Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE CHANGING FACE OF U.S. LABOR, 1983–2008
John Schmitt and Kris Warner
We review annual, nationally representative data from the Current Population Survey for the years 1983(the earliest year for which comparable data are available) to 2008 on union members and workers coveredby union contracts. Over the period, the composition of the unionized workforce changed dramatically. In1983, more than half of all union workers were white men, few union workers had a college degree, andalmost one-third were in manufacturing. By 2008, over 45 percent of unionized workers were women and,if at current growth rates, women will be a majority of union workers before 2020. Over one-third of unionworkers in 2008 had a four-year college degree or more—a higher percentage than for the workforce as awhole. And, in 2008, only about one-in-ten union workers was in manufacturing, with almost half in thepublic sector. Latinos and Asia-Pacific Americans, two groups that include substantial numbers of immi-grants, are the fastest growing ethnic groups in the labor movement, though both are less represented inorganized labor than they are in the overall workforce.
wusa_
263..280
Introduction
In 1983—the earliest year for which comparable data are available—overhalf (51.7 percent) of the unionized workforce were white men.1 Today, whitemen account for only about 38 percent of union workers. In the interveningyears, the shares of women, Latinos, and Asia-Pacific Americans (APA) in thetotal union workforce have surged, while African-Americans have held a roughlysteady share of the union workforce.2 Over the same period, union workers havealso grown older and better educated, and shifted out of manufacturing and intoservices, particularly in the public sector. Some of these developments reflectchanges in the broader U.S. workforce, which today has more women, moreLatinos, more APAs, and is also older and more educated than in the past. Someof these trends, however, respond to particular issues affecting unions and theindustries and occupations where they were historically concentrated.
In this paper, we review consistent, nationally representative data for the lastquarter century on the composition of the unionized work force.3 For keydemographic groups, we first provide a detailed picture of current union com-position and document how these patterns have changed since 1983, when thegovernment first began collecting systematic annual data on workers’ unionstatus. We then compare these trends for union workers with those in the U.S.
Workingusa
The Journal of Labor and Society
WorkingUSA: The Journal of Labor and Society · 1089-7011 · Volume 13 · June 2010 · pp. 263–279© Copyright the Authors
Journal Compilation © 2010 Immanuel Ness and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
workforce as a whole. Finally, for each group, we present trends in the union-ization rate (the share of workers in each group who is a member of, or repre-sented by, a union) over the period 1983–2008.4
Unionized Workers Today
Gender
Women are a large and growing segment of the union workforce. In 2008,they accounted for 45.2 percent of all union workers compared with 35.4 percentin 1983. If current trends continue, women will be a majority of the unionworkforce before 2020. (See Figure 1)
The rise in the female share in the unionized workforce is substantially morethan would have been expected if the unionized workforce simply followed thetrends in the broader workforce. Between 1983 and 2008, the share of women inthe total workforce rose from 45.8 percent to 48.3 percent, an increase of 2.6percentage points. Over the same period, women’s share in the union workforceincreased by 9.8 percentage points, more than three times the increase in theirshare in the total workforce.
Despite the rise over the last quarter century in women’s share of unionizedworkers, the unionization rate for women—the share of all women employeeswho are a member of a union or represented by a union at work—fell sharply. In1983, 18.0 percent of women were unionized; by 2008, only 12.9 percent wereunionized. Over the same period, however, the decline in the unionization ratewas much steeper for men: from 27.7 percent in 1983 to 14.5 percent in 2008.(See Table 1)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Perc
ent
Union
EmployeesTrend, Union
Figure 1. Women, Share of All Employees and All Union Workers, 1983–2008. Source: Authors’ Analysisof Center for Economic and Policy Research Extract of Current Population Survey Outgoing
Rotation Group Data.
264 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
Tab
le1.
