We are witnessing the political revival of unions. What does that mean for their members and their power?
How did unions, which were labeled “basically dead” in 2015 by The Atlantic’s Teresa Ghilarducci, seem to have been resurrected in the public consciousness?1 Has public popularity for unions risen from its historic lows not long ago in this century? Well, to answer these questions and a litany of others, one has to understand the current state in which unions exist: that of still relative disarray. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “In 2022, 30 states and the District of Columbia had union membership rates below that of the U.S. average, 10.1 percent, while 19 states had rates above it and 1 state (New Hampshire) had the same rate.”2 In these states, there are hotbeds of industrial activity. Michigan is famously the home of the American auto industry, Iowa centers around an agricultural lobby, and West Virginia is a (dilapidated) coal community, among others.
Fig 1: Right-to-work states.
Look further into the data, and one can see the correlation between a decline in unions and the rise of right-to-work legislation. Right-to-work laws were enacted in these states by Republican legislatures and governors focused on the potentially economically detrimental aspects of unions. Republican politicians like Scott Walker focused on the messaging that a right-to-work law would allow for the state to signal “Wisconsin is open for business.”
Right to work caused a decline of 5 to 10% on average in union membership and shrunk the strength of the unions by forcing unions to allow non-dues-paying membership, leading to a decline in union treasuries.3
However, this derailment has led to a backlash against this trust-busting attitude. Maybe the attitude towards unions in 2015 was that unions hamper economic growth, but in 2023 that’s not necessarily the case. Right-to-work states have proven that a decline in union power correlates with a decline in wages for union and non-union. For instance, unions gave concessions in the 2008 auto industry bailout but have yet to see a return of concessions, and they saw a decline in wages. Couple this with record salaries for executives, and one can see the rise of more vocal and active unions and a wider population sharing this sentiment. It must be noted that a tentative deal is in the works, where unions are expecting to get wage growth and a return of certain healthcare and contract benefits.4
Now, American support for unions reflects that many Americans have noticed the shrinking size of unions and reject it. In 2015, approval of labor unions sat at 53-58%, but in 2023 support sits close to its 1970s high at about 71%.5 Union support, in the lifetime of many, has never been higher.
In membership, there is a disconnect between policy and public attitudes. It has never been harder to be a part of a union and engage in collective bargaining, but it has almost never been as popular. Therefore, right now, the disconnect between membership and political policy occupies a special place in political discourse, leading to the resurgence of a dialogue about labor issues.
This growth in union-based political consciousness has not been lost on the unions. There has been a resurgence in action taken by unions contributing to their return to the zeitgeist. The SAG-AFTRA strike was a prominent, star-studded return of union politics to the nightly news. The UAW has escalated its rhetoric around demanding wages and concessions from the auto industry. Likewise, the prominence of the Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees decision and the recent Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters case, which simultaneously both derailed union abilities to strike effectively and returned the debate to the Supreme Court, therefore elevating the issue of labor unions. Likewise, the presence of a sitting president who promotes labor issues in politics presents the issues as having current importance but also elevates the importance of the issue as a mainstream political one. This prevalence, coupled with growing support, shows American attention and, therefore, political debate and consideration centering around the role unions can play in society.
But union attention has not limited itself to the return of attention to increasing membership in existing unions, but also to the arrival of new industries that present the opportunity to organize individuals who never were part of a union, and even the creation of new unions. As the economy changes, new industries arrive, and more competitive business models and wages arrive. In this equation, it is inevitable that new workers take opportunities to advance their positions in these roles.
The gig economy, for instance, has been a long-overlooked market given the contractor status of employees. However, recent legislation has been proposed to remove that contractor status, and given that for many, this has become their livelihood, it is a logical choice. In the United States, the Bureau of Labor Statistics counts 36% of US workers as falling under the freelance or independent worker classification (i.e., gig economy workers).6 Of these workers, a Forbes study found 60% of income was made freelance and 69% saw themselves working in the industry in the future.7 Therefore, this is not some passing fancy and is a market contributing to the economy and employing, not contracting, a workforce.
As a result of this growing part of the economy, gig work has been spoken about in talks of unionization and political-economic protection. Senator Schumer’s recent 2022 re-election deployed a platform that directly included the issue of counting gig economy workers as employees, thereby granting them rights.8 In New York, likewise, the State Legislature is attempting to allow for collective bargaining of freelance workers.9 This particular bill was written by unions in conjunction with Uber and Lyft and therefore has been the subject of controversy. Nevertheless, the fact that these companies have acquiesced to the idea of some protections and rights proves they see the growing union fight as a battle they cannot be too against, given its momentum.
The growth in union attention is not limited to action by freelance and part-time workers. Industries previously not targeted by labor activists have become battlegrounds for unionization. For example, Starbucks employees, members of the service industry, have unionized across 300 stores since the process of unionization began in 2021.10 But these victories are often short-lived. For instance, in spite of progress, Amazon’s historic unionization on Staten Island has become mired in controversy over leadership and agenda.11
Nevertheless, in this decade, union support has returned from its absence and continues to be at the forefront of headlines. Its presence is more and more visible with industries previously untouched by unionization now engaging in the process. This cycle mirrors the progress of public sector workers. Public sector workers were initially not called employees, were legally forbidden from unionization, and faced stringent measures against collective action. In the 1960s, unions faced a series of defeats about their authority to compel public employees to unionize. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan derailed union authority by spearheading the defeat of the National Public Employment Relations Act, which would have streamlined the process of creating unions and joining them. Nevertheless, public sector unions survived. Private sector unions now face the precedents of anti-union action and reaction. Compound this with the effect of the mass headline and celebrity factor of modern strikes, and the case can be made for a drawn-out rise in union participation and acceptance: a far cry from being ‘dead.’
However, while unions are a far cry from being dead, what is truly needed to remove the private sector labor movement from life support and match the percentage of unionized employees with the favorable perception that unionization in general enjoys today is a two-prong amendment to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law which governs private-sector organizing activity.12 Firstly, the provision of the NLRA that allows states to enact Right to Work Laws should be repealed.13 This change is needed not simply to enhance the power of organized labor but because right-to-work laws clearly have not benefited individual workers. A provision in federal labor law that results in the average worker earning less and having fewer protections is unequivocally bad federal policy and is long overdue for a change.
Similarly, the definition of “employee” in the NLRA should be amended to include workers in the “gig economy.”14 If federal labor policy is intended to protect workers in general, using a definition of employee that excludes a broad area of the workforce––one which will only continue to grow as the gig economy expands––makes little sense from the perspective of national labor policy.