Union Membership Sees Biggest Rise in a Generation

[Frodo]

Union Membership Sees Biggest Rise Since ’83

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: January 26, 2008

The roll of American workers belonging to labor unions climbed last year by the largest number since 1983, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday.

Union membership rose by 311,000, to 15.7 million, the bureau said, despite a decline in such membership in manufacturing, long organized labor’s stronghold.

As a result, union membership as a share of the total work force rose last year for the first time in a quarter-century, inching up to 12.1 percent from 12 percent the year before. A total of 7.5 percent of private-sector workers were in unions, and 35.9 percent of public-sector workers.

Labor leaders hailed the increase, saying it was a harbinger that the union movement, which represented 20.1 percent of the work force in 1983, was bottoming out after decades of decline.

But some economists questioned whether the numbers in fact signaled a turnaround. In an analysis for the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research, Ben Zipperer and John Schmitt wrote that “the increase is small and may well reflect statistical variation rather than an actual increase.”

Still, many labor experts had been expecting an actual decline in membership, largely because of a sharp drop in manufacturing jobs, especially in the automobile industry. The bureau’s report showed that for the first time, Western states had a higher unionization rate last year, 14.7 percent, than did the Midwest, 13.8 percent.

Membership grew most strongly in construction and health services, it found.

“We’re pleased but not satisfied,” Stewart Acuff, organizing director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said of the report. “It is significant that these numbers represent real growth.”

Mr. Acuff said the increase had resulted from a variety of unionization drives, including those that organized 40,000 child care workers in Michigan and more than 40,000 child care workers in New York.

[Person Man]

Unionization is coming back? Maybe we are heading into a new era...

[Lief 🗽]

Awesome!

[Democratic Hawk]

Good

[Speed of Sound]

Very good development. In a time of mass attempts to crush workers' rights, the man on the bottom actually prevails! Huzzah! We're coming' for you, Wal-Mart!

[Ban my account ffs!]

Very good news, indeed.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I've also read (from the Star Tribune) that youth voter involvement is the highest ever, as well.  69% of Minnesotans under 30 voted in the 2004 presidential election.  That is expected to rise substantially this year.

[Sam Spade]

The mafia must be really thrilled.

[Person Man]

The mafia must be really thrilled.

...just as they are with abortion bans.

[JSojourner]

The mafia must be really thrilled.

I'm a Union supporter.  So I sincerely celebrate the good news!

But Sam's point should not be ignored.  Political movements, left and right, have the horrible tendancy to shoot themselves in the balls.  Unions were and, I believe are, very necessary. But long term, they will get much farther by seriously policing themselves and rooting out corruption and members who cheat the company.

I'll always support organized labor, but doggonit -- if you want to own your good history, you'd best be prepared to own your bad history.  

[MODU]

So, where is the growth coming from?  Construction?  With new construction numbers dropping in the last six months, how long will these new union members have jobs? 

[Person Man]

Could also be coming from the service sector.

[bullmoose88]

The pendulum probably swung a little to far the other way in the first place...

But anyways, don't get too excited, one year doesn't make a lasting trend, and the last time we saw as big of a rise was 1983, which was right around another period of economic uncertainty as America tried to crack down on inflation...and jobs suffered.

Once the economy gets back on track, I doubt we'll see the union increase continue.

[Person Man]

Actually, unions thrive even more a good economy. More jobs and more money= more oppurtunities for unions.

[bullmoose88]

Actually, unions thrive even more a good economy. More jobs and more money= more oppurtunities for unions.

Perhaps, but we didn't see that during the booms of the 80s, 90s and 00s...i think the culture has changed, where the perception has been that unions aren't good for an economy, I would disagree with that perception...instead...I'd argue that rather than a good economy driving more union friendly jobs...the new economy, post-industrial, disdains unionization...and its only when that economy falters do workers feel compelled to try to flock to unions for protection.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

and its only when that economy falters do workers feel compelled to try to flock to unions for protection.

