Union membership for 2019 is out. Here’s how labor did.

by C.M. Lewis and Kevin Reuning

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released their annual report on union membership and density throughout the United States yesterday, and in spite of hopes that a renewed surge of militancy would bring good news, the figures from 2019 are a stark reminder that there’s work to be done. To help do that work, we’ve broken out the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers into a detailed analysis of trends showing where unions are losing members, where they’re gaining members, and what that means for the labor movement.

The Numbers

Union membership is down once again, both in absolute numbers of members and as a share of the workforce, with a decline of 172,000 members nationwide and a decline from 10.53% of the workforce as members to 10.28%, and 11.69% of the workforce represented by unions to 11.56%.

So what does that decline mean, when measured against past years?

It’s not as bad as it could be, and as a single year decline it’s among the smaller ones in the past three decades. But it’s still not what labor activists hoped. With unprecedented strike activity throughout the past two years and a wave of organizing in some key industries, holding the line—or growing—would have been further sign that organized labor is turning the tide.

Looking at the top line figures, however, conceals how the changes occurred. To analyze that, we broke out the changes by a number of categories, beginning with state-level changes. The table we compiled shows the net changes in position between 2018 and 2019, rounded to the nearest thousand; it also shows net changes in the percentage of total workers belonging to or represented by a union. Breaking out the highs and lows:

HIGHEST MEMBERSHIP LOSS: New York hemorrhaged union members, losing approximately 140,000.
HIGHEST MEMBERSHIP GAIN: California gained just shy of 100,000 new union members.
HIGHEST DENSITY LOSS: Colorado plummeted in union density, losing 2.2%.
HIGHEST DENSITY GAIN: Missouri, which defeated a Right-to-Work measure through a ballot initiative in late 2018, added 45,000 members and 1.9% union density in 2019.

Notably, West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Arizona—three “red” states that saw significant strike activity in 2018—reported membership growth. Meanwhile, “blue wall” states like Pennsylvania that voted for Donald Trump in 2016 saw net loss.

The losses also weren’t uniform across sectors of the economy. Declines were slightly higher in the public sector, especially in local and federal employment. Two charts show what occurred.

The first chart shows overall declines, with slightly higher declines in the public sector (especially local and federal employment). But the real story is in the second chart, which shows significant declines in membership percentages. In other words, unions—especially private sector unions, and unions with federal and local employers—lost members while not necessarily losing numbers among represented workers; only state unions saw an increase in membership rates.

This is to be expected; 2019 was the first full year since the Supreme Court issued their landmark ruling in Janus v. AFSCME in June of 2018, and anti-union groups launched heavy offensives to pressure union members to leave. Likewise, the federal sector continued to suffer attacks from the Trump administration, including wide restrictions on their bargaining rights and ability to conduct union business. The two combined took a toll on public sector union membership, though ultimately not as large of one as was feared.

However, the real shock comes in the demographic breakdown of membership union losses, revealing trends in union representation and who the war on workers impacts most.

The gap between men and women in organized labor has narrowed, but in all demographic groups men are a greater share of union members—except among Asian workers. More Asian women than Asian men belong to labor unions; as the next graph shows, they’re also the only demographic groups that saw increases in union membership in 2019.

Union membership plummeted among black workers far more rapidly than any other demographic group identified in Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Workers of color, especially black workers, are a higher percentage of public and federal employment than they are of the overall workforce; in other words, disproportionate declines in public and federal employment will be disproportionately felt by black workers and workers of color. But even accounting for the large percentage of black workers in public and federal employment, membership loss among black union members is alarmingly large, and should be closely examined and addressed by organized labor.

But it’s not all grim.

Union membership increased significantly in media and entertainment industries, reflecting the wave of new organizing pushed by (among others) the Writers’ Guild of America and the News Guild-CWA. Community and Social Services also saw a significant spike, reflecting in part the increased push in nonprofit organizing. In other words, declines weren’t uniform: specific segments of the economy, like telecommunications and education, were hit harder by membership loss than others; in some industries, workers flocked to join unions.

So what are some of the key takeaways?

Janus v. AFSCME had an impact. Membership losses were overwhelmingly in the public sector, primarily in local public employers (municipalities, counties, and school districts). But it didn’t have an even impact: some states with strong public sector unions and fair share fees suffered relatively few losses or even grew overall, while others (like New York) lost high numbers of union members.
Realistically, while losses are disappointing: it could’ve been a lot worse. The imposition of Janus worried union activists with the potential for losing far more members. That the decline was slight can’t be called a victory, but it’s a sign that unions can cope with the new reality of the public sector open shop.
Missouri’s dramatic increase in union density should raise interest, given the near constant assaults on public and private sector unions by Missouri’s Republican-controlled state government. The massive mobilization and engagement campaign raised by unions to engage members and voters to defeat “Right-to-Work” through ballot initiative can’t be underestimated as a contributing factor, and suggests—as Douglas Williams argued—that ballot initiatives could be a way to grow union power, both on the shop floor and at the ballot box.
The significant losses in New York need further explanation, but they suggest that legislative fixes can’t replace organizing in an open shop environment. New York labor worked with Andrew Cuomo to prepare for Janus by carving back things like the duty of fair representation under the theory it would incentivize members to stay part of the union; organizing and internal engagement played a secondary role in many large New York public sector unions. It’s uncertain whether their gambit failed, or other factors contributed to high membership losses.
Strikes work. States that saw mass strike action in 2018 saw increases in union membership in 2019; likewise, states with widespread strike action (like California) in multiple key employers also saw increased union membership. There’s not a 1:1 correlation—strikes are an effect of increased union militancy, and rarely the cause—but it seems clear that in states where the rank-and-file is flexing its muscles, unions are doing well.
The high decline of union membership among black workers needs to be explained and addressed. The labor movement has exemplified both the best and the worst of the struggle for civil rights, and unions still grapple with racial and gender diversity in leadership ranks. A significant decline in union membership among black workers is a sign of something—what that something is, however, we need to figure out.

The top line numbers are a continuation of a trend that unionists have seen for decades: continual decline. It’s easy to look at them in defeat. For as hard as the labor movement has fought, and for as many battles as unions have won, holding the line or growing would be a welcome sign.

However, looking at the underlying patterns gives us signs of what’s working, and what’s not: and clearly demonstrates where we’re getting stronger, and where there’s work to be done. Using those lessons, we can make 2020 the year that organized labor advances.

C.M. Lewis is an editor of Strikewave and a union activist in Pennsylvania.
Kevin Reuning (@KevinReuning) is an assistant professor of political science at Miami University.