For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL32553 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 12- 13. (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 union- nonunion 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 2000- 2001, 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 Meta- Analysis," 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. 512- 513. 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 Figure 2. Union Membership Rates of more likely than women to be Men and Women, 1994-2003 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). Table A2 in Appendix A also shows theat union members are more likely to be male than female. Age Figure 3 shows that workers Figure 3. Union Membership Rates by between the ages of 45 and 64 are Age, 1994-2003 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. 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 Figure 4. Union Membership Rates by are white: 79.5% in 2003. Race, 1994-2003 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. 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 Figure 5. Union Membership Rates by number of Hispanic workers Hispanic Origin, 1994-2003 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 non- Hispanic workers (2.0 percentage points).44 Educational Attainment Figure 6 shows that workers with less than a high school Figure 6. Union Membership Rates by education are least likely to be Level of Education, 1994-2003 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). 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 Figure 7. Union Membership Rates in likely to be employed in the the Public and Private Sectors, 2003 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%. 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 Figure 8. Union Membership Rates by the federal, state, and local Level of Government, 2003 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. 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 Figure 9. Union Membership Rates by union membership by Industry, 2002 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%). 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 Figure 10. Union Membership Rates membership declined in all by Occupation, 2002 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 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 mid- Atlantic region, the Figure 11. Union Membership Rates by Region, Pacific region, and 2003 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 Percent of Wage Percent of Percent of Union Members Year and Salary Nonagricultural Employed (In 1000s) Workers Workers Workers 2003 15,776 12.4% 12.1% 11.5% 2002 16,183 12.8% 12.4% 11.9% 2001 16,315 12.9% 12.4% 11.9% 2000 16,334 12.9% 12.4% 11.9% 1999 16,477 13.4% 12.8% 12.3% 1998 16,211 13.4% 12.9% 12.3% 1997 16,110 13.6% 13.1% 12.4% 1996 16,269 14.0% 13.6% 12.8% 1995 16,360 14.3% 13.9% 13.1% 1994 16,740 14.9% 14.6% 13.6% 1993 16,598 15.1% 15.0% 13.8% 1992 16,390 15.2% 15.1% 13.8% 1991 16,568 15.5% 15.3% 14.1% 1990 16,740 15.5% 15.3% 14.1% 1989 16,961 15.9% 15.7% 14.5% 1988 17,002 16.2% 16.1% 14.8% 1987 16,913 16.5% 16.6% 15.0% 1986 16,975 17.0% 17.1% 15.5% 1985 16,996 17.4% 17.4% 15.9% 1984 17,340 18.2% 18.3% 16.5% 1983 17,717 19.5% 19.6% 17.6% 1982 