Uni
oniz
atio
nR
ates
Gen
der
Rac
e/et
hnic
itya
Age
grou
p
Mal
eFe
mal
eW
hite
Bla
ckL
atin
oO
ther
APA
16–2
425
–34
35–4
445
–54
55–6
465
+
1983
27.7
18.0
22.2
31.7
24.2
21.8
11.1
23.1
28.7
30.5
30.4
12.0
1984
25.6
16.8
20.5
29.2
22.8
21.4
9.5
21.2
27.3
28.7
27.7
11.1
1985
24.3
15.8
19.5
27.3
21.2
19.0
8.6
19.4
25.6
27.9
27.4
10.5
1986
23.7
15.5
19.0
26.6
20.0
19.6
8.4
18.3
25.3
27.3
26.5
10.5
1987
22.9
14.9
18.3
25.3
19.1
19.0
7.8
18.0
24.2
25.9
25.3
10.9
1988
22.5
15.0
18.1
25.9
17.8
19.0
7.5
17.0
24.0
26.5
25.7
10.3
1989
21.8
14.8
17.8
25.2
16.8
17.6
18.1
7.4
16.5
23.6
25.4
24.4
10.7
1990
21.3
14.9
17.7
24.2
16.4
18.3
18.7
7.7
16.1
22.8
24.9
24.3
10.3
1991
21.3
14.8
17.4
24.1
17.6
18.0
18.4
7.7
16.0
22.3
24.6
23.4
9.8
1992
20.5
14.9
17.1
24.0
16.9
17.0
17.1
6.9
15.2
21.5
25.4
23.0
10.4
1993
20.1
15.1
17.1
23.6
16.6
15.8
15.9
6.8
14.8
21.0
25.7
22.9
9.9
1994
19.6
15.1
16.8
22.9
15.9
17.7
18.0
7.1
14.5
20.8
24.8
22.8
10.3
1995
18.8
14.3
16.1
22.2
14.8
16.9
17.0
6.6
13.7
19.7
24.1
21.5
9.4
1996
18.4
13.8
15.8
21.2
14.6
13.8
13.5
6.3
13.5
18.7
23.6
20.8
8.4
1997
17.7
13.4
15.4
20.1
13.5
13.5
13.8
6.1
13.2
17.7
22.4
20.7
8.2
1998
17.4
13.1
15.1
19.7
13.2
13.4
13.3
6.0
12.7
17.3
22.1
20.2
8.3
1999
17.4
13.0
15.1
19.2
13.1
13.9
14.0
6.3
13.2
16.7
21.8
19.4
9.1
2000
16.5
13.1
14.7
18.9
12.8
12.6
12.9
5.7
13.1
16.3
20.7
19.6
9.7
2001
16.4
13.1
14.7
18.7
12.5
12.8
13.0
6.1
12.7
16.4
20.6
18.6
9.1
2002
16.0
13.0
14.4
18.8
12.0
13.2
13.1
5.9
12.6
15.7
20.2
19.0
9.1
2003
15.6
12.9
14.2
18.1
11.9
13.1
13.1
5.9
12.3
15.4
19.3
18.7
8.8
2004
15.0
12.5
13.9
16.6
11.4
12.8
12.9
5.3
11.8
15.1
18.7
18.4
9.0
2005
14.7
12.6
13.7
16.5
11.5
12.6
12.5
5.3
11.8
14.9
18.0
18.0
10.1
2006
14.0
12.2
13.3
16.0
10.7
12.0
11.9
5.0
11.1
14.3
17.5
17.6
9.5
2007
14.1
12.4
13.5
15.7
10.8
12.4
12.3
5.5
11.4
14.4
17.1
17.7
9.6
2008
14.5
12.9
14.0
15.5
11.7
12.4
12.0
5.7
11.8
14.7
17.6
18.4
10.2
265SCHMITT AND WARNER: CHANGING FACE OF LABOR
Tab
le1.
Con
tinue
d
Edu
catio
nle
vel
Imm
igra
ntR
egio
n
Les
sth
anhi
ghsc
hool
Hig
hsc
hool
Som
eco
llege
Col
lege
and
high
erN
oYe
sN
orth
east
Mid
wes
tSo
uth
Wes
tP
acifi
c
1983
23.3
25.7
19.9
22.7
30.7
26.6
15.2
17.1
27.0
1984
21.1
23.8
18.8
21.2
28.6
25.3
13.3
15.5
25.9
1985
19.2
22.8
17.7
20.4
27.0
24.0
12.5
14.8
24.7
1986
18.5
22.1
17.4
20.1
25.7
23.5
12.4
14.4
24.3
1987
16.8
21.4
17.2
19.6
25.5
23.2
11.3
13.4
23.3
1988
16.2
21.3
16.5
19.9
24.7
22.7
11.7
13.1
22.9
1989
15.6
20.7
16.4
19.6
24.4
22.1
11.2
12.3
22.9
1990
14.6
20.4
17.0
19.0
24.9
21.7
10.8
12.4
22.3
1991
14.6
19.9
17.2
18.9
25.0
21.4
10.9
12.7
21.9
1992
13.4
19.7
16.5
18.7
23.7
21.1
10.9
12.9
22.0
1993
13.0
19.3
16.6
18.9
23.7
20.8
10.9
12.9
21.5
1994
11.7
18.9
16.9
18.8
17.7
15.1
24.0
20.3
10.7
13.1
21.5
1995
11.3
18.0
16.1
18.2
16.9
14.1
23.4
19.7
9.8
12.6
20.7
1996
10.7
17.4
15.8
17.8
16.5
13.6
22.3
19.7
9.7
11.7
19.5
1997
9.7
16.5
15.3
17.7
16.0
13.1
21.8
19.0
9.1
11.7
19.2
1998
9.2
16.0
15.4
17.3
15.8
12.1
21.4
18.7
8.9
10.7
19.0
1999
9.1
15.9
15.2
17.4
15.6
12.6
21.4
18.3
8.9
11.1
19.1
2000
8.8
15.6
14.7
16.8
15.3
12.0
20.9
18.0
8.7
10.4
18.3
2001
8.3
15.4
14.9
16.7
15.2
12.0
21.0
17.9
8.6
10.0
18.4
2002
8.0
15.2
14.3
16.8
15.1
11.4
20.4
17.3
8.4
9.3
19.3
2003
7.5
14.5
14.3
16.5
14.8
11.3
19.9
17.0
8.2
9.1
18.9
2004
7.4
13.8
13.6
16.5
14.4
10.8
20.0
16.4
7.6
9.2
18.4
2005
7.5
13.6
13.4
16.3
14.1
11.1
20.3
16.1
7.4
9.2
18.3
2006
6.3
13.0
13.0
15.8
13.7
10.3
19.5
15.5
7.0
10.1
