LABOR DISCUSSION 4
SARAY
SchmittandWarner2010TheChangingFaceofUSLabor.pdf
wusa_
263..280
Workingusa
The Journal of Labor and Society
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 covered by union contracts. Over the period, the composition of the unionized workforce changed dramatically. In 1983, more than half of all union workers were white men, few union workers had a college degree, and almost 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 union workers in 2008 had a four-year college degree or more—a higher percentage than for the workforce as a whole. And, in 2008, only about one-in-ten union workers was in manufacturing, with almost half in the public 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 in organized labor than they are in the overall workforce.
Introduction
In 1983—the earliest year for which comparable data are available—over half (51.7 percent) of the unionized workforce were white men.1 Today, white men account for only about 38 percent of union workers. In the intervening years, the shares of women, Latinos, and Asia-Pacific Americans (APA) in the total union workforce have surged, while African-Americans have held a roughly steady share of the union workforce.2 Over the same period, union workers have also grown older and better educated, and shifted out of manufacturing and into services, particularly in the public sector. Some of these developments reflect changes in the broader U.S. workforce, which today has more women, more Latinos, more APAs, and is also older and more educated than in the past. Some of these trends, however, respond to particular issues affecting unions and the industries and occupations where they were historically concentrated.
In this paper, we review consistent, nationally representative data for the last quarter century on the composition of the unionized work force.3 For key demographic groups, we first provide a detailed picture of current union com- position and document how these patterns have changed since 1983, when the government first began collecting systematic annual data on workers’ union status. We then compare these trends for union workers with those in the U.S.
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.
264 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
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 percent in 1983. If current trends continue, women will be a majority of the union workforce before 2020. (See Figure 1)
The rise in the female share in the unionized workforce is substantially more than would have been expected if the unionized workforce simply followed the trends in the broader workforce. Between 1983 and 2008, the share of women in the total workforce rose from 45.8 percent to 48.3 percent, an increase of 2.6 percentage points. Over the same period, women’s share in the union workforce increased by 9.8 percentage points, more than three times the increase in their share in the total workforce.
Despite the rise over the last quarter century in women’s share of unionized workers, the unionization rate for women—the share of all women employees who are a member of a union or represented by a union at work—fell sharply. In 1983, 18.0 percent of women were unionized; by 2008, only 12.9 percent were unionized. Over the same period, however, the decline in the unionization rate was 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
P e rc
e n t
Union
Employees Trend, Union
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Figure 1. Women, 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.
265
T ab
le 1
. U
ni on
iz at
io n
R at
es
G en
de r
R ac
e/ et
hn ic
ity a
A ge
