNA Books, 1995), pp. 118-119, 424, 428. 4 The CSRA excludes from coverage Foreign Service employees, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, Government Accountability Office, National Security Agency, Tennessee Valley Authority, the Federal Services Impasses Panel, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The CSRA also gives the President the authority to exclude, in the interests of national security, any agency whose primary function involves investigative, intelligence, counterintelligence, or security work. 5 U.S.C. § 7103. CRS Report RL30795, General Management Laws: A Compendium, coordinated by Clinton T. Brass, pp. 325-326. 5 Local governments may have laws giving local public employees collective bargaining rights. GAO, Collective Bargaining Rights, pp. 8-9. Lloyd G. Reynolds, Stanley H. Masters, and Colletta H. Moser, Labor Economics and Labor Relations, 11th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1998), p. 460. (Hereafter cited as Reynolds et al., Labor Economics and Labor Relations.) CRS-3 Legislation in the 108th Congress Legislation has been introduced in the 108th Congress that, if enacted, may affect union membership in both the private and public sectors. S. 606, the “Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2003” would provide collective bargaining rights to public safety workers (i.e., law enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency medical services personnel) employed by state or local governments. The bill was introduced by Senator Judd Gregg and was approved by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on October 2, 2003. A similar proposal, H.R. 814, was introduced in the House by Representative Dale Kildee. No congressional action has been taken on the latter bill. Legislation has been introduced that would allow employees to unionize if a majority of employees sign authorization cards. A secret-ballot election would not be required. This proposal is included, with other provisions, in S. 1513 and H.R. 3078, the “Employee Right to Choose Act of 2003,” and in S. 1925 and H.R. 3619, the “Employee Free Choice Act.”6 S. 1513 was introduced by Senator Charles Schumer; S. 1925 was introduced by Senator Edward Kennedy. H.R. 3078 and H.R. 3619 were introduced by Representative George Miller. No action has been taken in the House or Senate on either proposal. Representative Charlie Norwood introduced H.R. 4343, the “Secret Ballot Protection Act of 2004.” The bill would require secret-ballot elections for union certification. Employers could not voluntarily bargain with a union that has not been elected by a majority of employees in a secret-ballot election. No action has been taken on the bill. The “National Right-to-Work Act” would amend both the NLRA and RLA. Under this measure, union contracts could not require employees to become union members as a condition of employment. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Senator Trent Lott (S. 1765) and in the House by Representative Joe Wilson (H.R. 391). No congressional action has been taken on the proposal. Governments and Collective Bargaining By bargaining collectively, instead of individually, unionized workers may obtain higher wages and better working conditions than if each worker bargained individually.7 The protections that governments give employees who organize and 6 For an overview of S.1925/H.R.3619, see CRS Report RS21887, The Employee Free Choice Act, by Jon O. Shimabukuro. 7 The threat of a strike can increase the bargaining power of unionized workers. Unions may also be able to increase wages by limiting the supply of workers; e.g., by restricting the number of persons enrolled in union-run training programs. Federal employees cannot (continued...) CRS-4 bargain collectively are intended to achieve different policy objectives. These objectives include to increase the bargaining power of employees, to reduce earnings inequality, and to provide a means for improved communication between labor and management. Government Intervention in Labor Markets Governments may intervene in labor markets for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is to improve competition.8 According to economic theory, competitive markets generally result in the most efficient allocation of resources, where resources consist of individuals with different skills, capital goods (e.g., computers, machinery, and buildings), and natural resources. In competitive labor markets workers are paid according to the value of their contribution to output. Under perfect competition, wages include compensation for unfavorable working conditions. The latter theory, called the “theory of compensating wage differentials,” recognizes that individuals differ in their preferences or tolerance for different working conditions — such as health and safety conditions, hours worked, holidays and annual leave, and job security.9 If labor markets do not fit the model of perfect competition, increasing the bargaining power of employees may raise wages and improve working conditions to levels that might exist under competitive conditions. In labor markets where a firm 7 (...continued) strike. The employees of most, but not all, state and local governments are not allowed to strike. Where state and local government employees are allowed to strike, the right often does not include public safety employees (e.g., policemen and firefighters). Daniel Quinn Mills, Labor-Management Relations, 5th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), pp. 306-307. (Hereafter cited as Mills, Labor-Management Relations.) Michael H. Cimini, “1982-97 State and Local Government Work Stoppages and Their Legal Background,” Compensation and Working Conditions, vol. 3, fall 1998, pp. 33-34. Bruce E. Kaufman, The Economics of Labor Markets, 4th ed., Fort Worth, Dryden Press, 1994, pp. 275-280. (Hereafter cited as Kaufman, The Economics of Labor Markets.) Reynolds et al., Labor Economics and Labor Relations, p. 406. 8 The following conditions are generally cited as the characteristics of a competitive labor market: (1) There are many employers and many workers. Each employer is small relative to the size of the market. (2) Employers and workers are free to enter or leave a labor market and can move freely from one market to another. (3) Employers do not organize to lower wages and workers do not organize to raise wages. Governments do not intervene in labor markets to regulate wages. (4) Employers and workers have equal access to labor market information. (5) Employers do not prefer one worker over another equally qualified worker. Workers do not prefer one employer over another employer who pays the same wage for the same kind of work. (6) Employers seek to maximize profits; workers seek to maximize satisfaction. Reynolds et al., Labor Economics and Labor Relations, pp. 16-21. 9 Randall K. Filer, Daniel S. Hamermesh, and Albert E. Rees, The Economics of Work and Pay, 6th ed. (New York: Harper Collins, 1996), pp. 376-390. (Hereafter cited as Filer et al., The Economics of Work and Pay.) Ronald G. Ehrenberg and Robert S. Smith, Modern Labor Economics: Theory and Public Policy, 7th ed. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2000), pp. 251-259. (Hereafter cited as Ehrenberg and Smith, Modern Labor Economics.) CRS-5 is the only employer (called a monopsony) unions can, within limits, increase both wages and employment.10 If labor markets are already competitive, however, economists maintain that increasing the bargaining power of employees may result in a misallocation of resources. In competitive labor markets, higher union wages may reduce employment for union workers below the levels that would exist in the absence of unionization.11 If unions lower employment in the unionized sector, they may also increase the supply of workers to employers in the nonunion sector, lowering the wages of nonunion workers.12 It can be difficult to determine the competitiveness of labor markets. First, identifying the appropriate labor market may be difficult. Labor markets can be local (e.g., for unskilled labor), regional, national, or even international (e.g., for managerial and professional workers). Second, labor market competitiveness is difficult to measure, and labor markets may change because of economic, technological, or policy changes. Distribution of Earnings Competitive labor markets may result in a distribution of earnings that some policymakers find unacceptable. Thus, governments may intervene in labor markets to reduce inequality.13 Unionization may be a means of reducing earnings inequality. According to some economists, greater equality may, under certain conditions (e.g., such as the Great Depression of the 1930s), also increase aggregate demand and, therefore, reduce unemployment. 10 Kaufman, The Economics of Labor Markets, pp. 277-280. 