Union density
The union density or union membership rate is the ratio of the number of employees who are members of trade unions to all the employees in a country or population. This is lower than the collective agreement coverage rate, which refers to all people in work places where terms are collectively agreed. Trade unions collectively bargain with employers for improved pay, conditions, and voice at work by means of the increased bargaining power that employees have together compared to what they would have as individuals. The number of people who are covered by collective agreements is higher than the number of union members, and in many cases substantially higher, because when trade unions make collective agreements they aim to cover everyone at work, even those who have not joined a union.
Causes
The causes of higher or lower union membership are widely debated. Common causes are often identified as including the following:
- whether a jurisdiction encourages sectoral collective bargaining (higher coverage) or enterprise bargaining (lower coverage)
- whether collective agreements to create a closed shop or allow automatic enrollment in union membership are lawful
- whether the government, for instance through a Ministry or Department of Labour, actively promotes collective agreement coverage with a power to impose terms if employers refuse to bargain with the workforce
- whether a country enables collective agreements to be extended by government regulations to all workers when the coverage rate reaches a majority in a sector, or similar level
- whether laws on collective bargaining and strikes are more or less favourable
By country
In the United States in 2015 there were 14.8m union members, and 16.4m people covered by collective bargaining or union representation. Union membership was 7.4% in private sector, but 39% in the public sector. In the five largest states, California has 15.9% union membership, Texas 4.5%, Florida 6.8%, New York 24.7% (the highest in the country), and Illinois had 15.2%.[1]
In Sweden union density was 69% in 2015 and 2016.[2] In all the Nordic countries with a Ghent system—Sweden, Denmark and Finland—union density is almost 70%. In all these countries union density has declined.[3] [4]
See also
Notes
- ↑ See Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘Union Members – 2015’ (28 January 2016)
- ↑ Excluding full-time students working part-time. See Anders Kjellberg Kollektivavtalens täckningsgrad samt organisationsgraden hos arbetsgivarförbund och fackförbund, Department of Sociology, Lund University. Studies in Social Policy, Industrial Relations, Working Life and Mobility. Research Reports 2017:1, Appendix 3 Tables A-G (in English)
- ↑ On Sweden, see Anders Kjellberg (2011) "The Decline in Swedish Union Density since 2007" Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies (NJWLS) Vol. 1. No 1 (August 2011), pp. 67–93
- ↑ On Sweden and Denmark, see Anders Kjellberg and Christian Lyhne Ibsen (2016) "Attacks on union organizing: Reversible and irreversible changes to the Ghent-systems in Sweden and Denmark" in Trine Pernille Larsen and Anna Ilsøe (eds.)(2016) Den Danske Model set udefra (The Danish Model Inside Out) - komparative perspektiver på dansk arbejdsmarkedsregulering, Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag (pp.279-302)
References
- Dickens, William T.; Leonard, Jonathan S. (April 1985). "Accounting for the decline union membership, 1950–1980". Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Sage. 38 (3): 323–334. JSTOR 2523761. doi:10.1177/001979398503800301.
- Visser, Jelle (September 2002). "Why fewer workers join unions in Europe: a social custom explanation of membership trends". British Journal of Industrial Relations. Wiley. 40 (3): 403–430. doi:10.1111/1467-8543.00241.
- Schnabel, Claus; Wagner, Joachim (January 2005). "Determinants of trade union membership in West Germany: evidence from micro data, 1980–2000". Socio-Economic Review. Oxford Journals. 3 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1093/SER/mwh011.
- Schnabel, Claus (September 2013). "Union membership and density: Some (not so) stylized facts and challenges". European Journal of Industrial Relations. Sage. 19 (3): 255–272. doi:10.1177/0959680113493373.