g ro
up
M al
e Fe
m al
e W
hi te
B
la ck
L
at in
o O
th er
A
PA
16 –2
4 25
–3 4
35 –4
4 45
–5 4
55 –6
4 65
+
19 83
27
.7
18 .0
22
.2
31 .7
24
.2
21 .8
11
.1
23 .1
28
.7
30 .5
30
.4
12 .0
19
84
25 .6
16
.8
20 .5
29
.2
22 .8
21
.4
9. 5
21 .2
27
.3
28 .7
27
.7
11 .1
19
85
24 .3
15
.8
19 .5
27
.3
21 .2
19
.0
8. 6
19 .4
25
.6
27 .9
27
.4
10 .5
19
86
23 .7
15
.5
19 .0
26
.6
20 .0
19
.6
8. 4
18 .3
25
.3
27 .3
26
.5
10 .5
19
87
22 .9
14
.9
18 .3
25
.3
19 .1
19
.0
7. 8
18 .0
24
.2
25 .9
25
.3
10 .9
19
88
22 .5
15
.0
18 .1
25
.9
17 .8
19
.0
7. 5
17 .0
24
.0
26 .5
25
.7
10 .3
19
89
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
19 90
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
19
91
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 19
92
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
19 93
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
19 94
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
19
95
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 19
96
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 19
97
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 19
98
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 19
99
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 20
00
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 20
01
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 20
02
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 20
03
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 20
04
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 20
05
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
20 06
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
20 07
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
20 08
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
SCHMITT AND WARNER: CHANGING FACE OF LABOR
19 85
19 90
19 95
20 00
20 05
266
T ab
le 1
. C
on tin
ue d
E du
ca tio
n le
ve l
Im m
ig ra
nt
R eg
io n
L es
s th
an h
ig h
sc ho
ol
H ig
h sc
ho ol
So
m e
co lle
ge
C ol
le ge
a nd
h ig
he r
N o
Ye s
N or
th ea
st
M id
w es
t So
ut h
W es
t P
ac ifi
c
19 83
23
.3
25 .7
19
.9
22 .7
30
.7
26 .6
15
.2
17 .1
27
.0
19 84
21
.1
23 .8
18
.8
21 .2
28
.6
25 .3
13
.3
15 .5
25
.9
19 .2
22
.8
17 .7
20
.4
27 .0
24
.0
12 .5
14
.8
24 .7
19
86
18 .5
22
.1
17 .4
20
.1
25 .7
23
.5
12 .4
14
.4
24 .3
19
87
16 .8
21
.4
17 .2
19
.6
25 .5
23
.2
11 .3
13
.4
23 .3
19
88
16 .2
21
.3
16 .5
19
.9
24 .7
22
.7
11 .7
13
.1
22 .9
19
89
15 .6
20
.7
16 .4
19
.6
24 .4
22
.1
11 .2
12
.3
22 .9
14
.6
20 .4
17
.0
19 .0
24
.9
21 .7
10
.8
12 .4
22
.3
19 91
14
.6
19 .9
17
.2
18 .9
25
.0
21 .4
10
.9
12 .7
21
.9
19 92
13
.4
19 .7
16
.5
18 .7
23
.7
21 .1
10
.9
12 .9
22
.0
19 93
13
.0
19 .3
16
.6
18 .9
23
.7
20 .8
10
.9
12 .9
21
.5
19 94
11
.7
18 .9
16
.9
18 .8
17
.7
15 .1
24
.0
20 .3
10
.7
13 .1
21
.5
11 .3
18
.0
16 .1
18
.2
16 .9
14
.1
23 .4
19
.7
9. 8
12 .6
20
.7
19 96
10
.7
17 .4
15
.8
17 .8
16
.5
13 .6
22
.3
19 .7
9.
7 11
.7
19 .5
19
97
9. 7
16 .5
15
.3
17 .7
16
.0
13 .1
21
.8
19 .0
9.
1 11
.7
19 .2
19
98
9. 2
16 .0
15
.4
17 .3
15
.8
12 .1
21
.4
18 .7
8.
9 10
.7
19 .0
19
99
9. 1
15 .9
15
.2
17 .4
15
.6
12 .6
21
.4
18 .3
8.
9 11
.1
19 .1
8.
8 15
.6
14 .7
16
.8
15 .3
12
.0
20 .9
18
.0
8. 7
10 .4
18
.3
20 01
8.
3 15
.4
14 .9
16
.7
15 .2
12
.0
21 .0
17
.9
8. 6
10 .0
18
.4
20 02
8.
0 15
.2
14 .3
16
.8
15 .1
11
.4
20 .4
17
.3
8. 4
9. 3
19 .3
20
03
7. 5
14 .5
14
.3
16 .5
14
.8
11 .3
19
.9
17 .0
8.
2 9.
1 18
.9
20 04
7.
4 13
.8
13 .6
16
.5
14 .4
10
.8
20 .0
16
.4
7. 6
9. 2
18 .4
7.
5 13
.6
13 .4
16
.3
14 .1
11
.1
20 .3
16
.1
7. 4
9. 2
18 .3
20
06
6. 3
13 .0
13
.0
15 .8
13
.7
10 .3
19
.5
15 .5
7.
0 10
.1
17 .6
20
07
6. 3
13 .0
13
.1
16 .1
13
.8
10 .3
19
.9
15 .0
7.