11 In competitive labor markets, unions can offset the employment effect of higher wages by persuading consumers to buy union-made goods (e.g., campaigns to “look for the union label”), limiting competition from foreign made goods (e.g., though tariffs or import quotas), or negotiating contracts that require more workers than would otherwise be needed to perform certain tasks. Kaufman, The Economics of Labor Markets, pp. 276-277. Ehrenberg and Smith, Modern Labor Economics, p. 493. Toke Aidt and Zafiris Tzannatos, Unions and Collective Bargaining: Economic Effects in a Global Environment (Washington: The World Bank, 2002), p. 27. (Hereafter cited as Aidt and Tzannatos, Unions and Collective Bargaining.) 12 If unions raise the wages of union workers and lower employment in the union sector, the supply of workers available to nonunion employers may increase, causing nonunion wages to fall (the “spillover” effect). On the other hand, nonunion employers, in order to discourage workers from unionizing, may pay higher wages (the “threat” effect). Ehrenberg and Smith, Modern Labor Economics, pp. 504-508. 13 Governments may also intervene in private markets to produce “public” goods (e.g., national defense) or correct instances where the market price of a good does not fully reflect its social costs or benefits — called, respectively, negative and positive “externalities.” Air and water pollution are frequently cited as examples of negative externalities; home maintenance and improvements are often cited as examples of positive externalities. CRS-6 Collective Voice Finally, an argument made by some economists is that unions give workers a “voice” in the workplace. According to this argument, unions provide workers an additional way to communicate with management. For instance, instead of expressing their dissatisfaction with an employer by quitting, workers can use dispute resolution or formal grievance procedures to resolve issues relating to pay, working conditions, or other matters.14 Economic Effects of Labor Unions This section summarizes the findings of selected research on the economic effects of labor unions.15 Earnings Numerous studies have attempted to measure the wage differential between union and nonunion workers. The results vary. But, in general, most studies find that, after controlling for individual, job, and labor market characteristics, the wages of union workers are in the range of 10% to 30% higher than the wages of nonunion workers.16,17 14 Richard B. Freeman and James L. Medoff, “The Two Faces of Unionism,” Public Interest, no. 57, fall 1979, pp. 70-73. Richard B. Freeman, “The Exit-Voice Tradeoff in the Labor Market: Unionism, Job Tenure, Quits, and Separations,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 94, June 1980, pp. 644-645. 15 The summary is of research on U.S. labor markets, although some of the studies cited include both the United states and other countries. 16 Filer et al, The Economics of Work and Pay, p. 489. Kaufman, The Economics of Labor Markets, p. 609. Kay E. Anderson, Philip M. Doyle, and Albert E. Schwenk, “Measuring Union-Nonunion Earnings Differences,” Monthly Labor Review, vol. 113, June 1990, p. 26. Reynolds et al., Labor Economics and Labor Relations, pp. 515-517. Aidt and Tzannatos, Unions and Collective Bargaining, p. 42. For a review of several studies of the unionnonunion wage differential, see Javed Ashraf, “Union Wage Effects: An Overview of Recent Literature,” Labor Studies Journal, vol. 19, summer 1994, pp. 3-24. 17 Most, but not all, studies that use cross-sectional data have found a larger union wage premium than studies that use longitudinal data. (Kaufman, The Economics of Labor Markets, pp. 612-14.) A cross-sectional survey collects data at a single point in time from a sample of households or individuals. A longitudinal survey collects data at several points in time from the same sample of households or individuals. Surveys generally do not collect information on all personal characteristics that may affect individual pay; for example, motivation or work effort. By comparing the wages of individuals who move from nonunion to union jobs (or vice versa), longitudinal data can capture the effect of otherwise unobserved personal characteristics. Some research has concluded that the lower union wage premium found using longitudinal data is due to errors in measuring changes in union status. Steven Raphael, “Estimating the Union Earnings Effect Using a Sample of Displaced Workers,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 53, Apr. 2000, pp. 504, 513-516. CRS-7 Some evidence suggests that the wage premium for union workers has declined in recent years.18 One study concluded that, among wage and salary workers, the union wage differential in the late 1970s was approximately 21% to 23%. By 20002001, the analysis concluded that the differential had fallen to 14%.19 Total compensation consists of both wages and fringe benefits (e.g., paid sick leave, health insurance, and pension plans). Union workers generally receive better or more generous fringe benefits than similar nonunion workers. Therefore, estimates of the union wage premium may understate the difference in total compensation between union and nonunion workers. On the other hand, if working conditions are less favorable for union than nonunion workers, analyses that do not control for differences in working conditions may overstate the difference in compensation between union and nonunion workers.20,21 The wage premium for union workers is generally larger for less skilled than for more skilled workers, greater for blue-collar than white-collar workers, larger for younger than older workers, and larger for less educated workers (high school graduates or high school dropouts) than college graduates. As a result, unions tend to compress wages (i.e., reduce inequality) within unionized sectors of the 18 Barry T. Hirsch, “Reconsidering Union Wage Effects: Surveying New Evidence on an Old Topic,” Journal of Labor Research, vol. 25, spring 2004, pp. 245-252. Peter Turnbull, “What Do Unions Do Now?” Journal of Labor Research, vol. 24, summer 2003, p. 493. Kaufman, The Economics of Labor Markets, pp. 617-19. July 13, 2004. David G. Blanchflower and Alex Bryson, What Effect Do Unions Have on Wages Now and Would “What Do Unions Do?” Be Surprised?, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 9973, Sept. 2003, p. 9. (Hereafter cited as Blanchflower and Bryson, What Effect Do Unions Have on Wages Now?) 19 The analysis is for wage and salary workers ages 16 and over. The analysis controls for both worker and job characteristics (e.g., education, potential work experience, marital status, race, gender, region, large metropolitan area, part-time employment, industry, and occupation). Barry T. Hirsch and David A. Macpherson, Union Membership and Earnings Data Book: Compilations from the Current Population Survey (Washington: Bureau of National Affairs, 2003), pp. 1-2, 7, 19. 20 Filer et al, The Economics of Work and Pay, p. 493. Aidt and Tzannatos, Unions and Collective Bargaining, pp. 73-75. Kaufman, The Economics of Labor Markets, pp. 607, 629. Reynolds, et al., Labor Economics and Labor Relations, pp. 517-19. Ehrenberg and Smith, Modern Labor Economics, pp. 510-511. 21 Some research has concluded that, for blue-collar workers, unionized firms tend to have more structured work settings, more hazardous jobs, less flexible work hours, a faster work pace, lower job satisfaction, and less employee control over the assignment of overtime hours. Therefore, part of the estimated union-nonunion earnings differential may compensate union workers for unfavorable working conditions. Ehrenberg and Smith, Modern Labor Economics, pp. 510-511. Kaufman, The Economics of Labor Markets, p. 613. CRS-8 economy.22 Some evidence suggests that unions reduce earnings inequality in the overall economy.23,24 Private and Public Sectors The wage gap between union and nonunion workers is generally larger in the private sector than in the public sector. Within the public sector, evidence suggests that the wage premium for union workers is greater for local government employees than for federal employees.25 Gender Research has concluded that there is very little, if any, difference in the union wage premium between men and women.26 Race Some, but not all, evidence indicates that the union wage premium is greater for nonwhites than whites. Some studies do not find a difference in the union wage premium between blacks and whites; other research concludes that the wage premium for black workers is 5 to 10 percentage points higher than the wage premium for white workers.27 22 Blanchflower and Bryson, What Effect Do Unions Have on Wages Now? p. 8. David G. Blanchflower, Changes Over Time in Union Relative Wage Effects in Great Britain and the United States, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 6100, July 1997, p. 30. Aidt and Tzannatos, Unions and Collective Bargaining, pp. 53-54. Ehrenberg and Smith, Modern Labor Economics, p. 509. 23 Filer et al, The Economics of Work and Pay, pp. 503-504. Reynolds et al., Labor Economics and Labor Relations, p. 527. 