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 1981 19,123 21.0% 20.9% 19.0% 1980 20,095 22.3% 22.2% 20.2% 1979 20,986 23.4% 23.3% 21.2% 1978 19,548 22.4% 22.5% 20.4% 1977 19,335 23.2% 23.4% 21.0% 1976 17,403 21.6% 21.9% 19.6% 1975 16,778 21.6% 21.8% 19.5% 1974 18,177 23.2% 23.2% 20.9% 1973 18,089 23.5% 23.5% 21.3% 1972 19,435 26.3% 26.3% 23.7% 1971 19,211 26.9% 26.9% 24.2% 1970 19,381 27.4% 27.3% 24.6% 1969 19,036 27.3% 27.0% 24.4% 1968 18,916 27.9% 27.8% 24.9% 1967 18,367 27.8% 27.9% 24.7% 1966 17,940 28.2% 28.0% 24.6% 1965 17,299 28.2% 28.4% 24.3% 1964 16,841 28.3% 28.8% 24.3% 1963 16,524 28.5% 29.1% 24.4% 1962 16,586 29.3% 29.8% 24.9% 1961 16,303 29.5% 30.1% 24.8% 1960 17,049 30.9% 31.4% 25.9% 1959 17,117 31.8% 32.1% 26.5% 1958 17,029 32.5% 33.1% 27.0% 1957 17,369 32.7% 32.8% 27.1% 1956 17,490 33.2% 33.3% 27.4% 1955 16,802 33.0% 33.1% 27.0% CRS-23 Percent of Wage Percent of Percent of Union Members Year and Salary Nonagricultural Employed (In 1000s) Workers Workers Workers 1954 17,022 34.8% 34.7% 28.3% 1953 16,948 33.8% 33.7% 27.7% 1952 15,892 32.3% 32.5% 26.4% 1951 15,946 32.8% 33.3% 26.6% 1950 14,267 30.4% 31.5% 24.2% 1949 14,282 31.6% 32.6% 24.8% 1948 14,319 31.2% 31.9% 24.5% 1947 14,787 33.6% 25.9% 1946 14,395 34.5% 26.1% 1945 14,322 35.4% 27.1% 1944 14,146 33.7% 26.2% 1943 13,213 31.0% 24.3% 1942 10,380 25.8% 19.3% 1941 10,201 27.9% 20.3% 1940 8,717 26.9% 18.3% 1939 8,763 28.6% 19.2% 1938 8,034 18.2% 1937 7,001 15.1% 1936 3,989 9.0% 1935 3,584 8.5% 1934 3,088 7.6% 1933 2,689 6.9% 1932 3,050 7.8% 1931 3,310 7.8% 1930 3,401 7.5% Sources: The estimates of union membership and the total number of persons employed for 1994- 2003 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 Union Employed Union Employed Members Labor Force Percent Union Members Labor Force Percent Union Total Year (1,000s) (1,000s) Members (1,000s) (1,000s) Members Employed Labor Force Men Women 2003 9,044 73,332 12.3% 6,732 64,404 10.5% 137,736 2002 9,360 72,903 12.8% 6,822 63,582 10.7% 136,485 2001 9,546 73,196 13.0% 6,769 63,737 10.6% 136,933 2000 9,664 73,305 13.2% 6,671 63,586 10.5% 136,891 1999 9,949 71,446 13.9% 6,528 62,042 10.5% 133,488 1998 9,850 70,693 13.9% 6,362 60,771 10.5% 131,463 1997 9,763 69,685 14.0% 6,347 59,873 10.6% 129,558 1996 9,859 68,207 14.5% 6,410 58,501 11.0% 126,708 1995 9,929 67,377 14.7% 6,430 57,523 11.2% 124,900 1994 10,096 66,451 15.2% 6,644 56,611 11.7% 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. CRS-25 Table A3. Union Membership in the United States by Age, 1994-2003 Union Employed Percent Union Employed Percent Union Employed Percent Members Labor Force Union Members Labor Force Union Members Labor Force Union Total Year (1,000s) (1,000s) Members (1,000s) (1,000s) Members (1,000s) (1,000s) Members Employed Labor Force 16-24 25-34 35-44 2003 966 19,340 5.0% 3,097 30,357 10.2% 4,308 34,942 12.3% 137,736 2002 996 19,668 5.1% 3,177 30,288 10.5% 4,465 35,252 12.7% 136,485 2001 1,028 20,082 5.1% 3,240 30,849 10.5% 4,711 36,057 13.1% 136,933 2000 1,009 20,405 4.9% 3,444 31,560 10.9% 4,704 36,412 12.9% 136,891 1999 1,110 20,047 5.5% 3,415 30,862 11.1% 4,918 36,743 13.4% 133,488 1998 1,014 19,595 5.2% 3,332 31,407 10.6% 5,013 36,269 13.8% 131,463 1997 968 19,033 5.1% 3,434 31,832 10.8% 4,987 35,913 13.9% 