1 10
.4
18 .4
20
08
7. 2
13 .2
13
.5
16 .5
14
.2
11 .2
20
.3
15 .5
7.
2 10
.7
19 .9
N ot
es : A
ut ho
rs ’ a
na ly
si s
of C
en te
r fo
r E
co no
m ic
a nd
P ol
ic y
R es
ea rc
h ex
tr ac
t o f C
ur re
nt P
op ul
at io
n Su
rv ey
O ut
go in
g R
ot at
io n
G ro
up d
at a,
1 98
3– 20
08 . 1
98 3
is th
e ea
rl ie
st
ye ar
fo r
w hi
ch c
on si
st en
t d at
a ar
e av
ai la
bl e;
1 98
9 is
th e
ea rl
ie st
y ea
r w
ith c
on si
st en
t r ac
e/ et
hn ic
ity d
at a
on A
si an
P ac
ifi c
A m
er ic
an s
(A PA
); 19
94 is
th e
fir st
y ea
r w
ith d
at a
on
im m
ig ra
nt s
ta tu
s. T
he “
ot he
r” r
ac e/
et hn
ic ity
c at
eg or
y is
p ri
m ar
ily , b
ut n
ot e
xc lu
si ve
ly , N
at iv
e A
m er
ic an
s.
WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
267 SCHMITT AND WARNER: CHANGING FACE OF LABOR
Race/Ethnicity
Over the last quarter century, the share of whites in the union workforce has fallen sharply; meanwhile, the representation of Latinos and APAs has increased substantially, and the share of African-Americans among all union workers has been 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 from other 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 78.2 percent in 1983). Over the same period, the increase in the Latino share (up 6.4 percentage 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 (up 2.1 percentage points between 1989 and 2008), accounted for about one-fourth of this drop. Over the last 26 years, the share of African-Americans among union workers has fluctuated in a narrow range between 13 percent and 15 percent.
The large increase in the share of Latino workers in the union workforce mirrors (though trails behind) the increase in Latinos in the overall workforce. (See Table 2) In 1983, Latinos were about equally represented in the union and the overall workforces, accounting for 5.8 percent of unionized workers and 5.6 percent of all workers. By 2008, Latinos had grown to about 14.4 percent of the overall workforce, but only 12.2 percent of unionized workers.
The rising share of APA workers in unions also lagged somewhat behind their increase in the overall workforce. In 1989, APAs had identical shares in the unionized workforce and the overall workforce (both 2.5 percent). In 2008, APA workers were 5.2 percent of the overall workforce, but only 4.6 percent of the unionized workforce.
White Black Latino Other
1983
2008
78.2
69.1 13.0
13.7
12.2
5.8
5.7
0 25 50 75 100
Percent
Figure 2. Union Workers, Share by Race/Ethnicity, 1983 and 2008. Source: Authors’ Analysis of Center for Economic and Policy Research Extract of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group Data.
2.4
268
T ab
le 2
. C
om po
si tio
n of
A ll
E m
pl oy
ee s
an d
of A
ll U
ni on
W or
ke rs
, 1 98
3– 20
08 (P
er ce
nt )
19 83
19
89
19 94
20
08
C ha
ng e
(p .p
.) (lo
ng es
t pe
ri od
)
A ll
em ps
. A
ll un
io n
A ll
em ps
. A
ll un
io n
A ll
em ps
. A
ll un
io n
A ll
em ps
. A
ll un
io n
E m
ps .
U ni
on
W om
en
45 .8
35
.4
47 .1
37
.7
47 .6
41
.1
48 .3
45
.2
2. 6
9. 8
M en
54
.2
64 .6
53
.0
62 .3
52
.4
58 .9
51
.7
54 .8
-2
.6
-9 .8
W
hi te
81
.9
78 .2
78
.4
75 .3
76
.3
73 .6
67
.9
69 .1
-1
4. 0
-9 .1
B
la ck
10
.1
13 .7
10
.9
14 .9
11
.2
14 .7
11
.5
13 .0
1.