24 For an examination of trends in the distribution of earnings among wage and salary workers, see CRS Report RL31616, The Distribution of Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers in the United States, 1994-2002, by Gerald Mayer. 25 Aidt and Tzannatos, Unions and Collective Bargaining, pp. 52-53. Ehrenberg and Smith, Modern Labor Economics, p. 508. Kaufman, The Economics of Labor Markets, p. 626. 26 Blanchflower and Bryson, What Effect Do Unions Have on Wages Now? p. 10. Kaufman, The Economics of Labor Markets, p. 612. Aidt and Tzannatos, Unions and Collective Bargaining, p. 49. 27 Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, Heather Boushey, The State of Working America: 2002/2003 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003), pp. 191-192. Aidt and Tzannatos, Unions and Collective Bargaining, pp. 50-51. Ehrenberg and Smith, Modern Labor Economics, p. 509. CRS-9 Job Tenure and Quit Rates Job tenure tends to be greater and quit rates lower among unionized workers.28 Higher wages attract more applicants, resulting in larger applicant queues, giving employers a larger pool from which to hire qualified workers. As a result, some evidence indicates that the “quality” of union workers may be better than that of nonunion workers doing the same kind of work.29 Quit rates may also be lower among union employees if unions give workers and management a means to improve communications and resolve issues. Productivity Unions can potentially have both beneficial and harmful effects on labor productivity. Restrictive work rules may harm productivity by limiting the ability of management to assign work or introduce new technology. Higher wages may reduce investment in equipment and lower spending on research and development. On the other hand, higher wages may attract better workers and cause employers to substitute machinery and equipment for labor (i.e., increasing the amount of fixed capital per worker). A lower quit rate may create an incentive for employers to provide more firm-specific training. Union firms may also hire more professional managers and adopt more efficient management practices.30 Evidence on the effect of unions on labor productivity is mixed. According to some research, the effect of unions on productivity varies across industries.31 Some 28 Aidt and Tzannatos, Unions and Collective Bargaining, p. 65. Reynolds et al., Labor Economics and Labor Relations, pp. 535-537. 29 Filer et al, The Economics of Work and Pay, pp. 284-285, 493. In theory, persons will voluntarily change jobs if the expected gain from changing jobs (where one is offered) is greater than the expected gain from staying in the job they have, less the cost of changing jobs. 30 For a summary of the beneficial and harmful effects of unions on labor productivity, see Chrisom Doucouliagos and Patrice Laroche, “What Do Unions Do to Productivity? A MetaAnalysis,” Industrial Relations, vol. 42, Oct. 2003, pp. 651-655. 31 In office building construction, unionized workers were found to be more productive than nonunion workers. A study of the cement industry concluded that labor productivity was greater in unionized firms. (Filer et al, The Economics of Work and Pay, p. 514.) According to one study, labor unions have no affect on productivity growth in manufacturing, but have a negative effect on productivity in the construction industry. (Steven Allen, “Productivity Levels and Productivity Change Under Unionism,” Industrial Relations, vol. 27, winter 1988, pp. 103-104, 107-108.) A study of underground coal mines concluded that unions organized workers in more productive mines, which accounted for a positive relationship between unions and productivity. After controlling for differences in mine productivity, the study concluded that unions have a negative effect on productivity. (Brian Chezum and John E. Garen, “Are Union Productivity Effects Overestimated? Evidence from Coal Mining,” Applied Economics, vol. 30, July 1998, p. 918.) A study of western U.S. sawmills concluded that productivity was lower in unionized than in nonunionized mills. (Merwin W. Mitchell and Joe A. Stone, “Union Effects on Productivity: Evidence from Western U.S. (continued...) CRS-10 research has concluded that the effect of unions on productivity may depend, in part, on the quality of labor-management relations. In particular, if unions improve labor management communications, unions may have a positive effect on productivity.32 Profits Finally, research suggests that unions reduce a firm’s rate of profit. Some evidence indicates that the effect of unions on profits is greater in concentrated industries where profits may be relatively higher because firms have the ability to influence the prices of their products.33,34 Other research concludes that unions reduce profits in general, regardless of the ability of firms to influence prices.35 Trends in Union Membership Union membership in the United States has declined significantly in recent decades. The number of union members peaked in 1979 at an estimated 21.0 million.36 In 2003, an estimated 15.8 million workers were union members. See Table A1 in Appendix A.37 As a percent of workers, union membership can be represented in different ways (e.g., as a percent of the labor force or as a percent of wage and salary workers). Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages. The labor force includes both employed and unemployed workers. Union membership as a percent of the labor force would be the broadest measure of union membership. But such a measure may be more sensitive than other measures to changes in the unemployment rate. Union 31 (...continued) Sawmills,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 46, Oct. 1992, pp. 141-142.) 32 Kaufman, The Economics of Labor Markets, pp. 631-634. Reynolds et al., Labor Economics and Labor Relations, pp. 537-540. Ehrenberg and Smith, Modern Labor Economics, p. 512. Aidt and Tzannatos, Unions and Collective Bargaining, p. 70. 33 Aidt and Tzannatos, Unions and Collective Bargaining, p. 68. Filer et al., The Economics of Work and Pay, pp. 515-516. Ehrenberg and Smith, Modern Labor Economics, pp. 512513. Barry T. Hirsch, “Union Coverage and Profitability Among U.S. Firms,” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 73, Feb. 1991, pp. 74-76. Paula B. Voos and Lawrence R. Mishel, “The Union Impact on Profits: Evidence from Industry Price-Cost Margin Data,” Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 4, Jan. 1986, pp. 105-109. 34 A common measure of economic concentration is the percent of industry output accounted for by the four largest firms. Paul A. Samuelson and William D. Nordhaus, Microeconomics, 16th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992), pp. 170-171. 35 William F. Chappell, Walter J. Mayer, and William F. Shughart II, “Union Rents and Market Structure Revisited,” Journal of Labor Research, vol. 12, winter 1991, pp. 35-37. 36 Beginning in 1977 a union member is a wage and salary worker who belongs to a labor union or an employee association that is similar to a union. 37 The percentages shown in the graphs in this report are based on the estimates shown in the tables in Appendix A. CRS-11 membership is often represented as a percent of nonagricultural employment. Although union membership in the agriculture industry is small, such calculations may exclude from the denominator an industry that is included in the numerator. Union membership is also represented as a percent of wage and salary employment. One of the possible economic effects of unions, however, is that they may reduce employment in the union sector of the economy and increase the supply of labor to the nonunion sector of the economy. This is called the “spillover” effect. The nonunion sector of the economy includes both nonunion wage and salary workers and nonunion self-employed workers. Workers not in the union sector have the option, therefore, of nonunion wage and salary employment or nonunion self-employment. But self-employed workers are, in effect, both employer and employee and, therefore, do not unionize. Figure 1 shows union membership as a percent of three measures of employment: (a) total employment, (b) wage and salary employment, and (c) Figure 1. Union Membership as a Percent of Employment, 1930-2003 CRS-12 nonagricultural wage and salary employment.38 Union membership as a percent of employed workers is lower than union membership as a percent of wage and salary workers. Reflecting the relative decline in agricultural employment and the number of self-employed workers, the three series have converged somewhat over the past half century.39 As a percent of nonagricultural employment, union membership peaked at 35.4% in 1945. As a percent of wage and salary employment and a percent of total employment, union membership peaked in 1954 at 34.8% and 28.3%, respectively. In 2003, 12.4% of wage and salary workers, 12.1% of nonagricultural workers, and 11.5% of all employed workers were union members. Some workers are represented by a collective bargaining agreement but are not union members. In 2003, an estimated 1.7 million workers were covered by a union contract but were not union members. From 1994 to 2003, the percentage of employed workers who were represented by a union fell from 1.7% to 1.2%.40 If the union wage premium has declined in recent years (as discussed above), lower union membership may account for part of this decline. The decline in union membership may have also moderated some of the other economic effects of unions discussed above (e.g., on profitability and productivity). Characteristics of Union Membership This section examines selected demographic, social, and economic characteristics of union members in the United States. The analysis examines trends in union membership from 1994 to 2003 (or 2002, for industry and occupation). The analysis examines union membership as a percent of employed persons ages 16 and over. The data are from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), which is conducted by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statics (BLS). See Appendix B for a description of data and methodology. 