17.6
2007
6.3
13.0
13.1
16.1
13.8
10.3
19.9
15.0
7.1
10.4
18.4
2008
7.2
13.2
13.5
16.5
14.2
11.2
20.3
15.5
7.2
10.7
19.9
Not
es:A
utho
rs’a
naly
sis
ofC
ente
rfo
rE
cono
mic
and
Pol
icy
Res
earc
hex
trac
tofC
urre
ntP
opul
atio
nSu
rvey
Out
goin
gR
otat
ion
Gro
upda
ta,1
983–
2008
.198
3is
the
earl
iest
year
for
whi
chco
nsis
tent
data
are
avai
labl
e;19
89is
the
earl
iest
year
with
cons
iste
ntra
ce/e
thni
city
data
onA
sian
Pac
ific
Am
eric
ans
(APA
);19
94is
the
first
year
with
data
onim
mig
rant
stat
us.T
he“o
ther
”ra
ce/e
thni
city
cate
gory
ispr
imar
ily,b
utno
tex
clus
ivel
y,N
ativ
eA
mer
ican
s.
266 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
Race/Ethnicity
Over the last quarter century, the share of whites in the union workforce hasfallen sharply; meanwhile, the representation of Latinos and APAs has increasedsubstantially, and the share of African-Americans among all union workers hasbeen roughly unchanged.
In 2008, 69.1 percent of union workers were white, 13.0 percent were black,12.2 percent were Latino, and 4.6 percent were APA, with the remainder fromother racial or ethnic groups (see Figure 2). Between 1983 and 2008, the repre-sentation of whites among all union workers fell 9.1 percentage points (from 78.2percent in 1983). Over the same period, the increase in the Latino share (up 6.4percentage points) accounted for about two-thirds of the drop in the representa-tion of whites in the total union workforce, while the increase in the APA share (up2.1 percentage points between 1989 and 2008), accounted for about one-fourth ofthis drop. Over the last 26 years, the share of African-Americans among unionworkers has fluctuated in a narrow range between 13 percent and 15 percent.
The large increase in the share of Latino workers in the union workforcemirrors (though trails behind) the increase in Latinos in the overall workforce.(See Table 2) In 1983, Latinos were about equally represented in the union andthe overall workforces, accounting for 5.8 percent of unionized workers and 5.6percent of all workers. By 2008, Latinos had grown to about 14.4 percent of theoverall workforce, but only 12.2 percent of unionized workers.
The rising share of APA workers in unions also lagged somewhat behindtheir increase in the overall workforce. In 1989, APAs had identical shares in theunionized workforce and the overall workforce (both 2.5 percent). In 2008, APAworkers were 5.2 percent of the overall workforce, but only 4.6 percent of theunionized workforce.
69.1
78.2
13.0
13.7
12.2
5.8 2.4
5.7
1007550250
2008
1983
Percent
White Black Latino Other
Figure 2. Union Workers, Share by Race/Ethnicity, 1983 and 2008. Source: Authors’ Analysis of Centerfor Economic and Policy Research Extract of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group Data.
267SCHMITT AND WARNER: CHANGING FACE OF LABOR
Tab
le2.
Com
posi
tion
ofA
llE
mpl
oyee
san
dof
All
Uni
onW
orke
rs,1
983–
2008
(Per
cent
)
1983
1989
1994
2008
Cha
nge
(p.p
.)(lo
nges
tpe
riod
)
All
emps
.A
llun
ion
All
emps
.A
llun
ion
All
emps
.A
llun
ion
All
emps
.A
llun
ion
Em
ps.
Uni
on
Wom
en45
.835
.447
.137
.747
.641
.148
.345
.22.
69.
8M
en54
.264
.653
.062
.352
.458
.951
.754
.8-2
.6-9
.8W
hite
81.9
78.2
78.4
75.3
76.3
73.6
67.9
69.1
-14.
0-9
.1B
lack
10.1
13.7
10.9
14.9
11.2
14.7
11.5
13.0
1.5
-0.7
Lat
ino
5.6
5.8
7.6
6.9
9.3
8.4
14.4
12.2
8.8
6.4
Oth
er2.
52.
43.
12.
93.
33.
36.
35.
73.
73.