5 -0
.7
L at
in o
5. 6
5. 8
7. 6
6. 9
9. 3
8. 4
14 .4
12
.2
8. 8
6. 4
O th
er
2. 5
2. 4
3. 1
2. 9
3. 3
3. 3
6. 3
5. 7
3. 7
3. 3
A si
a- P
ac ifi
c A
m er
ic an
s —
—
2.
5 2.
5 2.
6 2.
6 5.
2 4.
6 2.
7 2.
1 A
ge 16 –2
4 21
.9
10 .4
18
.5
7. 4
16 .9
6.
9 14
.5
6. 0
-7 .4
-4
.5
25 –3
4 29
.4
29 .2
30
.2
26 .8
27
.4
22 .9
22
.6
19 .4
-6
.8
-9 .8
35
–4 4
21 .2
26
.1
24 .5
31
.1
27 .0
32
.2
23 .0
24
.6
1. 8
-1 .5
45
–5 4
14 .9
19
.5
15 .7
21
.5
18 .2
25
.9
23 .0
29
.4
8. 1
9. 9
55 –6
4 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 L
es s
th an
H S
18 .3
18
.3
15 .9
13
.4
11 .9
8.
0 9.
4 4.
9 -8
.9
-1 3.
4 H
ig h
Sc ho
ol
37 .2
41
.1
36 .1
40
.3
34 .5
37
.4
29 .9
28
.7
-7 .3
-1
2. 4
So m
e co
lle ge
23
.6
20 .2
25
.2
22 .3
29
.2
28 .2
29
.4
28 .9
5.
8 8.
7 C
ol le
ge +
20
.9
20 .4
22
.8
24 .0
24
.5
26 .4
31
.3
37 .5
10
.4
17 .1
Im
m ig
ra nt
—
— —
— 9
.7 8. 4
15
.5
12 .6
5.
8
4. 2
M
an uf
ac tu
ri ng
22
.8
29 .7
20
.8
25 .8
18
.6
20 .9
12
.4
11 .0
-1
0. 4
-1 8.
7 P
ub lic
s ec
to r
17 .6
34
.4
16 .9
39
.6
17 .0
43
.5
16 .5
48
.9
-1 .1
14
.4
N or
th ea
st
22 .0
29
.0
21 .1
27
.8
19 .5
26
.9
18 .6
27
.4
-3 .4
-1
.6
M id
w es
t 25
.2
28 .8
24
.9
29 .7
24
.6
28 .6
22
.8
25 .7
-2
.4
-3 .1
So
ut h
33 .2
21
.7
33 .8
20
.5
34 .8
21
.4
35 .9
18
.7
2. 7
-2 .9
W
es t
5. 2
3. 8
5. 2
3. 4
5. 8
4. 4
7. 1
5. 6
2. 0
1. 7
P ac
ifi c
14 .4
16
.7
15 .0
18
.6
15 .2
18
.7
15 .6
22
.7
1. 2
5. 9
N ot
es : S
ee n
ot es
t o
Ta bl
e 1.
T he
la st
t w
o co
lu m
ns s
ho w
t he
p er
ce nt
ag e-
po in
t ch
an ge
b et
w ee
n 20
08 a
nd t
he e
ar lie
st p
er io
d fo
r w
hi ch
d at
a ar
e av
ai la
bl e.
WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
269 SCHMITT AND WARNER: CHANGING FACE OF LABOR
Throughout the entire period, African-American workers were a larger share of union workers than they were of all workers. The higher relative unionization rate for African-Americans, however, has fallen steadily since at least the early 1980s. In 1983, African-Americans were only 10.1 percent of the workforce, but 13.7 percent of all union workers; by 2008, African-Americans were a slightly higher share of the overall workforce (11.5 percent) and a slightly lower share of union workers (13.0 percent).