38 The definition of wage and salary workers used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) includes incorporated self-employed workers. Self-employed incorporated workers are employees of a corporation. In its calculations of union membership rates, however, BLS generally excludes both incorporated and unincorporated self-employed workers. 39 From 1948 to 2003, the percentage of workers employed in agriculture declined from 13.1% to 1.7%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics Derived From the Current Population Survey, 1948-87, Bulletin 2307, Aug. 1988, p. 625. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, vol. 51, Jan. 2004, p. 219. For a discussion of the trend in self-employment, see CRS Report RL32387, Self-Employment as a Contributor to Job Growth and as an Alternative Work Arrangement, by Linda Levine. 40 Unless stated otherwise, the differences and changes in union membership or coverage discussed in the text are significant at the 95% confidence level. See Appendix B for a discussion of confidence levels. CRS-13 Gender Figure 2 shows that men are more likely than women to be union members. In 2003, 12.3% of men were union members, compared to 10.5% of women. From 1994 to 2003, union membership declined among both men and women. The decline in union membership was greater for men (2.9 percentage points) than for women (1.3 percentage points). Figure 2. Union Membership Rates of Men and Women, 1994-2003 Table A2 in Appendix A also shows theat union members are more likely to be male than female. Age Figure 3 shows that workers between the ages of 45 and 64 are more likely than younger workers or workers ages 65 and over to be union members. In 2003, 14.7% of workers ages 45 to 64 were union members. By comparison, 5.0% of workers ages 16 to 24 and 11.3% of workers ages 25 to 44 were union members. Figure 3. Union Membership Rates by Age, 1994-2003 From 1994 to 2003, except for persons ages 65 and over, union membership declined among all age groups. The largest declines were among persons ages 35-44 (3.8 percentage points) and persons ages 45-54 (3.7 percentage points).41 41 From 1994 to 2003, union membership among persons ages 45 to 64 increased (from 6.2 to 7.1 million), while membership among persons under 45 decreased (from 10.3 to 8.4 million). However, during the period, the percentage of employed workers ages 45 to 64 increased from 28.1% to 35.2%. From 1994 to 2003, the percentage of union members who were between 45 and 64 increased from 37.2% to 45.3%. See Table A3. CRS-14 Table A3 shows that, in 2003, over half (58.0%) of union members were between the ages of 35 and 54. Race A majority of union members are white: 79.5% in 2003. However, Figure 4 shows that blacks are more likely than whites or other races to be union members. In 2003, 15.6% of blacks were union members, compared to 11.0% of whites. Figure 4. Union Membership Rates by Race, 1994-2003 From 1994 to 2003, union membership declined for all racial groups. Union membership among blacks declined by 4.0 percentage points, and by 1.9 percentage points among whites.42 One reason for the higher rate of union membership among blacks is that blacks are more likely to be employed in the public sector, where union membership is greater than in the private sector (see “Private and Public Sectors” below). In 2003, 15.0% of public sector workers were black, compared to 10.0% of private sector workers. (See Appendix B for an explanation of how individuals are categorized by race.) Hispanic Origin Figure 5 shows that union membership is greater among non-Hispanic workers than among Hispanic workers.43 In 2003, 11.7% of non-Hispanic workers were union members, compared to 9.9% of Hispanic workers. 42 The estimates for 2003 of the number of workers by race are not strictly comparable to estimates for earlier years. See Appendix B. 43 Hispanics can be of any race. CRS-15 From 1994 to 2003, the number of Hispanic workers increased from 10.8 to 17.3 million. During this period, Hispanic workers as a percentage of employed workers increased from 8.8% to 12.6%. Reflecting the increase in the number of Hispanic workers, the number of unionized Hispanic workers increased from 1.4 to 1.7 million. However, the decline in union membership from 1994 to 2003 was greater among Hispanic (3.3 percentage points) than nonHispanic workers (2.0 percentage points).44 Figure 5. Union Membership Rates by Hispanic Origin, 1994-2003 Educational Attainment Figure 6 shows that workers with less than a high school education are least likely to be union members, while workers with advanced college degrees are most likely to be union members. In 2003, 6.6% of workers who had not graduated from high school were union members, compared to 15.4% of workers with an advanced degree. But more union members have only a high school education or less (6.1 million in 2003) than have a bachelor’s or advanced degree (5.1 million in 2003). Figure 6. Union Membership Rates by Level of Education, 1994-2003 From 1994 to 2003, union membership declined among all educational groups. The decline was greatest among workers with a high school education or less. The percentage of union members with a bachelor’s or advanced degree has increased. In 1994, 46.6% of union members had a high school education or less; 44 The estimate of the number of Hispanic workers for 2003 is not strictly comparable to estimates for earlier years. See Appendix B. CRS-16 25.3% had a bachelor’s or advanced degree. By 2003, 38.7% of union members had a high school education or less, and 32.1% had a bachelor’s or advanced degree. In 2003, almost three-fourths (73.6%) of union members with a bachelor’s or advanced degree were employed in the public sector, mostly for state (16.4%) and local (52.4%) governments. The largest percentage of these employees (43.6%) were preschool, elementary, secondary, and special education teachers. Private and Public Sectors Union members are more likely to be employed in the private than the public sector. In 2003, an estimated 8.5 million union members were employed in the private sector, compared to an estimated 7.3 million union members employed in the public sector. However, Figure 7 shows that the rate of union membership in the public sector is significantly greater than in the private sector. In 2003, 37.2% of public sector employees and 7.2% of private sector employees were union members. In addition, from 1994 to 2003, the percentage of union members employed in the public sector increased from 42.4% to 46.4%. Figure 7. Union Membership Rates in the Public and Private Sectors, 2003 From 1994 to 2003, union membership declined from 38.7% to 37.2% in the public sector and from 9.2% to 7.2% in the private sector. The relative increase in the number of union members who are employed in the public sector may account for part of the reported decline in the union wage premium (i.e., the union wage premium is smaller in the public than private sector). In addition, some evidence suggests that the decline in union membership in the private sector has contributed to rising earnings inequality.45 Several reasons have been given for the decline in union membership in the private sector. Changes in employment by industry, occupation, and region are often cited as contributing factors.46 Historically, unionization in the private sector has 45 Martin A. Asher and Robert H. DeFina, “The Impact of Changing Union Density on Earnings Inequality: Evidence from the Private and Public Sectors,” Journal of Labor Research, vol.18, summer 1997, pp. 426. 