3A
sia-
Pac
ific
Am
eric
ans
——
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.6
5.2
4.6
2.7
2.1
Age 16
–24
21.9
10.4
18.5
7.4
16.9
6.9
14.5
6.0
-7.4
-4.5
25–3
429
.429
.230
.226
.827
.422
.922
.619
.4-6
.8-9
.835
–44
21.2
26.1
24.5
31.1
27.0
32.2
23.0
24.6
1.8
-1.5
45–5
414
.919
.515
.721
.518
.225
.923
.029
.48.
19.
955
–64
10.4
13.6
9.0
11.8
8.3
10.8
13.5
18.1
3.1
4.5
65+
2.2
1.1
2.2
1.3
2.2
1.3
3.5
2.6
1.3
1.4
Les
sth
anH
S18
.318
.315
.913
.411
.98.
09.
44.
9-8
.9-1
3.4
Hig
hSc
hool
37.2
41.1
36.1
40.3
34.5
37.4
29.9
28.7
-7.3
-12.
4So
me
colle
ge23
.620
.225
.222
.329
.228
.229
.428
.95.
88.
7C
olle
ge+
20.9
20.4
22.8
24.0
24.5
26.4
31.3
37.5
10.4
17.1
Imm
igra
nt—
——
—9.
78.
415
.512
.65.
84.
2M
anuf
actu
ring
22.8
29.7
20.8
25.8
18.6
20.9
12.4
11.0
-10.
4-1
8.7
Pub
licse
ctor
17.6
34.4
16.9
39.6
17.0
43.5
16.5
48.9
-1.1
14.4
Nor
thea
st22
.029
.021
.127
.819
.526
.918
.627
.4-3
.4-1
.6M
idw
est
25.2
28.8
24.9
29.7
24.6
28.6
22.8
25.7
-2.4
-3.1
Sout
h33
.221
.733
.820
.534
.821
.435
.918
.72.
7-2
.9W
est
5.2
3.8
5.2
3.4
5.8
4.4
7.1
5.6
2.0
1.7
Pac
ific
14.4
16.7
15.0
18.6
15.2
18.7
15.6
22.7
1.2
5.9
Not
es:S
eeno
tes
toTa
ble
1.T
hela
sttw
oco
lum
nssh
owth
epe
rcen
tage
-poi
ntch
ange
betw
een
2008
and
the
earl
iest
peri
odfo
rw
hich
data
are
avai
labl
e.
268 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
Throughout the entire period, African-American workers were a largershare of union workers than they were of all workers. The higher relativeunionization rate for African-Americans, however, has fallen steadily since atleast the early 1980s. In 1983, African-Americans were only 10.1 percent of theworkforce, but 13.7 percent of all union workers; by 2008, African-Americanswere a slightly higher share of the overall workforce (11.5 percent) and a slightlylower share of union workers (13.0 percent).
Since 1983, the unionization rate has dropped dramatically for all racialand ethnic groups. (See Table 1 above.) Despite the rising share of Latinos andAPA workers, and the steady share of African-Americans in the union work-force, the declines in unionization rates have been steeper for these groupsthan for whites. Between 1983 and 2008, the unionization rate for whites fell8.2 percentage points (from 22.2 percent to 14.0 percent). Over the sameperiod, the unionization rate declined 16.2 percentage points for African-Americans (from 31.7 percent to 15.5 percent), 12.5 percentage points forLatinos (from 24.2 percent to 11.7 percent), and 9.4 percentage points forother workers (from 21.8 percent to 12.4 percent). For APA workers, union-ization rates declined from 18.1 percent in 1989 (the earliest consistent dataavailable) to 12.0 percent in 2008.
Race/Ethnicity and Gender
In 1983, the majority (51.7 percent) of all union workers was white men; by2008, white men were only 38.1 percent of the unionized workforce. In the mostrecent data, white women were the second largest group (31.0 percent) of unionworkers, followed by Latino men (7.4 percent), black women (6.6 percent), blackmen (6.4 percent), Latino women (4.8 percent), APA men (2.2 percent), and APAwomen (2.3 percent) (see Table 3).
The groups whose share in the unionized workforce increased most over thelast quarter century were white women (up 4.6 percentage points), Latino men(up 3.6 percentage points), and Latino women (up 2.8 percentage points). From1989, when consistent data on APA workers became available, to 2008, the shareof APA women increased 1.2 percentage points and APA men’s share rose 0.9percentage points. The change from 1983–2008 for African-American womenwas smaller (up 0.7 percentage points) and for African-American men wasnegative (down 1.4 percentage points). The only group that experienced a largedrop in their share in the labor movement was white men (down 13.6 percentagepoints).
Among whites and Latinos, men outnumber women in the unionized work-force. In 2008, white men were 38.1 percent of all union workers compared with31.0 percent for white women; Latino men were 7.4 percent of union workerscompared with 4.8 percent for Latino women. Among black and APA workers,however, there are slightly more women than men. APA men were 2.2 percentof union workers compared with 2.3 percent for APA women. Black men were6.4 percent of union workers compared with 6.6 percent for black women.
