Women accounted for three-fourths of the overall increase, but there are still more unionized men (8.006 million) than women (6.758 million).  Union density was higher among men, too, although several of the most union-dense professions – such as teaching and library positions – are heavily female.

 

            Others, however, primarily in public safety and construction, are male-dominated.  BLS noted the union share among public workers (37%) was five times that of private sector workers (6.9%).  

 

            “It is telling that as our country begins to recover jobs lost during the Great Recession, good union jobs are beginning to come back,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said.

 

            The union advantage in wages widened, compared to non-union workers.  In 2010, the median wage for union workers was $200 a week more than for non-unionists.  In 2011, it increased to $209, with unionists’ weekly median at $938.

 

            Unionization also, as usual, helped close the male-female wage gap.  The typical union man made $982 weekly, compared to the $798 median weekly wage for the non-union man.  The median weekly wage for union women was $879 – 89.5% that of union men – compared to $653 (81.9% of the male median) for non-union women.

 

           Overall, unions had 400,000 more public sector workers than private sector workers.  That contrast also appeared in the unionization rates of construction (14%) and public safety occupations (34.5%).  Huge wage gaps between union and non-union workers occurred in both: $381 weekly for unionists in public safety and $460 weekly for unionists in construction.

 

            BLS bases its report on a survey of 60,000 households nationwide and they’re not all the same 60,000 surveyed the year before, BLS cautioned.  It also said that sampling error could affect the data.

 

            Another difference appeared in comparing the BLS data for specific states to figures on websites of state AFL-CIOs and National Education Association affiliates.  The 3.2-million member NEA is considered a union in many – but not all – states.

 

            For example, BLS reported Alaska had 68,000 union members last year, the same number as the year before, and 22.1% of the state’s workers – the second-highest percentage in the U.S., behind New York (24.1%).  But the Alaska AFL-CIO’s site says its member locals “have more than 60,000 members” and Alaska’s NEA affiliate reports another 13,000.

 

            The same thing happened in Kansas, which saw union membership rise in one year from 84,000 (6.8% of all workers) to 97,000 (7.6%).  The Kansas NEA did not post figures, but the state AFL-CIO alone said its locals include “more than 95,000 workers.”

 

            Union members were concentrated in the Northeast, the Great Lakes states and the Pacific Coast.  New York led the nation in 2011 with 1.906 million union members, down 193,000 and 1.9% from the year before.  Alaska was second and Hawaii (21.5%) was third.  Hawaii’s union share was down 0.3% but membership rose by 2,000, to 113,000, BLS survey data showed.

 

            More than half of union members again concentrated in seven states: California with 2.379 million, New York with 1.906 million, Illinois with 876,000, Pennsylvania with 779,000, Michigan with 671,000, Ohio with 647,000, and New Jersey 615,000.  Feeling the impact of the recession, California lost 199,000 union members and its union share declined 1.5%, to 17.1%. 

 

           Illinois gained 32,000 in one year, with unionists rising from 15.5% of its workforce to 16.2%.  But in another case where the state fed-NEA figures differ with BLS, the Illinois Federation of Labor website says its member locals “have nearly 900,000 members” while the state’s NEA affiliate says it has “more than 133,000.”

 

            Pennsylvania gained 8,000 unionists last year, but the union share declined 0.1%, to 14.6%. Reflecting start of the recovery in the auto industry, Michigan’s unions added 44,000 in one year and its unionist share of the workforce rose by 1%, to 17.5%. 

 

           Union numbers and shares in New Jersey and Ohio both slipped: Down 8,000 members and 0.3%, to 13.4% in Ohio and down 22,000 members and 1%, to 16.1%, in New Jersey.  California’s 1.9% decline in the union share of the workforce trailed only that of Idaho, down 2%, to 5.1%.  Minnesota lost 14,000 unionists, down to 371,000, and its union share slipped 0.5%, to 15.1%.

 

            Besides Kansas, other notable gains in union shares of the workforce occurred in  Maryland (+20,000 unionists and 0.8%, to 12.4%), Oregon (+25,000 union members and up 0.9% to 17.1%) and Missouri (+31,000, to 275,000, and up 1%, to 10.9%).  

 

Press Associates, Inc. (PAI) – 1/27/2012