129,558 1996 991 18,619 5.3% 3,536 32,094 11.0% 5,132 35,084 14.6% 126,708 1995 1,022 18,856 5.4% 3,596 32,356 11.1% 5,254 34,240 15.3% 124,900 1994 1,125 18,931 5.9% 3,769 32,255 11.7% 5,405 33,589 16.1% 123,061 45-54 55-64 65 and Over 2003 4,848 31,918 15.2% 2,300 16,595 13.9% 258 4,584 5.6% 137,736 2002 5,028 31,304 16.1% 2,264 15,658 14.5% 253 4,315 5.9% 136,485 2001 5,057 31,074 16.3% 2,033 14,625 13.9% 246 4,246 5.8% 136,933 2000 4,910 30,351 16.2% 2,026 14,004 14.5% 241 4,159 5.8% 136,891 1999 4,881 28,654 17.0% 1,932 13,331 14.5% 221 3,850 5.7% 133,488 1998 4,737 27,616 17.2% 1,923 12,874 14.9% 193 3,702 5.2% 131,463 1997 4,645 26,739 17.4% 1,894 12,289 15.4% 182 3,752 4.9% 129,558 1996 4,626 25,522 18.1% 1,795 11,750 15.3% 189 3,639 5.2% 126,708 1995 4,483 24,359 18.4% 1,801 11,431 15.8% 203 3,658 5.6% 124,900 1994 4,418 23,354 18.9% 1,807 11,265 16.0% 215 3,667 5.9% 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. CRS-26 Table A4. Union Membership in the United States by Race, 1994-2003 Union Employed Percent Union Employed Percent Union Employed Percent Members Labor Force Union Members Labor Force Union Members Labor Force Union Total (1,000s) (1,000s) Members (1,000s) (1,000s) Members (1,000s) (1,000s) Members Employed Year Labor Force White Black Other 2003 12,535 114,233 11.0% 2,298 14,739 15.6% 943 8,764 10.8% 137,736 2002 12,988 114,048 11.4% 2,392 14,872 16.1% 802 7,565 10.6% 136,485 2001 13,170 114,489 11.5% 2,385 15,006 15.9% 760 7,439 10.2% 136,933 2000 13,111 114,422 11.5% 2,466 15,156 16.3% 757 7,313 10.4% 136,891 1999 13,349 112,275 11.9% 2,463 15,056 16.4% 665 6,157 10.8% 133,488 1998 13,118 110,936 11.8% 2,460 14,556 16.9% 633 5,972 10.6% 131,463 1997 13,088 109,847 11.9% 2,394 13,969 17.1% 627 5,742 10.9% 129,558 1996 13,232 107,801 12.3% 2,441 13,542 18.0% 596 5,364 11.1% 126,708 1995 13,149 106,491 12.3% 2,519 13,279 19.0% 691 5,130 13.5% 124,900 1994 13,515 105,195 12.8% 2,511 12,827 19.6% 714 5,039 14.2% 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 Union Employed Percent Union Employed Percent Members Labor Force Union Members Labor Force Union Total Year (1,000s) (1,000s) Members (1,000s) (1,000s) Members Employed Labor Force Hispanic Non-Hispanic 2003 1,712 17,314 9.9% 14,064 120,422 11.7% 137,736 2002 1,644 16,556 9.9% 14,539 119,929 12.1% 136,485 2001 1,692 16,183 10.5% 14,623 120,751 12.1% 136,933 2000 1,641 15,744 10.4% 14,693 121,147 12.1% 136,891 1999 1,525 13,719 11.1% 14,951 119,769 12.5% 133,488 1998 1,471 13,236 11.1% 14,741 118,228 12.5% 131,463 1997 1,407 12,724 11.1% 14,703 116,834 12.6% 129,558 1996 1,394 11,622 12.0% 14,875 115,085 12.9% 126,708 1995 1,357 11,135 12.2% 15,003 113,765 13.2% 124,900 1994 1,420 10,777 13.2% 15,321 112,284 13.6% 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 Union Employed Percent Union Employed Percent Union Employed Percent Members Labor Force Union Members Labor Force Union Members Labor Force Union Total Year (1,000s) (1,000s) Members (1,000s) (1,000s) Members (1,000s) (1,000s) Members Employed Labor Force Less than a High School Education High School Graduate 1-3 Years of College 2003 1,096 16,499 6.6% 5,008 41,417 12.1% 4,606 39,529 11.7% 137,736 2002 1,174 16,552 7.1% 5,330 41,543 12.8% 4,641 39,177 11.8% 136,485 2001 