269SCHMITT AND WARNER: CHANGING FACE OF LABOR
Tab
le3.
Uni
onW
orke
rsby
Rac
ean
dG
ende
r,19
83–2
008
(Per
cent
ofal
lUni
onW
orke
rs)a
Whi
tem
enW
hite
wom
enB
lack
men
Bla
ckw
omen
Lat
ino
men
Lat
ino
wom
enO
ther
men
Oth
erw
omen
APA
men
APA
wom
en
1983
51.7
26.5
7.7
6.0
3.8
2.0
1.4
1.0
1984
51.1
26.3
7.9
6.2
4.0
2.0
1.4
1.1
1985
50.4
26.2
7.7
6.3
4.8
2.1
1.5
1.0
1986
49.9
26.3
7.9
6.2
4.7
2.3
1.5
1.2
1987
49.4
26.4
7.8
6.4
4.9
2.3
1.6
1.2
1988
48.5
26.7
8.2
6.6
4.7
2.3
1.6
1.3
1989
48.1
27.2
8.0
6.9
4.5
2.4
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.1
1990
47.4
28.1
7.9
6.5
4.6
2.5
1.7
1.4
1.3
1.2
1991
46.8
28.0
8.0
6.5
4.8
2.9
1.8
1.3
1.5
1.2
1992
45.8
28.9
7.7
7.0
5.0
2.6
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.3
1993
45.4
29.5
7.6
7.0
4.8
2.9
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.2
1994
43.9
29.7
7.8
6.9
5.4
3.0
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.2
1995
44.5
29.1
7.8
7.3
5.3
3.1
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.1
1996
44.3
28.9
7.7
7.0
5.4
3.3
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.3
1997
44.1
28.7
7.5
7.1
5.7
3.2
2.0
1.7
1.7
1.5
1998
43.7
28.5
7.9
7.0
5.7
3.4
2.1
1.7
1.7
1.5
1999
43.6
28.5
7.8
6.9
5.8
3.5
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.7
2000
42.1
29.4
7.5
7.4
5.9
3.8
2.2
1.7
1.8
1.6
2001
42.2
29.4
7.4
7.4
5.8
3.9
2.3
1.8
1.9
1.6
2002
41.5
29.8
7.4
7.5
5.7
3.9
2.4
1.9
2.0
1.6
2003
40.0
29.6
7.1
7.3
6.7
4.3
2.8
2.4
2.2
2.0
2004
40.1
30.1
6.8
6.8
6.6
4.4
3.0
2.4
2.4
2.0
2005
39.3
30.1
6.7
7.0
6.9
4.6
2.8
2.6
2.3
2.1
2006
39.2
29.9
6.8
7.2
6.8
4.7
2.7
2.7
2.2
2.3
2007
38.3
30.6
6.8
6.8
7.0
4.8
2.9
2.8
2.4
2.4
2008
38.1
31.0
6.4
6.6
7.4
4.8
2.9
2.8
2.2
2.3
Dat
afo
rth
eA
sia-
Pac
ific
Am
eric
anca
tego
ry,
whi
chbe
gan
tobe
colle
cted
in19
89,
isin
clud
edin
the
othe
rca
tego
ryfo
ral
lye
ars.
Num
bers
will
sum
to10
0pe
rcen
tif
Asi
a-P
acifi
cA
mer
ican
isex
clud
ed.
270 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
Between 1983 and 2008, the unionization rate for all eight gender and racegroups declined. The group that experienced the largest drop was African-American men, who saw their unionization rate fall 19.1 percentage points, from35.9 percent in 1983 to 16.8 percent in 2008. The decline for Latino men wasthe next largest (down 15.0 percentage points, from 27.0 percent in 1983 to 12.0percent in 2008), followed by African-American women (down 13.0 percentagepoints, from 27.5 percent to 14.5 percent), white men (down 11.9 percentagepoints, from 27.0 to 15.1 percent), and APA men (down 7.9 percentage points,from 19.2 percent to 11.3 percent between 1989 and 2008). Rates also fell forLatino women (down 8.9 percentage points, from 20.1 percent to 11.2 percent)and APA women (down 4.1 percentage points, from 16.9 percent to 12.8 percentbetween 1989 and 2008). The group with the smallest decrease in unionizationwas white women whose unionization rate fell only 3.7 percentage points (from16.5 percent in 1983 to 12.8 percent in 2008). For all race and ethnic groups, thedecline in unionization rates between 1983 and 2008 was consistently larger inpercentage-point terms for men than it was for women.
Age
The unionized workforce is significantly older now than it was in the early1980s (though so is the overall workforce—see below). In 2008, the typical5
union worker was 45 years old—seven years older than the typical union workerin 1983, who was 38.