Since 1983, the unionization rate has dropped dramatically for all racial and ethnic groups. (See Table 1 above.) Despite the rising share of Latinos and APA workers, and the steady share of African-Americans in the union work- force, the declines in unionization rates have been steeper for these groups than for whites. Between 1983 and 2008, the unionization rate for whites fell 8.2 percentage points (from 22.2 percent to 14.0 percent). Over the same period, the unionization rate declined 16.2 percentage points for African- Americans (from 31.7 percent to 15.5 percent), 12.5 percentage points for Latinos (from 24.2 percent to 11.7 percent), and 9.4 percentage points for other 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 data available) to 12.0 percent in 2008.
Race/Ethnicity and Gender
In 1983, the majority (51.7 percent) of all union workers was white men; by 2008, white men were only 38.1 percent of the unionized workforce. In the most recent data, white women were the second largest group (31.0 percent) of union workers, followed by Latino men (7.4 percent), black women (6.6 percent), black men (6.4 percent), Latino women (4.8 percent), APA men (2.2 percent), and APA women (2.3 percent) (see Table 3).
The groups whose share in the unionized workforce increased most over the last 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). From 1989, when consistent data on APA workers became available, to 2008, the share of APA women increased 1.2 percentage points and APA men’s share rose 0.9 percentage points. The change from 1983–2008 for African-American women was smaller (up 0.7 percentage points) and for African-American men was negative (down 1.4 percentage points). The only group that experienced a large drop in their share in the labor movement was white men (down 13.6 percentage points).
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 with 31.0 percent for white women; Latino men were 7.4 percent of union workers compared 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 percent of union workers compared with 2.3 percent for APA women. Black men were 6.4 percent of union workers compared with 6.6 percent for black women.
19 85
19 90
19 95
20 00
20 05
270
T ab
le 3
. U
ni on
W or
ke rs
b y
R ac
e an
d G
en de
r, 19
83 –2
00 8
(P er
ce nt
o f a
ll U
ni on
W or
ke rs
)a
W hi
te m
en
W hi
te w
om en
B
la ck
m en
B
la ck
w om
en
L at
in o
m en
L
at in
o w
om en
O
th er
m en
O
th er
w om
en
A PA
m en
A
PA w
om en
19 83
51
.7
26 .5
7.
7 6.
0 3.
8 2.
0 1.
4 1.
0 19
84
51 .1
26
.3
7. 9
6. 2
4. 0
2. 0
1. 4
1. 1
50 .4
26
.2
7. 7
6. 3
4. 8
2. 1
1. 5
1. 0
19 86
49
.9
26 .3
7.
9 6.
2 4.
7 2.
3 1.
5 1.
2 19
87
49 .4
26
.4
7. 8
6. 4
4. 9
2. 3
1. 6
1. 2
19 88
48
.5
26 .7
8.
2 6.
6 4.
7 2.
3 1.
6 1.
3 19
89
48 .1
27
.2
8. 0
6. 9
4. 5
2. 4
1. 6
1. 3
1. 3
1. 1
47 .4
28
.1
7. 9
6. 5
4. 6
2. 5
1. 7
1. 4
1. 3
1. 2
19 91
46
.8
28 .0
8.
0 6.
5 4.
8 2.
9 1.
8 1.
3 1.
5 1.
2 19
92
45 .8
28
.9
7. 7
7. 0
5. 0
2. 6
1. 6
1. 5
1. 3
1. 3
19 93
45
.4
29 .5
7.
6 7.
0 4.
8 2.
9 1.
5 1.
4 1.
2 1.
2 19
94
43 .9
29
.7
7. 8
6. 9
5. 4
3. 0
1. 8
1. 5
1. 4
1. 2
44 .5
29
.1
7. 8
7. 3
5. 3
3. 1
1. 7
1. 4
1. 2
1. 1
19 96
44
.3
28 .9
7.
7 7.
0 5.
4 3.
3 1.
9 1.
5 1.
5 1.
3 19
97
44 .1
28
.7
7. 5
7. 1
5. 7
3. 2
2. 0
1. 7
1. 7
1. 5
19 98
43
.7
28 .5
7.
9 7.
0 5.
7 3.
4 2.
1 1.
7 1.
7 1.
