Union Membership Edges Up, Density Down in 2023
Labor economists publish data ahead of Department of Labor release
As the labor movement eagerly awaits the release next week of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) annual report on union membership trends, some distinguished labor economists have beat the DOL to the punch. Using Census “data and methods identical to those used by” the DOL to estimate union membership trends, the economists have published their updated research at the immensely useful website www.unionstats.com.1 The data show that while union membership edged up 135,000 in 2023, union density — the percent of workers who were members of unions — declined to 10%, the lowest number on record.
Union Membership Up, But Density at Historic Low
According to unionstats.com, the number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions increased by 135,000 to 14.4 million in 2023, or a 0.9% increase. To put that in perspective, in 2022 union membership increased by 276,000, or double the membership increase in 2023. There were more union members in 2019 (14.6 million) than in 2023 (14.4 million).
[Please click to expand charts]
The percent of workers who were members of unions — the union density rate — was 10.0% in 2023, down from 10.1% in 2022. The 10.0% union density rate is the lowest on record (where comparable data is available).
While the absolute number of union members increased, the density rate decreased because employment was up 2.9 million workers in 2023, or a 2% increase. In other words, the small increase in union membership was eclipsed by the far larger increase in non-union employment.
Union Membership in the Public vs. Private Sector
Of the 14.4 million union members, 7.4 million are in the private sector (51% of union members) and 7.0 million are in the public sector (49%). The private sector saw an increase of 189,000 members, but with the large increase in non-union employment, the union density rate remained unchanged at 6.0% of private employment. If there is a silver lining, the 2.6% growth in union membership in the private sector exceeded the 2.2% increase in private sector employment.
The public sector saw a loss of 54,000 members, reducing the union density rate from 33.2% in 2022 to 32.5% in 2023. Ominously, while total employment grew 1.3% in the public sector, union membership in the public sector shrank by -0.8%.
Initial Reaction
When the BLS releases its report on January 23, there will be more detail on how the data break out in terms of industry, occupation, demography, and geography (although these data are also available at unionstats.com). But the entire labor movement was hoping for a far larger increase in the membership numbers, and at least a slight turn-up in the decades-long decline in the union density rate.
Seth Harris, who runs the Power at Work blog, wrote an excellent piece breaking down the factors that contribute to membership growth for unions. Surveying the many positive labor trends in 2023, Harris predicted that “the union density rate will increase in 2023” and union membership would likely exceed the 2022 increase of 273,000 members. Neither happened. Why?
There will be plenty of commentary to sift through, but I think there is a simple answer — unions are not investing enough in organizing. Eric Dirnbach, a union researcher and activist, recently analyzed the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) data on union representation elections. Dirnbach found that while workers won an astounding 76% of representation elections in 2023, unions in the private sector are running far fewer elections than in the past. As Dirnbach’s chart shows below, unions were running substantially more elections in 2001-2008 than in 2023 despite the recent reforms at the NLRB that have improved the election process.
As I’ve written in Jacobin and Substack, you can rule out financial issues as an explanation for the baffling lack of NLRB organizing because labor has plenty of money to invest in organizing. Unions have seen their net assets (assets minus liabilities) grow from $14.3 billion in 2010 to $32.7 billion in 2022, up 127% or about 11% annually. I’ve also noted that the lack of militancy could be rooted in the poor governance practices of some unions, as most union members do not directly elect their top officers.
Or perhaps more generously, unions are still wary of organizing workers because of the obscene difficulty of obtaining a first contract, and many of the NLRB organizing reforms have only recently been implemented. But my hope is that a group of unions have been quietly and deliberately building organizing committees at company targets with the plan to dramatically increase NLRB elections and voluntary recognition campaigns in 2024.
Still, as we are ten months from a presidential election, it’s hard to see labor beating back the existential threat of a Trump presidency and doubling or tripling its organizing campaigns.
But high-profile organizing fights, coupled with militant strike activity, can be an effective political strategy to elevate working-class issues. Strikes and organizing campaigns can mobilize and unite workers across political affiliations, help in the formation of a working-class identity, and effectively identify common political enemies. These types of activities may be far more politically salient than spending a billion dollars on Super PACs and writing checks to the Democratic party. While traditional union GOTV efforts are important, mass organizing may be the ticket to defeating the terrifying prospect of another Trump presidency.
According to the labor economists at www.unionstats.com, they use the “same methodology and identical definitions” at the DOL’s Bureau of Labor Statistics to determine union membership and density, producing results that only “differ trivially” from the DOL. Below is the methodology from the Unionstats.com website:
https://www.unionstats.com/cps/BLS_vs_UnionStats.htm
Equivalence/differences in UnionStats.com and BLS news release estimates of union membership and density
Both the BLS and UnionStats use the Current Population Survey (CPS) outgoing rotation group monthly files to compile annual estimates of union membership and density. The same methodology and identical definitions of union membership, representation (coverage), and density are used. With the exception of 1994, 2001, and 2002 (see below), estimates for the years 1983 through 2010 have been identical for economy-wide estimates provided by both BLS and UnionStats. As compared to UnionStats, BLS provides fewer significant digits (i.e., more rounding) and does not provide estimates at such disaggregated levels as does UnionStats due to concern about small sample sizes (e.g., detailed industry, detailed occupation, metropolitan areas, and private/public by state).
Beginning in 2011, estimates from BLS and from UnionStats differ trivially due to differences in the internal Census/BLS data files and publicly available CPS files. A new age swapping procedure was adopted in the CPS beginning in 2011 due to concerns about confidentiality. Public release files now have slightly different sample weights attached to individuals as compared to the internal files used by BLS to compile their estimates. Differences in published estimates by BLS and those shown at UnionStats are inconsequential and do not affect reliability. Two noticeable differences are that the “headline” overall density rates in 2012 and 2013 just rounded up to 11.3% in BLS published reports and rounded down to 11.2% in Unionstats using the publicly available CPS data. The chief reliability concern at UnionStats continues to be sampling and reporting error for estimates within narrow categories based on small sample sizes (sample sizes on which estimates are based are reported in all tables in the first column, labeled “obs”).
For the years 1983-2010 (BLS does not provide CPS union estimates for earlier years), there exist trivial differences in estimates from BLS and UnionStats in 1994, 2001, and 2002. Differences In 1994 were due to errors in the internal CPS files used by the BLS (public use files were corrected, but to avoid confusion BLS did not release revised figures). In 2001, BLS compiled union estimates using CPS files with a special half-year over-sample not included in the public use files. In 2002, BLS included revised weights in their internal files not initially included in the public use version (these were subsequently made public).