Since 1983, the representation of younger workers in the unionized work-force has dropped sharply. The share of 16–24-year-olds in the total unionworkforce has fallen 4.5 percentage points (from 10.4 percent in 1983 to 6.0percent in 2008) and the share of 25–34-year-olds is down 9.8 percentage points(from 29.2 percent to 19.4 percent). The age group that experienced the biggestincrease was 45–54-year-olds (up 9.9 percentage points, to 29.4 percent in 2008).The share of older union workers also increased: up 4.5 percentage points to18.1 percent for 55–64 year olds and up 1.4 percentage points to 2.6 percent forworkers 65 and older. (See Figure 3)
Over the same period, the overall workforce has also grown substantiallyolder. In 1983, the typical worker, regardless of union status, was 34 years old; in2008, the typical worker was 41 years old. Younger workers were a much smallershare of the overall workforce in 2008 than they were in 1983. The 16–24year-old group declined from 21.9 percent of all workers in 1983 to 14.5 percentin 2008; over the same period, 25–34 year olds fell from 29.4 percent of workersto 22.6 percent of workers. The 45–54-year-old group saw the biggest increasein representation in the overall workforce, rising from 14.9 percent of allworkers in 1983 to 23.0 percent in 2008. The share of 55–64 year olds (up 3.1percentage points to 13.5 percent in 2008) and workers 65 and older (up 1.3percentage points to 3.5 percent) also increased.
Unionization rates increase steadily with age before dropping off sharply forworkers 65 and older (see Table 1 above). In 2008, only 5.7 percent of 16–24-
271SCHMITT AND WARNER: CHANGING FACE OF LABOR
year-olds were unionized (down from 11.1 percent in 1983). For 25–34–year-oldworkers, the unionization rate was 11.8 percent in 2008 (down from 23.1 percentin 1983); for 35–44-year-olds, unionization was 14.7 percent in 2008 (down from28.7 percent in 1983); for 45–54-year-olds, 17.6 percent (down from 30.5percent in 1983). The most heavily unionized age group in 2008 was 55–64-year-olds—18.4 percent (down from 30.4 percent in 1983). Workers 65 andolder are less likely than workers of other ages (except those 16–24) to beunionized—10.2 percent (down from 12.0 percent).
Education
Unionized workers have much more formal education today than they did inthe early 1980s. In 1983, union workers were slightly less educated than theoverall workforce. By 2008, union workers were slightly more educated than theoverall workforce.
In 2008, 37.5 percent of union workers had a four-year college degree ormore. Unionized women, a group that includes an important share of teachersand nurses, were even more likely (49.4 percent) to have a four-year collegedegree or more (see Figure 4A). Union men were substantially less likely (27.7percent) to have a four-year college degree or more. (See Figure 4B) The largestgroups of union workers are those with some college but no four-year degree(28.9 percent in 2008) or a high school diploma (28.7 percent). In 2008, only 4.9percent of union workers had less than a high school education compared to 9.4
6.0
10.4
19.4
29.2
24.6
26.1
29.4
19.5
18.1
13.6
2.6
1.1
0015705520
2008
1983
Percent
16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Figure 3. Union Workers, Share by Age Group, 1983 and 2008. Source: Authors’ Analysis of Center forEconomic and Policy Research Extract of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group Data.
272 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
percent of all workers in 2008 and to 18.3 percent of union workers with lessthan a high school diploma in 1983.
Between 1983 and 2008, the unionization rate has fallen across all educationlevels (see Table 1 above). The pattern of unionization by education level,however, has almost inverted since the early 1980s. In 1983, less-educatedworkers were more likely to be unionized—23.3 percent of workers with lessthan a high school degree and 25.7 percent of workers with a high school degree
3.6
14.3
21.2
37.4
25.9
18.9
49.4
29.4
0015705520
2008
1983
Percent
Less Than High School High School Some College College and Higher
6.1
20.6
34.9
43.1
31.4
21.0
27.7
15.4
0015705520
2008
1983
Percent
Less Than High School High School Some College College and Higher
Figure 4. (A) Female Union Workers, Share by Education Level, 1983 and 2008. Source: Authors’Analysis of Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) Extract of Current Population Survey
Outgoing Rotation Group Data. (B) Male Union Workers, Share by Education Level, 1983 and 2008.Source: Authors’ Analysis of CEPR Extract of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group Data.
273SCHMITT AND WARNER: CHANGING FACE OF LABOR
compared with 19.9 percent of workers with some college and 22.7 percent ofworkers with a college degree or more. By 2008, the unionization rate forworkers with less than a high school degree had collapsed to 7.2 percent, and therate for high-school-educated workers (13.2 percent) was lower than the rate forthose with some college (13.5 percent) and a college degree or more (16.5percent).
Immigrant Status
In 2008, 12.6 percent of union workers were immigrants, up from 8.4percent in 1994, the earliest year for which the Current Population Surveycollected information on workers’ immigrant status (see Figure 5). Immigrantswere 15.5 percent of the total workforce in 2008, up from 9.7 percent in 1994.These data suggest that the rise in immigrant representation in the unionizedworkforce has been substantial, but has trailed behind the growth of immigrantsin the overall workforce (see Table 1 above).