46 Henry S. Farber, “The Decline of Unionization in the United States: What Can be (continued...) CRS-17 been greatest in four industrial groups: construction; manufacturing; mining; and transportation, utilities, and communications. From 1994 to 2002, the percentage of workers employed in manufacturing and mining declined from 16.9% to 13.6%.47 Blue-collar jobs as a percent of total employment declined from 25.5% to 23.6%.48 And the share of employment in the mountain and southern states, where there tends to be less unionization, has increased. From 1994 to 2003, the share of the workers employed in the mountain states increased from 6.0% to 6.7% and in the south Atlantic states from 18.0% to 18.5%. See Appendix B for regional state groupings. Increased competition is also cited as a reason for the decline in union membership in the private sector. In some industries (e.g., airlines, trucking, and telecommunications), deregulation has increased competition among existing firms and led to the entry of nonunion employers.49 Increased foreign competition has also led American firms to look for ways to lower costs. Unionized firms may seek wage concessions from unionized workers or move production to nonunion locations.50,51 In addition, employers may have become more sensitive to employee concerns, resulting in greater job satisfaction among nonunion workers and reducing the demand for unionization. On the other hand, management may have become more sophisticated in opposing attempts by workers to unionize.52 Slower employment growth in union firms may have also contributed to the decline in the proportion of the workforce that is organized.53 46 (...continued) Learned from Recent Experience?” Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 8, no. 1, pt. 2, 1990, p. S76. 47 From 1994 to 2002, the percentage of workers employed in construction and in transportation, communications, and utilities increased from 13.1% to 14.1%. See Table A9. 48 Blue-collar workers are defined here as the sum of “precision production, craft, and repair” workers and “operators, fabricators, and laborers.” See Table A10. 49 James Peoples, “Deregulation and the Labor Market,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 12, summer 1998, pp. 111-112. 50 Reynolds et al., Labor Economics and Labor Relations, pp. 421-426. 51 In the United States the total level of trade (exports plus imports) as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) grew from 9% in 1960 to 22% in 2000. CRS Report RL32350, Deindustrialization of the U.S. Economy: The Roles of Trade, Productivity, and Recession, by Craig K. Elwell. 52 Mills, Labor-Management Relations, pp. 80-81. Reynolds et al., Labor Economics and Labor Relations, pp. 427-428. For a discussion of management efforts to discourage unionization, see Morris M. Kleiner, “Intensity of Management Resistance: Understanding the Decline of Unionization in the Private Sector,” Journal of Labor Research, vol. 22, summer 2001, pp. 519-540. 53 According to one review of the literature, studies have typically found that employment growth in nonunionized firms is three to five percentage points greater than in unionized firms. (Aidt and Tzannatos, Unions and Collective Bargaining, p. 64.) A study of (continued...) CRS-18 Finally, governments and employers may provide benefits formerly provided by unions, reducing the demand for union representation. For instance, government health and safety laws may substitute for demands formerly included in collective bargaining agreements.54 Similarly, governments and employers may provide fringe benefits — such as unemployment compensation or retirement benefits — that were formerly provided by unions.55 Level of Government The public sector includes the federal, state, and local governments. Figure 8 shows that union membership is greater at the local level than at the federal or state levels. In 2003, 42.6% of employees of local governments were union members, compared to 30.9% of federal workers and 30.3% of state workers. Figure 8. Union Membership Rates by Level of Government, 2003 From 1994 to 2003 union membership declined at the federal and local levels, but not at the state level. Local governments include elementary and secondary schools and fire and police departments. In 2003, 42.6% of unionized local government employees were preschool, elementary, secondary, and special education teachers, teacher assistants, and education administrators. Another 13.7% were police officers, firefighters, and correctional officers. 53 (...continued) manufacturing plants in California concluded that the annual rate of growth in employment was two to four percentage points lower in union than nonunion firms. Jonathan S. Leonard, “Unions and Employment Growth,” Industrial Relations, vol. 31, winter 1992, pp. 82, 91. 54 George R. Neumann and Ellen R. Rissman, “Where Have All the Union Members Gone?” Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 2, no. 2, 1984, p. 176. 55 Martin A. Ahser and Robert H. DeFina, “Has Deunionization Led to Higher Earnings Inequality?” Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Review, Nov/Dec. 1995, pp. 8-9. CRS-19 Industry Figure 9 shows union membership by major industry in 2002. The least unionized industries in 2002 were farming (1.6%), finance, insurance, and real estate (2.0%), and private household and other services (3.6%). The most unionized industries were public administration (32.3%) and transportation, communications, and utilities (27.4%). Figure 9. Union Membership Rates by Industry, 2002 From 1994 to 2003, the largest percentage decl i nes in union membership were in mining; transportation, communications, and utilities; and manufacturing. In mining, union membership fell from 15.0% to 8.0%. In transportation, communications, and utilities membership fell from 32.8% to 27.4% and in manufacturing membership fell from 17.5% to 13.9%.56 Occupation Figure 10 shows union membership by major occupation for 2002. The least unionized workers are farm workers. (Recall that crop and harvest workers are not covered by the NLRA and that most states do not have laws that provide collective bargaining rights to farmworkers.) In 2002, unionization was greatest among precision production workers and operators (18.3% and 17.6%, respectively). Precision production workers include car, truck, and aircraft mechanics, machinists, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, mine workers, butchers, bakers, and others. Operators include machine operators, truck and bus drivers, train operators, assemblers, laborers, and others. 56 From 1994 to 2002, the number of unionized workers in the construction and professional services industries increased from 6.0 to 7.0 million. But the share of total workers employed in these industries increased from 29.7% to 32.5%. See Table A9. CRS-20 From 1994 to 2002, union membership declined in all occupations except farming. The drop in union membership was greatest in the most unionized occupations. Unionization among operators declined by 4.7 percentage points and by 2.5 points among precision production workers.57 Figure 10. Union Membership Rates by Occupation, 2002 Region Figure 11 shows union membership by region for 2003. The nine regions are based on state groupings used by the Census Bureau. See Appendix B for a list of states by regions. Figure 11 shows that, in 2003, the most unionized regions were the midAtlantic region, the Figure 11. Union Membership Rates by Region, 2003 Pacific region, and the east north central United States. The least unionized regions were the south and mountain regions. From 1994 t o 2 0 0 3 , u n ion membership declined in every region of the United States. Within regions, unionization varies by state. In 2003, the 10 most unionized states were New York, Hawaii, Michigan, Alaska, New Jersey, Washington, Illinois, Rhode Island, Ohio, 57 Union membership as a percent of employed workers declined among managerial and professional employees, but the number of unionized managerial and professional workers increased from 4.1 to 4.8 million. From 1994 to 2002, the percentage of workers in managerial and professional occupations increased from 27.4% to 31.2%. See Table A10. CRS-21 and Minnesota and California (Minnesota and California tied for 10th). See Figure 12. The 10 least unionized states (from lowest to highest) were North Carolina, South Carolina, Arkansas, Mississippi, Arizona, South Dakota, Utah, Texas, Florida, and Louisiana. Figure 12. Union Membership Rates, by State, 2003 CRS-22 Appendix A: Annual Data Table A1. Union Membership in the United States, 1930-2003 Year Union Members (In 1000s) 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 15,776 16,183 16,315 16,334 16,477 16,211 16,110 16,269 16,360 16,740 16,598 16,390 16,568 16,740 16,961 17,002 16,913 16,975 16,996 17,340 17,717 N.A. 19,123 20,095 20,986 19,548 19,335 17,403 16,778 18,177 18,089 19,435 19,211 19,381 19,036 18,916 18,367 17,940 17,299 16,841 16,524 16,586 16,303 17,049 17,117 17,029 17,369 17,490 16,802 Percent of Wage Percent of and Salary Nonagricultural Workers Workers 12.4% 12.8% 12.9% 12.9% 13.4% 13.4% 13.6% 14.0% 14.3% 14.9% 15.1% 15.2% 15.5% 15.5% 15.9% 16.2% 16.5% 17.0% 17.4% 18.2% 19.5% N.A. 21.0% 22.3% 23.4% 22.4% 23.2% 21.6% 21.6% 23.2% 23.5% 26.3% 26.9% 27.4% 27.3% 27.9% 27.8% 28.2% 28.2% 28.3% 28.5% 29.3% 29.5% 30.9% 31.8% 32.5% 32.7% 33.2% 33.0% 12.1% 12.4% 12.4% 12.4% 12.8% 12.9% 13.1% 13.6% 13.9% 14.6% 