5 19
99
43 .6
28
.5
7. 8
6. 9
5. 8
3. 5
2. 1
1. 9
1. 7
1. 7
42 .1
29
.4
7. 5
7. 4
5. 9
3. 8
2. 2
1. 7
1. 8
1. 6
20 01
42
.2
29 .4
7.
4 7.
4 5.
8 3.
9 2.
3 1.
8 1.
9 1.
6 20
02
41 .5
29
.8
7. 4
7. 5
5. 7
3. 9
2. 4
1. 9
2. 0
1. 6
20 03
40
.0
29 .6
7.
1 7.
3 6.
7 4.
3 2.
8 2.
4 2.
2 2.
0 20
04
40 .1
30
.1
6. 8
6. 8
6. 6
4. 4
3. 0
2. 4
2. 4
2. 0
39 .3
30
.1
6. 7
7. 0
6. 9
4. 6
2. 8
2. 6
2. 3
2. 1
20 06
39
.2
29 .9
6.
8 7.
2 6.
8 4.
7 2.
7 2.
7 2.
2 2.
3 20
07
38 .3
30
.6
6. 8
6. 8
7. 0
4. 8
2. 9
2. 8
2. 4
2. 4
20 08
38
.1
31 .0
6.
4 6.
6 7.
4 4.
8 2.
9 2.
8 2.
2 2.
3
D at
a fo
r th
e A
si a-
P ac
ifi c
A m
er ic
an c
at eg
or y,
w hi
ch b
eg an
t o
be c
ol le
ct ed
i n
19 89
, is
i nc
lu de
d in
t he
o th
er c
at eg
or y
fo r
al l
ye ar
s. N
um be
rs w
ill s
um t
o 10
0 pe
rc en
t if
A si
a- P
ac ifi
c A
m er
ic an
is e
xc lu
de d.
WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
271 SCHMITT AND WARNER: CHANGING FACE OF LABOR
Between 1983 and 2008, the unionization rate for all eight gender and race groups declined. The group that experienced the largest drop was African- American men, who saw their unionization rate fall 19.1 percentage points, from 35.9 percent in 1983 to 16.8 percent in 2008. The decline for Latino men was the next largest (down 15.0 percentage points, from 27.0 percent in 1983 to 12.0 percent in 2008), followed by African-American women (down 13.0 percentage points, from 27.5 percent to 14.5 percent), white men (down 11.9 percentage points, 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 for Latino 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 percent between 1989 and 2008). The group with the smallest decrease in unionization was white women whose unionization rate fell only 3.7 percentage points (from 16.5 percent in 1983 to 12.8 percent in 2008). For all race and ethnic groups, the decline in unionization rates between 1983 and 2008 was consistently larger in percentage-point terms for men than it was for women.
Age
The unionized workforce is significantly older now than it was in the early 1980s (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 worker in 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 union workforce has fallen 4.5 percentage points (from 10.4 percent in 1983 to 6.0 percent 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 biggest increase 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 to 18.1 percent for 55–64 year olds and up 1.4 percentage points to 2.6 percent for workers 65 and older. (See Figure 3)
Over the same period, the overall workforce has also grown substantially older. In 1983, the typical worker, regardless of union status, was 34 years old; in 2008, the typical worker was 41 years old. Younger workers were a much smaller share of the overall workforce in 2008 than they were in 1983. The 16–24 year-old group declined from 21.9 percent of all workers in 1983 to 14.5 percent in 2008; over the same period, 25–34 year olds fell from 29.4 percent of workers to 22.6 percent of workers. The 45–54-year-old group saw the biggest increase in representation in the overall workforce, rising from 14.9 percent of all workers in 1983 to 23.0 percent in 2008. The share of 55–64 year olds (up 3.1 percentage points to 13.5 percent in 2008) and workers 65 and older (up 1.3 percentage points to 3.5 percent) also increased.