Immigrant workers are less likely to be unionized than U.S.-born workers.In 2008, about 11.2 percent of immigrant workers were in a union or repre-sented by a union compared with 14.2 percent of U.S.-born workers (see Table 1above).
Manufacturing
In 2008, just over one-in-ten union workers (11.0 percent) was in manufac-turing, down from almost three-in-ten (29.7 percent) in 1983. (See Figure 6)The decline in the share of manufacturing workers in the unionized workforce
0
5
10
15
20
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Perc
ent Employees
Union
Figure 5. Immigrants, Share of All Employees and All Union Workers, 1994–2008. Source: Authors’Analysis of Center for Economic and Policy Research Extract of Current Population Survey Outgoing
Rotation Group Data.
274 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
has been more rapid than the decline in manufacturing in the overall economy.In 1983, about 22.8 percent of the total workforce was in manufacturing, fallingto 12.4 percent in 2008.
Traditionally, the manufacturing sector has been more heavily unionizedthan the rest of the country, but from the mid-2000s, manufacturing has beenless unionized than the overall economy. (See Figure 7) In 2008, 12.2 percent ofmanufacturing workers were unionized compared with a 13.9 percent unioniza-tion rate for workers in the rest of the economy. By comparison, in 1983, 30.3percent of manufacturing workers were unionized compared with 21.2 percent
0
10
20
30
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Perc
ent
Union
Employees
Figure 6. Manufacturing Workers, Share of All Employees and All Union Workers, 1983–2008. Source:Authors’ Analysis of Center for Economic and Policy Research Extract of Current Population Survey
Outgoing Rotation Group Data.
0
10
20
30
40
50
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Perc
ent
Manufacturing
Private, Non-manufacturing
Public Sector
Figure 7. Unionization Rate by Sector, 1983–2008. Source: Authors’ Analysis of Center for Economic andPolicy Research Extract of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group Data.
275SCHMITT AND WARNER: CHANGING FACE OF LABOR
of workers outside of manufacturing. The higher unionization rate outsidemanufacturing, however, is strictly a function of relatively higher rates of union-ization in the public sector. In 2008, the unionization rate for private sectorworkers outside of manufacturing was only 7.8 percent.
Public Sector
In 2008, public sector employees were about half (48.9 percent) of theunionized workforce, up from just over one-third (34.4 percent) in 1983 (seeFigure 8). Among women, public employees were 61.5 percent of union workersin 2008 (up from 47.2 percent in 1983) compared with 38.4 percent for men (upfrom 27.5 percent in 1983). Over the same period, public sector employees haveremained about the same share of all employees, falling only slightly from 17.6percent in 1983 to 16.5 percent in 2008.
The unionization rate has fallen much less in the public sector than it has inthe private sector. In 1983, about 45.5 percent of public-sector workers were ina union or covered by a union contract at their place of work (see Figure 7above). By 2008, the public-sector unionization rate had slipped to 40.7 percent.By contrast, in the private sector, unionization fell by more than half, from 18.5percent of all private-sector workers in 1983 to 8.4 percent in 2008.
Region
Union workers are not distributed across the country in the same proportionas the overall workforce. Union workers are more heavily concentrated in theNortheast, Pacific, and Midwest, and underrepresented in the West and, espe-cially, the South.6 In 2008, over one-fourth of all union workers were in both the
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Perc
ent
Union
Employees
Figure 8. Public Sector Workers, Share of All Employees and All Union Workers, 1983–2008. Source:Authors’ Analysis of CEPR Extract of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group Data.
276 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
Northeast (27.4 percent) and the Midwest (25.7 percent) compared with 18.6percent of the total workforce in the Northeast and 22.8 percent of the totalworkforce in the Midwest (see Table 2 above). The Pacific states accounted foralmost one fourth (22.7 percent) of union workers, but a substantially smallershare of the workforce (15.6 percent). Almost one-in-five union workers (18.7percent) were in the South, but this was far smaller than the region’s share intotal employment (35.9 percent). States in the West were a much smaller shareof both the unionized workforce (5.6 percent) and total employment (7.1percent).
Over the last quarter century, unionization rates have fallen across every partof the country (see Table 1 above). In 2008, unionization rates were highest inthe Northeast (20.3 percent) and the Pacific states (19.9 percent). The Midwest,after experiencing the largest regional drop in unionization in percentage-pointterms since 1983, had a 15.5 percent unionization rate in 2008. The unionizationrate was substantially lower in the West (10.7 percent) and the South (7.2percent).
Since 2006, unionization rates have been increasing in the Pacific states (upfrom 17.6 percent in 2006 to 19.9 percent in 2008), the Northeast (up from 19.5percent to 20.3 percent), and the West (up from 10.1 to 10.7 percent). Over thesame period, unionization rates have been basically flat in the Midwest (at 15.5percent) and in the South (at 7.0–7.2 percent rate).
Conclusion
The unionized workforce has changed dramatically over the last quartercentury. Almost half of the union workers, like the rest of the workforce, arewomen, older, more educated, and more racially and ethnically diverse.