15.0% 15.1% 15.3% 15.3% 15.7% 16.1% 16.6% 17.1% 17.4% 18.3% 19.6% N.A. 20.9% 22.2% 23.3% 22.5% 23.4% 21.9% 21.8% 23.2% 23.5% 26.3% 26.9% 27.3% 27.0% 27.8% 27.9% 28.0% 28.4% 28.8% 29.1% 29.8% 30.1% 31.4% 32.1% 33.1% 32.8% 33.3% 33.1% Percent of Employed Workers 11.5% 11.9% 11.9% 11.9% 12.3% 12.3% 12.4% 12.8% 13.1% 13.6% 13.8% 13.8% 14.1% 14.1% 14.5% 14.8% 15.0% 15.5% 15.9% 16.5% 17.6% N.A. 19.0% 20.2% 21.2% 20.4% 21.0% 19.6% 19.5% 20.9% 21.3% 23.7% 24.2% 24.6% 24.4% 24.9% 24.7% 24.6% 24.3% 24.3% 24.4% 24.9% 24.8% 25.9% 26.5% 27.0% 27.1% 27.4% 27.0% CRS-23 Year Union Members (In 1000s) 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 1949 1948 1947 1946 1945 1944 1943 1942 1941 1940 1939 1938 1937 1936 1935 1934 1933 1932 1931 1930 17,022 16,948 15,892 15,946 14,267 14,282 14,319 14,787 14,395 14,322 14,146 13,213 10,380 10,201 8,717 8,763 8,034 7,001 3,989 3,584 3,088 2,689 3,050 3,310 3,401 Percent of Percent of Wage Nonagricultural and Salary Workers Workers 34.8% 33.8% 32.3% 32.8% 30.4% 31.6% 31.2% 34.7% 33.7% 32.5% 33.3% 31.5% 32.6% 31.9% 33.6% 34.5% 35.4% 33.7% 31.0% 25.8% 27.9% 26.9% 28.6% Percent of Employed Workers 28.3% 27.7% 26.4% 26.6% 24.2% 24.8% 24.5% 25.9% 26.1% 27.1% 26.2% 24.3% 19.3% 20.3% 18.3% 19.2% 18.2% 15.1% 9.0% 8.5% 7.6% 6.9% 7.8% 7.8% 7.5% Sources: The estimates of union membership and the total number of persons employed for 19942003 were calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS). Estimates of union membership for 1973-1993 are from: Barry T. Hirsch and David A. Macpherson, Union Membership and Earnings Data Book: Compilations from the Current Population Survey, Washington, Bureau of National Affairs, 2003, p. 11. Union membership data for 1930-1972 are from: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 1865, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975, p. 389. Estimates of the number of persons employed for 1930-1993 are from: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, vol. 50, Jan. 2003, p. 158 and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, vol. 41, Jan. 1994, p. 182. Estimates of the number of wage and salary workers are from: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics Derived From the Current Population Survey, 1948-87, Bulletin 2307, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Aug. 1988, p. 383; Handbook of Labor Statistics, 7th ed., ed. by Eva E. Jacobs, Bernan Press, Lanham, MD, 2004, p. 75; and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, vol. 51, Jan. 2004, p. 219. Data on nonagricultural employment are from the BLS Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey, available at [http://www.bls.gov]. Notes: The estimates of union membership for 1983-2003 are annual monthly averages based on the monthly CPS. The monthly CPS has included a question about union membership since November 1982. The estimates for 1973-1981 are from the May CPS. The data for 1930-1972 include members of AFL-CIO affiliates, unaffiliated national unions, unaffiliated unions with collective bargaining agreements with different employers in more than one state, and members of federal employee unions. Beginning in 1977, the estimates include members of employee associations. Because of changes in the CPS survey, data for 1994 and later may not be comparable to earlier years. The estimates of the number of wage and salary workers include self-employed incorporated workers. Because these workers are paid employees of a corporation, BLS treats them as wage and salary workers. Finally, the estimates of union membership and the total number of persons employed for 2000-2002 use revised sample weights based on population controls introduced in Jan. 2003 (see Appendix B). CRS-24 Table A2. Union Membership in the United States by Gender, 1994-2003 Year Union Members (1,000s) 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 9,044 9,360 9,546 9,664 9,949 9,850 9,763 9,859 9,929 10,096 Employed Labor Force (1,000s) Men 73,332 72,903 73,196 73,305 71,446 70,693 69,685 68,207 67,377 66,451 Percent Union Members Union Members (1,000s) 12.3% 12.8% 13.0% 13.2% 13.9% 13.9% 14.0% 14.5% 14.7% 15.2% 6,732 6,822 6,769 6,671 6,528 6,362 6,347 6,410 6,430 6,644 Employed Labor Force (1,000s) Women 64,404 63,582 63,737 63,586 62,042 60,771 59,873 58,501 57,523 56,611 Source: Calculated by Congressional Research Service (CRS) from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS). Notes: Estimates are for persons 16 and over. Details may not add to totals because of rounding. Percent Union Members Total Employed Labor Force 10.5% 10.7% 10.6% 10.5% 10.5% 10.5% 10.6% 11.0% 11.2% 11.7% 137,736 136,485 136,933 136,891 133,488 131,463 129,558 126,708 124,900 123,061 CRS-25 Table A3. Union Membership in the United States by Age, 1994-2003 Year Union Members (1,000s) 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 966 996 1,028 1,009 1,110 1,014 968 991 1,022 1,125 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 4,848 5,028 5,057 4,910 4,881 4,737 4,645 4,626 4,483 4,418 Employed Labor Force (1,000s) 16-24 19,340 19,668 20,082 20,405 20,047 19,595 19,033 18,619 18,856 18,931 45-54 31,918 31,304 31,074 30,351 28,654 27,616 26,739 25,522 24,359 23,354 Percent Union Members Union Members (1,000s) 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 4.9% 5.5% 5.2% 5.1% 5.3% 5.4% 5.9% 3,097 3,177 3,240 3,444 3,415 3,332 3,434 3,536 3,596 3,769 15.2% 16.1% 16.3% 16.2% 17.0% 17.2% 17.4% 18.1% 18.4% 18.9% 2,300 2,264 2,033 2,026 1,932 1,923 1,894 1,795 1,801 1,807 Employed Labor Force (1,000s) 25-34 30,357 30,288 30,849 31,560 30,862 31,407 31,832 32,094 32,356 32,255 55-64 16,595 15,658 14,625 14,004 13,331 12,874 12,289 11,750 11,431 11,265 Percent Union Members Union Members (1,000s) 10.2% 10.5% 10.5% 10.9% 11.1% 10.6% 10.8% 11.0% 11.1% 11.7% 4,308 4,465 4,711 4,704 4,918 5,013 4,987 5,132 5,254 5,405 13.9% 14.5% 13.9% 14.5% 14.5% 14.9% 15.4% 15.3% 15.8% 16.0% 258 253 246 241 221 193 182 189 203 215 Source: Calculated by Congressional Research Service (CRS) from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS). Notes: Estimates are for persons 16 and over. Details may not add to totals because of rounding. Employed Labor Force (1,000s) 35-44 34,942 35,252 36,057 36,412 36,743 36,269 35,913 35,084 34,240 33,589 65 and Over 4,584 4,315 4,246 4,159 3,850 3,702 3,752 3,639 3,658 3,667 Percent Union Members Total Employed Labor Force 12.3% 12.7% 13.1% 12.9% 13.4% 13.8% 13.9% 14.6% 15.3% 16.1% 137,736 136,485 136,933 136,891 133,488 131,463 129,558 126,708 124,900 123,061 5.6% 5.9% 5.8% 5.8% 5.7% 5.2% 4.9% 5.2% 5.6% 5.9% 137,736 136,485 136,933 136,891 133,488 131,463 129,558 126,708 124,900 123,061 CRS-26 Table A4. Union Membership in the United States by Race, 1994-2003 Year Union Members (1,000s) 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 12,535 12,988 13,170 13,111 13,349 13,118 13,088 13,232 13,149 13,515 Employed Labor Force (1,000s) White 114,233 114,048 114,489 114,422 112,275 110,936 109,847 107,801 106,491 105,195 Percent Union Members Union Members (1,000s) 11.0% 11.4% 11.5% 11.5% 11.9% 11.8% 11.9% 12.3% 12.3% 12.8% 2,298 2,392 2,385 2,466 2,463 2,460 2,394 2,441 2,519 2,511 Employed Labor Force (1,000s) Black 14,739 14,872 15,006 15,156 15,056 14,556 13,969 13,542 13,279 12,827 Percent Union Members Union Members (1,000s) 15.6% 16.1% 15.9% 16.3% 16.4% 16.9% 17.1% 18.0% 19.0% 19.6% 943 802 760 757 665 633 627 596 691 714 Employed Labor Force (1,000s) Other 8,764 7,565 7,439 7,313 6,157 5,972 5,742 5,364 5,130 5,039 Percent Union Members 10.8% 10.6% 10.2% 10.4% 10.8% 10.6% 10.9% 11.1% 13.5% 14.2% Total Employed Labor Force 137,736 136,485 136,933 136,891 133,488 131,463 129,558 126,708 124,900 123,061 Source: Calculated by Congressional Research Service (CRS) from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS). Notes: Estimates are for persons 16 and over. Details may not add to totals because of rounding. Estimates for 2003 may not be comparable to previous years. Beginning in Jan. 2003, when answering the question about race, respondents may pick more than one race. Previously, individuals could only select one race. For 2003, this report follows BLS practice and only counts blacks and whites who select one race category. CRS-27 Table A5. Union Membership in the United States by Hispanic Origin, 1994-2003 Year 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 Union Members (1,000s) 1,712 1,644 1,692 1,641 1,525 1,471 1,407 1,394 1,357 1,420 Employed Labor Force (1,000s) Hispanic 17,314 16,556 16,183 15,744 13,719 13,236 12,724 11,622 11,135 10,777 Percent Union Members 9.9% 9.9% 10.5% 10.4% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 12.0% 12.2% 13.2% Union Members (1,000s) 14,064 14,539 14,623 14,693 14,951 14,741 14,703 14,875 15,003 15,321 Employed Labor Force (1,000s) Non-Hispanic 120,422 119,929 120,751 121,147 119,769 118,228 116,834 115,085 113,765 112,284 Percent Union Members 11.7% 12.1% 12.1% 12.1% 12.5% 12.5% 12.6% 12.9% 13.2% 13.6% Total Employed Labor Force 137,736 136,485 136,933 136,891 133,488 131,463 