1,237 17,020 7.3% 5,404 42,018 12.9% 4,855 39,603 12.3% 136,933 2000 1,324 17,450 7.6% 5,534 42,580 13.0% 4,710 39,193 12.0% 136,891 1999 1,323 16,829 7.9% 5,621 41,999 13.4% 4,734 38,179 12.4% 133,488 1998 1,378 17,097 8.1% 5,612 41,718 13.5% 4,696 37,333 12.6% 131,463 1997 1,377 16,773 8.2% 5,762 41,812 13.8% 4,534 36,831 12.3% 129,558 1996 1,503 16,257 9.2% 5,845 40,772 14.3% 4,626 36,615 12.6% 126,708 1995 1,497 15,868 9.4% 5,950 40,489 14.7% 4,692 36,608 12.8% 124,900 1994 1,550 15,807 9.8% 6,245 40,712 15.3% 4,709 35,530 13.3% 123,061 Bachelor's Degree Advanced Degree 2003 2,994 26,859 11.1% 2,071 13,431 15.4% 137,736 2002 2,954 26,245 11.3% 2,084 12,968 16.1% 136,485 2001 2,837 25,603 11.1% 1,982 12,690 15.6% 136,933 2000 2,815 25,302 11.1% 1,950 12,366 15.8% 136,891 1999 2,841 24,494 11.6% 1,958 11,986 16.3% 133,488 1998 2,686 23,714 11.3% 1,839 11,601 15.9% 131,463 1997 2,653 23,082 11.5% 1,784 11,060 16.1% 129,558 1996 2,547 22,297 11.4% 1,748 10,767 16.2% 126,708 1995 2,469 21,362 11.6% 1,752 10,574 16.6% 124,900 1994 2,515 20,879 12.0% 1,721 10,134 17.0% 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. CRS-29 Table A7. Union Membership in the United States in the Private and Public Sectors, 1994-2003 Union Employed Percent Union Employed Percent Members Labor Force Union Members Labor Force Union Total Year (1,000s) (1,000s) Members (1,000s) (1,000s) Members Employed Labor Force Public Private 2003 7,324 19,710 37.2% 8,452 118,026 7.2% 137,736 2002 7,387 19,589 37.7% 8,795 116,896 7.5% 136,485 2001 7,095 19,308 36.7% 9,192 117,625 7.8% 136,933 2000 7,059 19,157 36.9% 9,254 117,734 7.9% 136,891 1999 7,058 18,938 37.3% 9,419 114,550 8.2% 133,488 1998 6,905 18,401 37.5% 9,306 113,062 8.2% 131,463 1997 6,747 18,147 37.2% 9,363 111,411 8.4% 129,558 1996 6,854 18,210 37.6% 9,415 108,497 8.7% 126,708 1995 6,927 18,358 37.7% 9,432 106,542 8.9% 124,900 1994 7,091 18,339 38.7% 9,649 104,722 9.2% 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. CRS-30 Table A8. Union Membership in the United States by Level of Government, 1994-2003 Union Employed Percent Union Employed Percent Union Employed Percent Union Total Members Labor Force Union Members Labor Force Union Members Labor Force Union Members, Employed Year (1,000s) (1,000s) Members (1,000s) (1,000s) Members (1,000s) (1,000s) Members Public Sector Labor Force, Federal Government State Government Local Government Public Sector 2003 1,004 3,247 30.9% 1,706 5,636 30.3% 4,614 10,827 42.6% 7,324 19,710 2002 1,070 3,297 32.5% 1,769 5,706 31.0% 4,547 10,585 43.0% 7,387 19,589 2001 1,033 3,317 31.2% 1,726 5,713 30.2% 4,336 10,278 42.2% 7,095 19,308 2000 1,027 3,275 31.4% 1,624 5,515 29.4% 4,409 10,367 42.5% 7,059 19,157 1999 1,047 3,264 32.1% 1,527 5,233 29.2% 4,484 10,440 42.9% 7,058 18,938 1998 1,105 3,269 33.8% 1,431 5,150 27.8% 4,370 9,982 43.8% 6,905 18,401 1997 1,030 3,217 32.0% 1,485 5,031 29.5% 4,232 9,899 42.7% 6,747 18,147 1996 1,040 3,284 31.7% 1,566 5,132 30.5% 4,249 9,795 43.4% 6,854 18,210 1995 1,117 3,447 32.4% 1,531 5,171 29.6% 4,280 9,739 43.9% 6,927 18,358 1994 1,181 3,518 33.6% 1,596 5,174 30.8% 4,314 9,647 44.7% 7,091 18,339 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. CRS-31 Table A9. Union Membership in the United States by Industry, 1994-2002 