« South Carolina | Main | Die for Your Government »

Union Share Rising

26 Jan 2008 01:23 pm

Some interesting news on the labor front as it seems that the proportion of the work force that belongs to a union went up last year for the first time since the BLS started tracking this stuff in the early 1980s -- from 12 percent of the workforce to 12.1 percent. Ezra Klein comments:

Manufacturing, amazingly, has been so decimated that your average manufacturing employee is less likely to be unionized than another American worker picked at random. Given that the manufacturing sector was once the backbone of the union economy, that's real testament to how ruined the old order is, and how impressive even these small gains are. Now, one year does not a trend make, and the uptick is unquestionably minor. But still: Gains for the first time in 25 years. And centered around the fast-growing, immigrant-heavy economies of the West.

The actual numbers involved here are, clearly, very small. But it's worth saying something about momentum. For a long time now, some heavily unionized sectors of the economy have been losing members. In more recent years, though, you've also seen quite a lot of vibrancy on the union front with a large amount of service-sector organizing. That, however, has tended to be masked by the continued decline of the manufacturing sector. What we seem to be seeing, however, is that the two lines are crossing -- manufacturing has declined so much already that continued declines no longer swamp gains in other sectors. If we have political change in 2009 that brings about labor law reform, pro-labor appointments to regulatory bodies and judgships, and perhaps even dares to use the bully-pulpit to make the case for union membership one can easily imagine seeing these trends continue.

Share This

Comments (12)

From the link:

The increase is small [0.1%], and may well reflect statistical variation rather than an actual increase in the union membership share

"If we have political change in 2009 that brings about labor law reform, pro-labor appointments to regulatory bodies and judgships, and perhaps even dares to use the bully-pulpit to make the case for union membership one can easily imagine seeing these trends continue."

If you think today's democratic party would even seriously try to do these things take a good look at the donor lists of people like Schumer (D-WallStreet) or Dodd (D-Greenwich).

And Matt while you're at it, remind us again which prez signed NATFA into law while turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants (today's corporate scabs).

Kinda ironic that this is one of the lowest comment volume threads in a while.

justinb has a point about this not garnering very many comments. But the reality is that the liberal blogging crowd tends to be overwhelmingly white, male and middle to upper middle class. By and large those aren't the sort of folks who tend to know firsthand about the importance of unionization.

As a person who's organized workers around the country, I'm cautiously optimistic about the new union density figures. Membership numbers have flattened before only to again decrease. For this report to portend positive change we need to continue fight and continue to grow.

With regard to kafka's comment above, the vast majority of Democratic politicians have agreed to support the Employee Free Choice Act. If it becomes law EFCA will make a substantial difference in allowing Americans to engage in their First Amendment right to form and join unions.

Matt

Have you ever in your entire life met anyone who worked, or had family that worked, in a union environment? If you did the term Reagan Democrats would have a lot more meaning. It never fails to amaze me that intellectuals can wax poetic on a subject in inverse proportion to their experience.

As a union member and a progressive, I take exception to Wayne's comment above. While it's true that some of the old industrial unions, heavily white and male, did become "Reagan Democrats," a whole lot didn't - they remembered him busting the air traffic controllers strike instead.

The labor movement today, centered in the new services unions and in the public sector, has a much higher proportion of minorities and women than it ever did before. Moreover, the politics of many unions is moving more to the left, because their pensions and health care and economic position more generally is becoming more shaky and changing people's minds about the need for public provision.

Isn't the engine of growth for unionism not the private service sector but the public service sector, i.e., government employees? The article appears to cite gross numbers with no distinction between private and public emplyment, while selectively emphasizing a few favorable specifics.

This shows that Bush is the most pro-union President in decades. No other President over the past few decades has been able to increase the percentage of union members.

"That, however, has tended to be masked by the continued decline of the manufacturing sector."

Umm, excuse me, but what decline of the manufacturing sector? Manufacturing output is still going up.

Manufacturing employment is going down, but that's because of a rise in productivity: a good thing, remember?

"That, however, has tended to be masked by the continued decline of the manufacturing sector."

Umm, excuse me, but what decline of the manufacturing sector? Manufacturing output is still going up.

Manufacturing employment is going down, but that's because of a rise in productivity: a good thing, remember?

I'm getting around to this somewhat late, but let's not get all giddy here. The BLS data (at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t03.htm) indicate that union membership in the private sector fell from 7.5% to 7.4% between 2006 and 2007. And that it also fell in the public sector, from 36.2% to 35.9%. The only way for this to lead to an increase in the overall rate of unionization--from 12% to 12.1%--is for the public sector's share of total employment to have increased. (Even looking at the percentage of workers represented by unions--not all of whom are union members--that also fell in the private sector, from 8.2% to 8.1%, and in the public sector, from 40.1% to 39.8%.)

So declining union membership both in the public and in the private sector becomes a story about rising union density. Both god and the devil are in the details, and the details do not support the story.

Umm, excuse me, but what decline of the manufacturing sector? Manufacturing output is still going up.

In absolute terms, maybe. But that's not the proper comparison. A better measure is manufacturing as a proportion of US consumption; that's been going down steadily.

The best measure would be US manufacturing as a proportion of world manufacturing.


Comments closed February 09, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.