129,558 126,708 124,900 123,061 Source: Calculated by Congressional Research Service (CRS) from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS). Notes: Estimates are for persons 16 and over. Details may not add to totals because of rounding. Estimates for 2003 may not be comparable to previous years. Beginning in Jan. 2003, the CPS question on Hispanic origin was reworded to ask respondents directly whether they are Hispanic. Previously, individuals were identified as Hispanic based on their, or their ancestors’, country of origin. Hispanics may be of any race. CRS-28 Table A6. Union Membership in the United States by Educational Attainment, 1994-2003 Year 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 Union Employed Percent Members Labor Force Union (1,000s) (1,000s) Members Less than a High School Education 1,096 16,499 6.6% 1,174 16,552 7.1% 1,237 17,020 7.3% 1,324 17,450 7.6% 1,323 16,829 7.9% 1,378 17,097 8.1% 1,377 16,773 8.2% 1,503 16,257 9.2% 1,497 15,868 9.4% 1,550 15,807 9.8% Bachelor’s Degree 2,994 26,859 11.1% 2,954 26,245 11.3% 2,837 25,603 11.1% 2,815 25,302 11.1% 2,841 24,494 11.6% 2,686 23,714 11.3% 2,653 23,082 11.5% 2,547 22,297 11.4% 2,469 21,362 11.6% 2,515 20,879 12.0% Union Members (1,000s) 5,008 5,330 5,404 5,534 5,621 5,612 5,762 5,845 5,950 6,245 2,071 2,084 1,982 1,950 1,958 1,839 1,784 1,748 1,752 1,721 Percent Employed Labor Force Union (1,000s) Members High School Graduate 41,417 12.1% 41,543 12.8% 42,018 12.9% 42,580 13.0% 41,999 13.4% 41,718 13.5% 41,812 13.8% 40,772 14.3% 40,489 14.7% 40,712 15.3% Advanced Degree 13,431 15.4% 12,968 16.1% 12,690 15.6% 12,366 15.8% 11,986 16.3% 11,601 15.9% 11,060 16.1% 10,767 16.2% 10,574 16.6% 10,134 17.0% Source: Calculated by Congressional Research Service (CRS) from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS). Notes: Estimates are for persons 16 and over. Details may not add to totals because of rounding. Union Members (1,000s) 4,606 4,641 4,855 4,710 4,734 4,696 4,534 4,626 4,692 4,709 Employed Percent Labor Force Union (1,000s) Members 1-3 Years of College 39,529 11.7% 39,177 11.8% 39,603 12.3% 39,193 12.0% 38,179 12.4% 37,333 12.6% 36,831 12.3% 36,615 12.6% 36,608 12.8% 35,530 13.3% Total Employed Labor Force 137,736 136,485 136,933 136,891 133,488 131,463 129,558 126,708 124,900 123,061 137,736 136,485 136,933 136,891 133,488 131,463 129,558 126,708 124,900 123,061 CRS-29 Table A7. Union Membership in the United States in the Private and Public Sectors, 1994-2003 Year Union Members (1,000s) 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 7,324 7,387 7,095 7,059 7,058 6,905 6,747 6,854 6,927 7,091 Employed Labor Force (1,000s) Public 19,710 19,589 19,308 19,157 18,938 18,401 18,147 18,210 18,358 18,339 Percent Union Members Union Members (1,000s) 37.2% 37.7% 36.7% 36.9% 37.3% 37.5% 37.2% 37.6% 37.7% 38.7% 8,452 8,795 9,192 9,254 9,419 9,306 9,363 9,415 9,432 9,649 Employed Labor Force (1,000s) Private 118,026 116,896 117,625 117,734 114,550 113,062 111,411 108,497 106,542 104,722 Source: Calculated by Congressional Research Service (CRS) from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS). Notes: Estimates are for persons 16 and over. Details may not add to totals because of rounding. Percent Union Members 7.2% 7.5% 7.8% 7.9% 8.2% 8.2% 8.4% 8.7% 8.9% 9.2% Total Employed Labor Force 137,736 136,485 136,933 136,891 133,488 131,463 129,558 126,708 124,900 123,061 CRS-30 Table A8. Union Membership in the United States by Level of Government, 1994-2003 Year 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 Union Employed Percent Members Labor Force Union (1,000s) (1,000s) Members Federal Government 1,004 3,247 30.9% 1,070 3,297 32.5% 1,033 3,317 31.2% 1,027 3,275 31.4% 1,047 3,264 32.1% 1,105 3,269 33.8% 1,030 3,217 32.0% 1,040 3,284 31.7% 1,117 3,447 32.4% 1,181 3,518 33.6% Union Members (1,000s) 1,706 1,769 1,726 1,624 1,527 1,431 1,485 1,566 1,531 1,596 Percent Employed Labor Force Union (1,000s) Members State Government 5,636 30.3% 5,706 31.0% 5,713 30.2% 5,515 29.4% 5,233 29.2% 5,150 27.8% 5,031 29.5% 5,132 30.5% 5,171 29.6% 5,174 30.8% Union Members (1,000s) 4,614 4,547 4,336 4,409 4,484 4,370 4,232 4,249 4,280 4,314 Source: Calculated by Congressional Research Service (CRS) from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS). Notes: Estimates are for persons 16 and over. Details may not add to totals because of rounding. Employed Percent Labor Force Union (1,000s) Members Local Government 10,827 42.6% 10,585 43.0% 10,278 42.2% 10,367 42.5% 10,440 42.9% 9,982 43.8% 9,899 42.7% 9,795 43.4% 9,739 43.9% 9,647 44.7% Union Total Members, Employed Public Sector Labor Force, Public Sector 7,324 19,710 7,387 19,589 7,095 19,308 7,059 19,157 7,058 18,938 6,905 18,401 6,747 18,147 6,854 18,210 6,927 18,358 7,091 18,339 CRS-31 Table A9. Union Membership in the United States by Industry, 1994-2002 Year 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 Employed Employed Employed Employed Employed Percent Union Percent Union Percent Union Percent Union Percent Labor Labor Labor Labor Labor Total Union Members Union Members Union Members Union Members Union Force Force Force Force Force Members (1,000s) Members (1,000s) Members (1,000s) Members (1,000s) Members Employed (1,000s) (1,000s) (1,000s) (1,000s) (1,000s) Labor Force Farming, Forestry, Transportation, Mining Construction Manufacturing And Fisheries Communications and Utilities Union Members (1,000s) 55 50 59 56 36 43 37 45 49 3,458 3,332 3,554 3,393 3,446 3,527 3,567 3,562 3,552 1.6% 1.5% 1.7% 1.7% 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 1.3% 1.4% Retail and Wholesale Trade 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1,158 1,232 1,261 1,291 1,295 1,329 1,343 1,410 1,392 28,151 28,112 28,278 27,591 27,192 26,759 26,636 26,130 25,618 4.1% 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% 5.4% 5.4% 39 63 56 58 73 84 76 84 102 491 565 527 557 624 637 568 649 681 8.0% 11.1% 10.6% 10.5% 11.7% 13.2% 13.4% 12.9% 15.0% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 183 9,093 2.0% 199 8,912 2.2% 179 8,850 2.0% 201 8,770 2.3% 205 8,568 2.4% 216 8,288 2.6% 230 8,110 2.8% 195 7,975 2.4% 217 8,114 2.7% 1,367 1,388 1,390 1,362 1,212 1,223 1,158 1,072 1,110 9,538 9,695 9,505 8,872 8,549 8,296 7,924 7,632 7,475 14.3% 14.3% 14.6% 15.4% 14.2% 14.7% 14.6% 14.0% 14.8% Private Household and Other Services 599 16,836 3.6% 692 17,249 4.0% 665 16,961 3.9% 638 16,177 3.9% 578 15,716 3.7% 524 15,418 3.4% 589 14,755 4.0% 571 14,060 4.1% 613 13,854 4.4% 2,510 2,717 2,881 3,037 3,137 3,270 3,412 3,469 3,533 13.9% 14.1% 14.2% 15.0% 15.2% 15.7% 16.6% 16.9% 17.5% Professional Services 5,588 5,331 5,198 5,179 4,920 4,856 4,871 4,834 4,914 Source: Calculated by Congressional Research Service (CRS) from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS). Notes: Estimates are for persons 16 and over. Details may not add to totals because of rounding. 18,100 19,295 20,271 20,186 20,597 20,795 20,504 20,505 20,170 34,832 33,860 33,022 32,384 31,492 30,945 30,062 29,683 29,037 16.0% 15.7% 15.7% 16.0% 15.6% 15.7% 16.2% 16.3% 16.9% 2,675 2,692 2,749 2,795 2,795 2,736 2,692 2,770 2,847 9,769 9,778 9,882 9,591 9,380 9,170 8,792 8,725 8,690 27.4% 27.5% 27.8% 29.1% 29.8% 29.8% 30.6% 31.8% 32.8% 136,485 136,933 136,891 133,488 131,463 129,558 126,708 124,900 123,061 Public Administration 2,010 1,950 1,898 1,860 1,960 1,827 1,861 1,909 1,963 6,217 6,134 6,039 5,966 5,899 5,724 5,790 5,978 5,870 32.3% 31.8% 31.4% 31.2% 33.2% 31.9% 32.1% 31.9% 33.4% 136,485 136,933 136,891 133,488 131,463 129,558 126,708 124,900 123,061 CRS-32 Table A10. Union Membership in the United States by Occupation, 1994-2002 Year 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 Union Employed Percent Members Labor Force Union (1,000s) (1,000s) Members Managerial and Professional 4,812 42,546 11.3% 4,658 42,162 11.0% 4,566 41,223 11.1% 4,594 40,351 11.4% 4,252 38,845 10.9% 4,208 37,738 11.2% 4,196 36,437 11.5% 4,116 35,187 11.7% 4,102 33,772 12.1% Precision Production, Craft, and Repair 2,570 14,587 17.6% 2,730 15,139 18.0% 2,800 15,107 18.5% 2,800 14,540 19.3% 2,708 14,364 18.9% 2,723 14,112 19.3% 2,648 13,578 19.5% 2,692 13,504 19.9% 2,716 13,478 20.2% Percent Union Employed Members Labor Force Union (1,000s) (1,000s) Members Technical, Sales, and Administrative 3,204 38,945 8.2% 3,208 39,573 8.1% 3,122 39,891 7.8% 3,191 38,851 8.2% 3,239 38,754 8.4% 3,158 38,342 8.2% 3,231 37,735 8.6% 3,364 37,530 9.0% 3,465 37,334 9.3% Operators, Fabricators, and Laborers 3,243 17,674 18.3% 3,346 17,985 18.6% 3,509 18,683 18.8% 3,627 18,265 19.9% 3,713 18,173 20.4% 3,791 18,393 20.6% 4,000 18,182 22.0% 3,983 18,106 22.0% 4,132 17,946 23.0% Source: Calculated by Congressional Research Service (CRS) from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS). Notes: Estimates are for persons 16 and over. Details may not add to totals because of rounding. Union Members (1,000s) Employed Percent Labor Force Union (1,000s) Members Service 2,264 19,250 11.8% 2,277 18,752 12.1% 2,242 18,513 12.1% 2,151 18,089 11.9% 2,209 