These changes generally follow the contours of the larger workforce, butunion workers have moved out of manufacturing and into higher education andthe public sector faster than the overall workforce. Unions have incorporatedlarge shares of Latinos, APA, and recent immigrants, but have not matched thepace of these groups’ growth in the economy.
In the next decade, the rise of women to majority status in the labor move-ment and the likely continued influx of racial and ethnic minorities into unionsare likely to be among the most important developments for organized labor.
John Schmitt is a Senior Economist at the Center for Economic and PolicyResearch (CEPR) in Washington, DC, where he has worked since 2005. He isthe co-editor of Low-Wage Work in the Wealth World, published in 2010 by theRussell Sage Foundation. He has a PhD in Economics from the London Schoolof Economics.
Kris Warner is a Program Assistant at CEPR. He has an MS in CommunityEconomic Development from Southern New Hampshire University. He hasheld several manufacturing jobs in northwestern Pennsylvania and has also
277SCHMITT AND WARNER: CHANGING FACE OF LABOR
worked as a union organizer and local union representative in the nonprofitsector. Address correspondence to: John Schmitt and Kris Warner, Center forEconomic and Policy Research, 1611 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Fourth Floor,Washington, DC 20009; Telephone: 202-293-5380; [email protected]; [email protected].
Notes
1. We focus on the union workforce—workers who are either members of, or represented by, a union at theirworkplace.
2. For history and analysis of African-American, Latino, and APA workers—including immigrant workers—inunions, see: Delgado (1993), Gonzalez (2000), Guerin-Gonzales (1994), Hamilton and Chinchilla (2001),Honey (1999), Mason (2001), Milkman (2000, 2006), Ness (2005), Obadele-Starks (1999), Schmitt andZipperer (2008), Sedillo Lopez (1995), Whalen (2001), Wong (2000). For a focus on women in unions, see:Bronfenbrenner (2005), Cobble (1993, 2007), Milkman (1990).
3. We analyze annual data from the CEPR extract of the Outgoing Rotation Group of the Current PopulationSurvey. See http://www.ceprdata.org/.
4. To view all of the underlying data used in this paper, please see http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/changing-face-labor-data-2009-11.xls.
5. By typical, we mean the median worker, that is, the worker exactly in the middle of the age distribution, withhalf of all workers older and half of all workers younger.
6. The Northeast is Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsyl-vania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; the Midwest is Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; the South is Alabama, Arkansas,Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, NorthCarolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; the West is Arizona,Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; and the Pacific is Alaska, Califor-nia, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.
References
Bronfenbrenner, K. 2005. Organizing women: The Nature and process of union organizing efforts among USwomen workers since the mid-1990s. Work and Occupations 32 (4):1–23.
Cobble, D. S. 1993. Women and unions: Forging a partnership. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.———. 2007. The sex of class: Women transforming American labor. New York: Cornell University Press.Delgado, H. L. 1993. New immigrants, old unions: Organizing undocumented workers in Los Angeles. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.Gonzalez, J. 2000. Harvest of empire: A history of Latinos in America. New York: Penguin Press.Guerin-Gonzales, C. 1994. Mexican workers & American dreams: Immigration, repatriation, and California farm
labor, 1900–1939. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Hamilton, N., and N. S. Chinchilla. 2001. Seeking community in a global city: Guatemalans and Salvadorans in Los
Angeles. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Honey, M. K. 1999. Black workers remember: An oral history of segregation, unionism, and the freedom struggle. Los
Angeles: University of California Press.Mason, P. L. 2001. African Americans, labor, and society: Organizing for a new agenda. Detroit: Wayne State
University Press.Milkman, R. 1990. Women, work and protest: A century of U.S. women’s labor history. New York: Routledge.———. 2000. Organizing Immigrants: The challenge for unions in Contemporary. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.———. 2006. L.A. story: Immigrant workers and the future of the U.S. Labor Movement. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.Ness, I. 2005. Immigrants, unions, and the new U.S. labor market. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Obadele-Starks, E. 1999. Black unionism in the industrial south. College Station: Texas A & M University
Press.
278 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
Schmitt, J., and B. Zipperer. 2008. The decline in African-American representation in unions and manufac-turing, 1979–2007. Center for Economic and Policy Research Brief Paper.
Sedillo Lopez, A. 1995. Latino employment, labor organizations, and immigration (Latinos in the United States, vol.4). New York: Routledge.
Whalen, C. T. 2001. From Puerto Rico to Philadelphia: Puerto Rican workers and postwar economies. Philadelphia:Temple University Press.
Wong, K. 2000. Building an Asian Pacific labor movement. In Legacy to liberation: Politics and culture ofrevolutionary Asian Pacific America, ed. F. Ho, C. Antonio, D. Fujino, and S. Yip, 89–98. San Francisco andEdinburgh: Big Red Media and AK Press.
279SCHMITT AND WARNER: CHANGING FACE OF LABOR
