Middle classes stronger in unionized states
By DAVID MADLAND and
KEITH MILLER
Why should anyone — especially
those who are not union members —
care that union membership is at record
lows and likely to fall even further? Be-
cause if you care about the middle class,
you need to care about unions.
Critics of unions claim they are
unimportant today or even harmful to
the economy, but unions are essential
for building a strong middle class. And
rebuilding the middle class after
decades of decline and stagnation is es-
sential for restoring our economy.
Unions make the middle class strong
by ensuring workers have a strong voice
in both the market and in our democ-
racy. When unions are strong they are
able to ensure that workers are paid fair
wages, receive the training they need to
advance to the middle class, and are
considered in corporate decision-mak-
ing processes. Unions also promote po-
litical participation among all Ameri-
cans, and help workers secure
government policies that support the
middle class, such as Social Security,
family leave, and the minimum wage.
But as unions became weaker over
the past four decades, they are less and
less able to perform these functions —
and the middle class withered. The per-
centage of workers in unions steadily
declined largely because the legal and
political environment prevents private-
sector workers from freely exercising
their right to join or not to join a union.
Membership in private-sector unions
stands at less than 7 percent today, from
around 30 percent in the late 1960s.
Public-sector unionization remained
stable for decades
— it was 37 percent
in 1979 and is 36
percent today — but
is now under signifi-
cant threat from
conservative politi-
cal opposition and
could start declining
as well. All told,
less than 12 percent
of the total work-
force is unionized,
and this percentage
is likely to continue
falling.
Without the counterbalance of work-
ers united together in unions, the middle
class withers because the economy and
politics tend to be dominated by the rich
and powerful, which in turn leads to an
even greater flow of money in our econ-
omy to the top of income scale. The
percentage of unionized workers tracks
very closely with the share of the na-
tion’s income going to the middle class
— those in the middle three-fifths of in-
come earners.
In recent years, the middle class ac-
counted for the smallest share of the na-
tion’s income ever since the end of
World War II, when this data was first
collected. The middle three income
quintiles, representing 60 percent of all
Americans, received only 46 percent of
the nation’s income in 2009, the most
recent year data is
available, down
from highs of
around 53 percent
in 1969.
The middle
class weakened
over the past sev-
eral decades be-
cause the rich se-
cured the lion’s
share of the econ-
omy’s gains. The
share of pretax in-
come earned by
the richest 1 per-
cent of Americans more than doubled
between 1974 and 2007, climbing to 18
percent from 8 percent. And for the
richest of the rich — the top 0.1 percent
— the gains have been even more as-
tronomical — quadrupling over this pe-
riod, rising to 12.3 percent of all income
from 2.7 percent.
In contrast, incomes for most Amer-
icans have been nearly flat over this
same time period, and median income
after accounting for inflation actually
fell for working-age households during
the supposedly good economy in the re-
...Unions are critical
to defending the
middle class, and
their resurgence is
key to rebuilding
the middle class.
covery between 2001 and 2007. The
importance of unions to the middle
class is not just a historical phenome-
non, but is relevant to our lives today.
To be sure, not everything unions do
benefits the broad middle class, but
unions are critical to defending the mid-
dle class, and their resurgence is key to
rebuilding the middle class.
Indeed, it is hard to imagine a mid-
dle-class society without a strong union
movement.
Across the globe, the countries with
the strongest middle classes all have
strong union movements. And in Amer-
ica today, states with higher concentra-
tions of union members have a much
stronger middle class. The 10 states
with the lowest percentage of workers
in unions all have a relatively weak
middle class, with the share of total
state income going to households in the
middle three-fifths of income earners in
these states below the average for all
states.
Our analysis indicates that each per-
centage point increase in union mem-
bership puts about $153 more per year
into the pockets of the middle class —
meaning that if unionization rates in-
creased by 10 percentage points (about
the level they were in 1980) — then the
typical middle class household would
earn $1,532 more this year. This figure
indicates how much better off all mem-
bers of the middle class would be — not
just those who are union members — if
unions regained some strength. And
these gains would continue year after
year. To put these results in context, our
analysis indicates that increasing union
membership is as important to rebuild-
ing the middle class as boosting college
graduation rates, results that while
shocking to some, are consistent with
previous research.
In our democracy, when workers are
joined together in unions they are able
to more forcefully and effectively speak
for their interests. Unions give workers
a greater voice not only by promoting
political participation among all Amer-
icans — ensuring that more of the mid-
dle class vote and get involved in poli-
tics — but also by being an advocate on
behalf of the middle class in the daily,
inner-workings of government and pol-
itics.
This provides a check on other pow-
erful political interests, such as corpo-
rations and the very wealthy, and en-
sures that our system of government has
the balance of interests that James
Madison, a chief framer of our consti-
tution, thought necessary to properly
function. This counterbalancing role is
essential for democracy to function
properly and respond to the interests of
all Americans.
In the workplace, workers who join
together in unions are able to negotiate
on more equal footing with their em-
ployers, providing a check on the inher-
ently unequal relationship between em-
ployer and employee. As George
Shultz, secretary of labor during the
Nixon Administration and secretary of
state during the Reagan Administration
argued in support of trade unions, in “a
healthy workplace, it is very important
that there be some system of checks and
balances.”
Indeed, the ability of workers united
together to provide a check on corpo-
rate power was the very reason Con-
gress guaranteed private-sector workers
the right to join a union, writing in the
findings section of the National Labor
Relations Act of 1935:
(Turn to Page 4)
(International Standard Serial Number 0894-444X)
Established in 1900 at Portland, Oregon
as a voice of the labor movement.
4275 NE Halsey St., P.O. Box 13150,
Portland, Ore. 97213
Telephone: (503) 288-3311
Editor: Michael Gutwig
Staff: Don McIntosh, Cheri Rice
Published on a semi-monthly basis on the first and third Fridays of
each month by the Oregon Labor Press Publishing Co. Inc., a non-
profit corporation owned by 20 unions and councils including the
Oregon AFL-CIO. Serving more than 120 union organizations in Ore-
gon and SW Washington. Subscriptions $13.75 per year for union
members.
Group rates available to trade union organizations.
PERIODICALS POSTAGE PAID
AT PORTLAND, OREGON.
CHANGE OF ADDRESS NOTICE: Three weeks are required for a
change of address. When ordering a change, please give your old
and new addresses and the name and number of your local union.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to
NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS, P.O. BOX 13150,
PORTLAND, OR 97213-0150
FEBRUARY 7, 2014
NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS
PAGE 3