Employed Employed Employed Employed Employed Union Percent Union Percent Union Percent Union Percent Union Percent Labor Labor Labor Labor Labor Total Members Union Members Union Members Union Members Union Members Union Force Force Force Force Force Year (1,000s) 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 Farming, Forestry, Transportation, Force Mining Construction Manufacturing And Fisheries Communications and Utilities 2002 55 3,458 1.6% 39 491 8.0% 1,367 9,538 14.3% 2,510 18,100 13.9% 2,675 9,769 27.4% 136,485 2001 50 3,332 1.5% 63 565 11.1% 1,388 9,695 14.3% 2,717 19,295 14.1% 2,692 9,778 27.5% 136,933 2000 59 3,554 1.7% 56 527 10.6% 1,390 9,505 14.6% 2,881 20,271 14.2% 2,749 9,882 27.8% 136,891 1999 56 3,393 1.7% 58 557 10.5% 1,362 8,872 15.4% 3,037 20,186 15.0% 2,795 9,591 29.1% 133,488 1998 36 3,446 1.0% 73 624 11.7% 1,212 8,549 14.2% 3,137 20,597 15.2% 2,795 9,380 29.8% 131,463 1997 43 3,527 1.2% 84 637 13.2% 1,223 8,296 14.7% 3,270 20,795 15.7% 2,736 9,170 29.8% 129,558 1996 37 3,567 1.0% 76 568 13.4% 1,158 7,924 14.6% 3,412 20,504 16.6% 2,692 8,792 30.6% 126,708 1995 45 3,562 1.3% 84 649 12.9% 1,072 7,632 14.0% 3,469 20,505 16.9% 2,770 8,725 31.8% 124,900 1994 49 3,552 1.4% 102 681 15.0% 1,110 7,475 14.8% 3,533 20,170 17.5% 2,847 8,690 32.8% 123,061 Finance, Insurance, Private Household Retail and Wholesale Trade Professional Services Public Administration and Real Estate and Other Services 2002 1,158 28,151 4.1% 183 9,093 2.0% 599 16,836 3.6% 5,588 34,832 16.0% 2,010 6,217 32.3% 136,485 2001 1,232 28,112 4.4% 199 8,912 2.2% 692 17,249 4.0% 5,331 33,860 15.7% 1,950 6,134 31.8% 136,933 2000 1,261 28,278 4.5% 179 8,850 2.0% 665 16,961 3.9% 5,198 33,022 15.7% 1,898 6,039 31.4% 136,891 1999 1,291 27,591 4.7% 201 8,770 2.3% 638 16,177 3.9% 5,179 32,384 16.0% 1,860 5,966 31.2% 133,488 1998 1,295 27,192 4.8% 205 8,568 2.4% 578 15,716 3.7% 4,920 31,492 15.6% 1,960 5,899 33.2% 131,463 1997 1,329 26,759 5.0% 216 8,288 2.6% 524 15,418 3.4% 4,856 30,945 15.7% 1,827 5,724 31.9% 129,558 1996 1,343 26,636 5.0% 230 8,110 2.8% 589 14,755 4.0% 4,871 30,062 16.2% 1,861 5,790 32.1% 126,708 1995 1,410 26,130 5.4% 195 7,975 2.4% 571 14,060 4.1% 4,834 29,683 16.3% 1,909 5,978 31.9% 124,900 1994 1,392 25,618 5.4% 217 8,114 2.7% 613 13,854 4.4% 4,914 29,037 16.9% 1,963 5,870 33.4% 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. CRS-32 Table A10. Union Membership in the United States by Occupation, 1994-2002 Union Employed Percent Union Employed Percent Union Employed Percent Total Members Labor Force Union Members Labor Force Union Members Labor Force Union Employed Year (1,000s) (1,000s) Members (1,000s) (1,000s) Members (1,000s) (1,000s) Members Labor Managerial and Professional Technical, Sales, and Administrative Service Force 2002 4,812 42,546 11.3% 3,204 38,945 8.2% 2,264 19,250 11.8% 136,485 2001 4,658 42,162 11.0% 3,208 39,573 8.1% 2,277 18,752 12.1% 136,933 2000 4,566 41,223 11.1% 3,122 39,891 7.8% 2,242 18,513 12.1% 136,891 1999 4,594 40,351 11.4% 3,191 38,851 8.2% 2,151 18,089 11.9% 133,488 1998 4,252 38,845 10.9% 3,239 38,754 8.4% 2,209 17,895 12.3% 131,463 1997 4,208 37,738 11.2% 3,158 38,342 8.2% 2,141 17,491 12.2% 129,558 1996 4,196 36,437 11.5% 3,231 37,735 8.6% 2,103 17,227 12.2% 126,708 1995 4,116 