Actually you would normally expect union density to fall as unemployment rises (the reverse isn't always true though). Of course union density has fallen so low in America that normal circumstances might not exist anymore.

[bullmoose88]

Of course union density has fallen so low in America that normal circumstances might not exist anymore.

The "new" economy that seems to lack decent paying blue collar jobs...it seems to me that white collar jobs (which have expanded) tend to not need unions, and the low level blue collar jobs tend to prevent unions from forming (ala Wal mart)...perhaps we're at a point that our dearth of high level blue collar work, good union jobs, that the rise in unemployment causes a yearning for the old days.

[Person Man]

Actually, unions thrive even more a good economy. More jobs and more money= more oppurtunities for unions.

Perhaps, but we didn't see that during the booms of the 80s, 90s and 00s...i think the culture has changed, where the perception has been that unions aren't good for an economy, I would disagree with that perception...instead...I'd argue that rather than a good economy driving more union friendly jobs...the new economy, post-industrial, disdains unionization...and its only when that economy falters do workers feel compelled to try to flock to unions for protection.

Then again, unions may finally be adapting to the new economy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

perhaps we're at a point that our dearth of high level blue collar work, good union jobs, that the rise in unemployment causes a yearning for the old days.

Perhaps but it certainly wouldn't be responsible for a rise (this rise though is actually tiny and from a low base) in union density.

[Hash]

Ugh. But I guess American unions in 2008 are not as Trot-Communist as those we have in France with the moronic CGT.

[Person Man]

Ugh. But I guess American unions in 2008 are not as Trot-Communist as those we have in France with the moronic CGT.

They is actually a major philosophical difference between those who want to better their lot and those who want to overthrow the system.

[opebo]

Actually, unions thrive even more a good economy. More jobs and more money= more oppurtunities for unions.

Perhaps, but we didn't see that during the booms of the 80s, 90s and 00s...

Those weren't 'booms' by the standards of the union days, bullmost.   A time traveler from 1969 would've thought the best years from the 80's,90's, or 00's to be some kind of horrible recession.  People have just come to accept much less than they used to recieve.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What has changed is that all political power is back on the one side now, unlike the brief hiatus from the 30's through the 70's.  Naturally workers will not receive anything more than subsistence if they have no power to demand.

Finally let me note that your 'new economy' is double-speak.   Yes, americans now mostly work in Walmart, McDonalds, or other extremely low-wage jobs, and yes, 'manufacturing' is done by even more severely abused workers in the slave-countries.  And yes, we have the computer machine.  But the important changes are political.

[opebo]

The "new" economy that seems to lack decent paying blue collar jobs...it seems to me that white collar jobs (which have expanded) tend to not need unions, and the low level blue collar jobs tend to prevent unions from forming (ala Wal mart)...perhaps we're at a point that our dearth of high level blue collar work, good union jobs, that the rise in unemployment causes a yearning for the old days.

Actually the division is a totally false one, and one that has been conveniently sold to you by your owners, bullmose.  The salaried worker is made to accept truely atrocious working conditions out of a belief that he is somehow higher status.  The very idea of a worker having status is of course ridiculous but they are prone to believe it.

The biggest change of the last 30 years has been that in the old days one could get a quite reasonably paid job simply by walking in.  Nowadays one must spend something in the range of $100-200,000 to even come close to the income level of union workers in the past.  Quite simply as political power, and thus income, has shifted to the to .1%, there is not enough left for the rest.  None of this has anything to do with 'economics' or some sort of 'technological change'.   It is simply control.

[bullmoose88]

bullmost...bullmose...are you unable to spell my username correctly...

...wait...i'll give you more credit than that, just uh...let us in on the joke at my expense...

[Person Man]

I doubt that unions are never comming back. In the 20s, when we shifted from textiles to cars, for example, the union density was as low as it was today. When people adjust and know that there are better deals out there, unions will be viable again. What are they gonna do? Put us all in concentration camps for wanting to be unionized?