Unionization rates increase steadily with age before dropping off sharply for workers 65 and older (see Table 1 above). In 2008, only 5.7 percent of 16–24-
272 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
6.0
10.4
19.4
29.2
24.6
26.1
29.4
19.5
18.1
13.6
2.6
1.1
2008
1983
16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
0 25 50 75 100
Percent
Figure 3. Union Workers, Share by Age Group, 1983 and 2008. Source: Authors’ Analysis of Center for Economic and Policy Research Extract of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group Data.
year-olds were unionized (down from 11.1 percent in 1983). For 25–34–year-old workers, the unionization rate was 11.8 percent in 2008 (down from 23.1 percent in 1983); for 35–44-year-olds, unionization was 14.7 percent in 2008 (down from 28.7 percent in 1983); for 45–54-year-olds, 17.6 percent (down from 30.5 percent 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 and older are less likely than workers of other ages (except those 16–24) to be unionized—10.2 percent (down from 12.0 percent).
Education
Unionized workers have much more formal education today than they did in the early 1980s. In 1983, union workers were slightly less educated than the overall workforce. By 2008, union workers were slightly more educated than the overall workforce.
In 2008, 37.5 percent of union workers had a four-year college degree or more. Unionized women, a group that includes an important share of teachers and nurses, were even more likely (49.4 percent) to have a four-year college degree or more (see Figure 4A). Union men were substantially less likely (27.7 percent) to have a four-year college degree or more. (See Figure 4B) The largest groups 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 4.9 percent of union workers had less than a high school education compared to 9.4
273 SCHMITT AND WARNER: CHANGING FACE OF LABOR
Less Than High School High School Some College College and Higher
1983
2008
14.3
3.6 21.2
37.4
25.9
18.9
49.4
29.4
0 25 50 75 100
Percent
Less Than High School High School Some College College and Higher
1983
2008 6.1
20.6
34.9
43.1
31.4
21.0 15.4
27.7
0 25 50 75 100
Percent
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.
percent of all workers in 2008 and to 18.3 percent of union workers with less than a high school diploma in 1983.
Between 1983 and 2008, the unionization rate has fallen across all education levels (see Table 1 above). The pattern of unionization by education level, however, has almost inverted since the early 1980s. In 1983, less-educated workers were more likely to be unionized—23.3 percent of workers with less than a high school degree and 25.7 percent of workers with a high school degree
274 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
P e rc
e n t
20
15
Employees
10
Union
5
0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
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.
compared with 19.9 percent of workers with some college and 22.7 percent of workers with a college degree or more. By 2008, the unionization rate for workers with less than a high school degree had collapsed to 7.2 percent, and the rate for high-school-educated workers (13.2 percent) was lower than the rate for those with some college (13.5 percent) and a college degree or more (16.5 percent).
Immigrant Status
In 2008, 12.6 percent of union workers were immigrants, up from 8.4 percent in 1994, the earliest year for which the Current Population Survey collected information on workers’ immigrant status (see Figure 5). Immigrants were 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 unionized workforce has been substantial, but has trailed behind the growth of immigrants in 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 1 above).
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
50
SCHMITT AND WARNER: CHANGING FACE OF LABOR 275
30 P e rc
e n t
20
10
0
Union
Employees
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
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.
P e rc
e n t
Manufacturing
Private, Non-manufacturing
Public Sector
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 7. Unionization Rate by Sector, 1983–2008. Source: Authors’ Analysis of Center for Economic and Policy Research Extract of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group Data.
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, falling to 12.4 percent in 2008.
Traditionally, the manufacturing sector has been more heavily unionized than the rest of the country, but from the mid-2000s, manufacturing has been less unionized than the overall economy. (See Figure 7) In 2008, 12.2 percent of manufacturing workers were unionized compared with a 13.9 percent unioniza- tion rate for workers in the rest of the economy. By comparison, in 1983, 30.3 percent of manufacturing workers were unionized compared with 21.2 percent
276 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
P e rc
e n t
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Union
Employees
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
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.
of workers outside of manufacturing. The higher unionization rate outside manufacturing, however, is strictly a function of relatively higher rates of union- ization in the public sector. In 2008, the unionization rate for private sector workers outside of manufacturing was only 7.8 percent.