35,187 11.7% 3,364 37,530 9.0% 2,112 16,947 12.5% 124,900 1994 4,102 33,772 12.1% 3,465 37,334 9.3% 2,222 16,909 13.1% 123,061 Precision Production, Craft, and Repair Operators, Fabricators, and Laborers Farming, Forestry, and Fishing 2002 2,570 14,587 17.6% 3,243 17,674 18.3% 89 3,484 2.6% 136,485 2001 2,730 15,139 18.0% 3,346 17,985 18.6% 96 3,321 2.9% 136,933 2000 2,800 15,107 18.5% 3,509 18,683 18.8% 95 3,474 2.7% 136,891 1999 2,800 14,540 19.3% 3,627 18,265 19.9% 113 3,392 3.3% 133,488 1998 2,708 14,364 18.9% 3,713 18,173 20.4% 90 3,432 2.6% 131,463 1997 2,723 14,112 19.3% 3,791 18,393 20.6% 88 3,483 2.5% 129,558 1996 2,648 13,578 19.5% 4,000 18,182 22.0% 92 3,548 2.6% 126,708 1995 2,692 13,504 19.9% 3,983 18,106 22.0% 91 3,626 2.5% 124,900 1994 2,716 13,478 20.2% 4,132 17,946 23.0% 103 3,623 2.8% 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. CRS-33 Table A11. Union Membership in the United States by Region, 1994-2003 Employed Employed Employed Employed Employed Union Percent Union Percent Union Percent Union Percent Union Percent Total Labor Labor Labor Labor Labor Members Union Members Union Members Union Members Union Members Union Employed Year (1,000s) 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 Pacific Mountain West South Central New England 2003 556 7,863 7.1% 3,326 21,786 15.3% 621 9,210 6.7% 763 14,955 5.1% 884 7,162 12.3% 137,736 2002 619 7,720 8.0% 3,338 21,187 15.8% 646 9,045 7.1% 782 14,557 5.4% 931 7,261 12.8% 136,485 2001 619 7,738 8.0% 3,137 21,441 14.6% 702 9,021 7.8% 839 14,646 5.7% 910 7,206 12.6% 136,933 2000 676 7,921 8.5% 3,070 21,535 14.3% 729 8,944 8.2% 820 14,654 5.6% 921 7,172 12.8% 136,891 1999 641 7,825 8.2% 3,203 21,193 15.1% 727 8,530 8.5% 867 14,589 5.9% 977 6,917 14.1% 133,488 1998 644 7,811 8.2% 3,105 20,705 15.0% 664 8,314 8.0% 815 14,312 5.7% 950 6,875 13.8% 131,463 1997 628 7,632 8.2% 2,994 20,192 14.8% 692 8,140 8.5% 826 13,978 5.9% 901 6,802 13.3% 129,558 1996 681 7,539 9.0% 2,938 19,570 15.0% 660 7,790 8.5% 871 13,703 6.4% 895 6,661 13.4% 126,708 1995 706 7,453 9.5% 3,092 19,230 16.1% 694 7,645 9.1% 823 13,472 6.1% 963 6,585 14.6% 124,900 1994 739 7,334 10.1% 3,130 19,066 16.4% 684 7,349 9.3% 852 13,131 6.5% 926 6,532 14.2% 123,061 South Atlantic East North Central West North Central Middle Atlantic 2003 1,572 25,465 6.2% 3,478 22,222 15.7% 1,107 10,273 10.8% 3,467 18,801 18.4% 137,736 2002 1,515 24,954 6.1% 3,618 22,445 16.1% 1,137 10,305 11.0% 3,596 19,011 18.9% 136,485 2001 1,602 25,083 6.4% 3,682 22,745 16.2% 1,169 10,257 11.4% 3,656 18,796 19.4% 136,933 2000 1,627 25,165 6.5% 3,715 22,733 16.3% 1,158 10,074 11.5% 3,618 18,692 19.4% 136,891 1999 1,588 24,134 6.6% 3,729 22,327 16.7% 1,211 9,900 12.2% 3,533 18,074 19.5% 133,488 1998 1,582 23,664 6.7% 3,791 21,937 17.3% 1,140 9,891 11.5% 3,520 17,954 19.6% 131,463 1997 1,545 23,294 6.6% 3,738 21,800 17.1% 1,168 9,761 12.0% 3,617 17,960 20.1% 129,558 1996 1,607 22,786 7.1% 3,824 21,504 17.8% 1,197 9,657 12.4% 3,596 17,498 20.6% 126,708 1995 1,543 22,465 6.9% 3,746 21,307 17.6% 1,149 9,473 12.1% 3,644 17,269 21.1% 124,900 1994 1,694 22,103 7.7% 3,789 20,967 18.1% 1,135 9,269 12.2% 3,792 17,310 21.9% 123,061 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. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL32553