17,895 12.3% 2,141 17,491 12.2% 2,103 17,227 12.2% 2,112 16,947 12.5% 2,222 16,909 13.1% Farming, Forestry, and Fishing 89 3,484 2.6% 96 3,321 2.9% 95 3,474 2.7% 113 3,392 3.3% 90 3,432 2.6% 88 3,483 2.5% 92 3,548 2.6% 91 3,626 2.5% 103 3,623 2.8% Total Employed Labor Force 136,485 136,933 136,891 133,488 131,463 129,558 126,708 124,900 123,061 136,485 136,933 136,891 133,488 131,463 129,558 126,708 124,900 123,061 CRS-33 Table A11. Union Membership in the United States by Region, 1994-2003 Union Members Year (1,000s) 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 Employed Employed Employed Employed Employed Percent Union Percent Union Percent Union Percent Union Percent Total Labor Labor Labor Labor Labor Union Members Union Members Union Members Union Members Union Employed Force Force Force Force Force Members (1,000s) Members (1,000s) Members (1000s) Members (1,000s) Members Labor (1,000s) (1,000s) (1,000s) (1,000s) (1,000s) Force East South Central 556 7,863 7.1% 619 7,720 8.0% 619 7,738 8.0% 676 7,921 8.5% 641 7,825 8.2% 644 7,811 8.2% 628 7,632 8.2% 681 7,539 9.0% 706 7,453 9.5% 739 7,334 10.1% 1,572 1,515 1,602 1,627 1,588 1,582 1,545 1,607 1,543 1,694 South Atlantic 25,465 6.2% 24,954 6.1% 25,083 6.4% 25,165 6.5% 24,134 6.6% 23,664 6.7% 23,294 6.6% 22,786 7.1% 22,465 6.9% 22,103 7.7% 3,326 3,338 3,137 3,070 3,203 3,105 2,994 2,938 3,092 3,130 Pacific 21,786 21,187 21,441 21,535 21,193 20,705 20,192 19,570 19,230 19,066 15.3% 15.8% 14.6% 14.3% 15.1% 15.0% 14.8% 15.0% 16.1% 16.4% East North Central 3,478 22,222 15.7% 3,618 22,445 16.1% 3,682 22,745 16.2% 3,715 22,733 16.3% 3,729 22,327 16.7% 3,791 21,937 17.3% 3,738 21,800 17.1% 3,824 21,504 17.8% 3,746 21,307 17.6% 3,789 20,967 18.1% 6.7% 7.1% 7.8% 8.2% 8.5% 8.0% 8.5% 8.5% 9.1% 9.3% West South Central 763 14,955 5.1% 782 14,557 5.4% 839 14,646 5.7% 820 14,654 5.6% 867 14,589 5.9% 815 14,312 5.7% 826 13,978 5.9% 871 13,703 6.4% 823 13,472 6.1% 852 13,131 6.5% West North Central 1,107 10,273 10.8% 1,137 10,305 11.0% 1,169 10,257 11.4% 1,158 10,074 11.5% 1,211 9,900 12.2% 1,140 9,891 11.5% 1,168 9,761 12.0% 1,197 9,657 12.4% 1,149 9,473 12.1% 1,135 9,269 12.2% Middle Atlantic 3,467 18,801 18.4% 3,596 19,011 18.9% 3,656 18,796 19.4% 3,618 18,692 19.4% 3,533 18,074 19.5% 3,520 17,954 19.6% 3,617 17,960 20.1% 3,596 17,498 20.6% 3,644 17,269 21.1% 3,792 17,310 21.9% 621 646 702 729 727 664 692 660 694 684 Mountain 9,210 9,045 9,021 8,944 8,530 8,314 8,140 7,790 7,645 7,349 New England 884 7,162 12.3% 931 7,261 12.8% 910 7,206 12.6% 921 7,172 12.8% 977 6,917 14.1% 950 6,875 13.8% 901 6,802 13.3% 895 6,661 13.4% 963 6,585 14.6% 926 6,532 14.2% Source: Calculated by Congressional Research Service (CRS) from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS). Notes: Estimates are for persons 16 and over. See Appendix A for a list of states by region. Details may not add to totals because of rounding. 137,736 136,485 136,933 136,891 133,488 131,463 129,558 126,708 124,900 123,061 137,736 136,485 136,933 136,891 133,488 131,463 129,558 126,708 124,900 123,061 CRS-34 Appendix B: Data and Methodology The analysis in this report uses data from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS is a household survey conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor. The monthly CPS is the main source of labor force data for the nation, including estimates of the monthly unemployment rate. The CPS collects a wide range of demographic, social, and labor market information. Each month, approximately 50,000 households are contacted to be interviewed, either in person or by phone. The CPS collects labor force data for civilians 15 and over. The official definition of the civilian labor force is ages 16 and over. The monthly CPS sample is representative of the civilian noninstitutional population; it does not include persons on active military duty.58,59 Each month, one-fourth of the CPS sample — called the Outgoing Rotation Group, or ORG — is asked questions about union membership and current hourly or weekly earnings. The monthly CPS has included questions on union membership and union coverage since November 1982.60 For the tables in Appendix A, the ORG samples for each month from 1994 to 2003 were combined to calculate a monthly average for the year.61 The analysis in this report examines employed persons ages 16 and over. Employed persons include both wage and salary workers and self-employed persons. Data on union membership and coverage exclude self-employed persons. Data are for the sole or main job of full-time and part-time workers. Several changes were made in the January 2003 CPS. In answering the question about race, respondents may now pick more than one race. Previously, individuals could only select one race. For 2003, this report follows BLS practice and only counts blacks and whites who selected one race category. Also, beginning in 2003, the CPS question on Hispanic origin was reworded to ask respondents directly whether they are Hispanic. Previously, individuals were identified as Hispanic based on their, or their ancestors’, country of origin. Hispanics may be of any race. As a result of these changes, data for 2003 on race and Hispanic ethnicity are not directly comparable to data for earlier years. 58 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Measuring 50 Years of Economic Change, Current Population Reports, P60-203, Sept. 1998, p. D-1. 59 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Basic Monthly Survey, available at [http://www.bls.census.gov/cps/bglosary.htm]. 60 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey: Design and Methodology, Technical Paper 63, Mar. 2000, pp. 2-4. 61 Households are in the CPS survey for four consecutive months, out of the survey for eight months, and back in the survey for four more months. The questions about earnings (and union status and hours worked) are asked of households leaving the survey (either permanently or for eight months). During a 12-month period, the observations on earnings are for unique individuals. CRS-35 In addition, in January 2003, the CPS introduced population controls based on the 2000 Census. Sample weights for January 2000 through December 2002 were revised to reflect the higher population estimates from the 2000 census and the higher rate of population growth since the census. This report uses the revised sample weights for 2000-2002. The revised weights increase the size of the labor force but have less of an effect on percentage calculations. Finally, in 2003, new classification systems were introduced for industry and occupation. Because of these new systems, data on industry and occupation for 2003 are not comparable to data for earlier years, and are not included in this report.62 The regional data in Figure 11 and Table A11 are based on state groupings used by the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau divides the United States into four regions and nine divisions. The nine divisions are as follows: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! East North Central: Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois; East South Central: Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, and Mississippi; Middle Atlantic: Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey; Mountain: Colorado, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, and New Mexico; New England: Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island; Pacific: Alaska, Washington, Hawaii, Oregon, and California; South Atlantic: Maryland, Delaware, Georgia, District of Columbia, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, and West Virginia; West North Central: Minnesota, Kansas, South Dakota, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa; and West South Central: Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. Confidence Levels The comparisons discussed in the text of this report are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Estimates based on survey responses from a sample of households have two kinds of error: nonsampling error and sampling error. Examples of nonsampling error include information that is misreported and errors made in processing collected information. Sampling error occurs because a sample, and not the entire population, of households is surveyed. The difference between an estimate based on a sample of households and the actual population value is known as sampling error.63 When using sample data, researchers typically construct confidence intervals around population estimates. Confidence intervals provide 62 Mary Bowler, Randy E. I.G., Stephen Miller, Ed Robison, and Anne Polivka, Revisions to the Current Population Survey Effective in Jan., 2003, Employment and Earnings, Feb. 2003, vol. 51, pp. 4-5, 7. 63 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, vol. 49, Nov. 2002, pp. 147-148. CRS-36 information about the accuracy of estimated values. With a 95% confidence interval and repeated samples from a population, 95% of intervals will generally include the actual value of a population characteristic.