Public Sector
In 2008, public sector employees were about half (48.9 percent) of the unionized workforce, up from just over one-third (34.4 percent) in 1983 (see Figure 8). Among women, public employees were 61.5 percent of union workers in 2008 (up from 47.2 percent in 1983) compared with 38.4 percent for men (up from 27.5 percent in 1983). Over the same period, public sector employees have remained about the same share of all employees, falling only slightly from 17.6 percent in 1983 to 16.5 percent in 2008.
The unionization rate has fallen much less in the public sector than it has in the private sector. In 1983, about 45.5 percent of public-sector workers were in a union or covered by a union contract at their place of work (see Figure 7 above). 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 18.5 percent 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 proportion as the overall workforce. Union workers are more heavily concentrated in the Northeast, 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
277 SCHMITT AND WARNER: CHANGING FACE OF LABOR
Northeast (27.4 percent) and the Midwest (25.7 percent) compared with 18.6 percent of the total workforce in the Northeast and 22.8 percent of the total workforce in the Midwest (see Table 2 above). The Pacific states accounted for almost one fourth (22.7 percent) of union workers, but a substantially smaller share of the workforce (15.6 percent). Almost one-in-five union workers (18.7 percent) were in the South, but this was far smaller than the region’s share in total employment (35.9 percent). States in the West were a much smaller share of both the unionized workforce (5.6 percent) and total employment (7.1 percent).
Over the last quarter century, unionization rates have fallen across every part of the country (see Table 1 above). In 2008, unionization rates were highest in the Northeast (20.3 percent) and the Pacific states (19.9 percent). The Midwest, after experiencing the largest regional drop in unionization in percentage-point terms since 1983, had a 15.5 percent unionization rate in 2008. The unionization rate was substantially lower in the West (10.7 percent) and the South (7.2 percent).
Since 2006, unionization rates have been increasing in the Pacific states (up from 17.6 percent in 2006 to 19.9 percent in 2008), the Northeast (up from 19.5 percent to 20.3 percent), and the West (up from 10.1 to 10.7 percent). Over the same period, unionization rates have been basically flat in the Midwest (at 15.5 percent) and in the South (at 7.0–7.2 percent rate).
Conclusion
The unionized workforce has changed dramatically over the last quarter century. Almost half of the union workers, like the rest of the workforce, are women, older, more educated, and more racially and ethnically diverse.
These changes generally follow the contours of the larger workforce, but union workers have moved out of manufacturing and into higher education and the public sector faster than the overall workforce. Unions have incorporated large shares of Latinos, APA, and recent immigrants, but have not matched the pace 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 unions are likely to be among the most important developments for organized labor.
John Schmitt is a Senior Economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, DC, where he has worked since 2005. He is the co-editor of Low-Wage Work in the Wealth World, published in 2010 by the Russell Sage Foundation. He has a PhD in Economics from the London School of Economics.
Kris Warner is a Program Assistant at CEPR. He has an MS in Community Economic Development from Southern New Hampshire University. He has held several manufacturing jobs in northwestern Pennsylvania and has also
278 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
worked as a union organizer and local union representative in the nonprofit sector. Address correspondence to: John Schmitt and Kris Warner, Center for Economic and Policy Research, 1611 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 20009; Telephone: 202-293-5380; [email protected]; warner@ cepr.net.
Notes
1. We focus on the union workforce—workers who are either members of, or represented by, a union at their workplace.
2. For history and analysis of African-American, Latino, and APA workers—including immigrant workers—in unions, 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 and Zipperer (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 Population Survey. 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, with half 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, North Carolina, 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 US women 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.
279 SCHMITT AND WARNER: CHANGING FACE OF LABOR
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 of revolutionary Asian Pacific America, ed. F. Ho, C. Antonio, D. Fujino, and S. Yip, 89–98. San Francisco and Edinburgh: Big Red Media and AK Press.
Copyright of WorkingUSA is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
