No, Unions Aren't Having a Resurgence—and That's Good for Workers
Private unions have every right to exist, but that doesn't mean they're actually beneficial on net.

Unions are said to be having a moment. The story goes something like this: Helped by a presidential administration that touts itself as the "most pro-union in history," labor unions—after decades of decline—are winning big victories against anti-union corporations and extracting impressive concessions for their workers. But is it all true?
There has certainly been a lot of union activity. Last year we witnessed a significant increase in strikes and threats of strikes. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the country lost 16.6 million labor days to work stoppages last year. You have to go all the way back to 2000 to find this level of union disturbance.
In addition, the United Auto Workers (UAW) reached an agreement with Ford that included wage hikes of 25 percent. Similar agreements with Stellantis and General Motors followed. Other unions won contract gains at large employers such as UPS and Hollywood TV and film studios. Then there was the much celebrated UAW victory in a representation election at Volkswagen in Tennessee and progress made at some Starbucks stores.
All the same, talk of a union renaissance might be much ado about nothing. Union membership as a share of wage and salary workers has declined steadily from 28.3 percent in 1967 to an all-time low of 10 percent in 2023. Although the absolute number of union workers has recently risen, it hasn't kept up with the growth of the total number of American workers.
National Review's Dominic Pino has been following unions comprehensively. He never forgets to report both their wins and their losses. For instance, workers at a unionized Nissan facility in Somerset, New Jersey, are in the process of decertifying from the UAW. The same happened at various non-Starbucks coffee shops.
These events are in line with the overall trend for UAW, Pino notes, as "membership declined last year to 370,000. It was nearly 400,000 in 2020, and it peaked at 1.5 million in 1970." To be fair to the labor movement, part of this decline could be because UAW bosses have been pretty corrupt. For instance, National Review reported that "in December 2020, the UAW reached a settlement with the Department of Justice after a yearslong fraud and corruption investigation. More than a dozen top union officials, including two former presidents, were convicted of crimes for embezzlement of workers' dues."
It could also be that unions aren't so much about fighting for the cause of blue collar workers as they used to be. Indeed, 49 percent of union members worked for the government in 2023. Thirty-three percent of public sector employees are in unions, as opposed to just 6 percent of the private sector. In the case of UAW, about 100,000 members work in higher education, including graduate student workers statistically likely to go on to non–blue collar jobs.
I believe public sector unions shouldn't exist. Taxpayers—the ones paying the bills when government unions successfully negotiate pay and benefits hikes—are not adequately represented at the negotiation table. In fact, with their political donations, public sector unions help decide who sits on the other end of that negotiating table.
By contrast, private unions have every right to exist, but this doesn't mean they're a good thing on net for workers. A September 2023 National Bureau of Economic Research paper looked at what a unionized workforce does to incentives and investment. While unionized plants pay higher wages and benefits than do nonunionized ones, they also "experience higher rates of closure, reduced investment, and slower employment growth." In other words, your unionized job might pay more, as long as it doesn't go away—and good luck finding another like it. The result holds also for partially unionized plants.
Introducing more competition to the private sector union business model could help. For that, my colleague Liya Palagashvili suggests ending the exclusive-representation clause that "provides government-granted monopoly status to a union supported by 51 percent of an employer's workers, giving it the sole authority to negotiate. This means that if some workers want a different union—for example a newer one that might raise the bar in terms of what it can offer—they are out of luck." Today, these workers aren't allowed to engage in any negotiations with their employers, and they still have to pay the original union's fees.
The bottom line is that unions aren't really going through a renaissance. All things considered, their failure is most workers' gain.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
are winning big victories against anti-union corporations and extracting impressive concessions for their workers. But is it all true?
In some industries, yes.
What's hilarious about that is that journalism is in such decline that a bunch of unionized publications have closed since that report.
Can't get blood from a stone, you know. Traditional journalism doesn't make money like it did.
If journalism has taught me anything, it's that if you can't get blood from a stone, it's because you aren't throwing it at the right people.
Then we have Teachers unions in Chicago who use their false power not only to enrich themselves despite failing at their jobs, but use that false power for DNC political policy. The latest negotiations has a lotnof policy from illegal immigrants to Gaza in their negotiations.
The Chicago Teachers union is currently making demands (a good chunk of which won't directly benefit their members) that are not only a more than 5 fold increase the the CPS budget, it is only slightly below total tax receipts for the state of Illinois.
Unfortunately, it isn't false power. It is illegitimate power.
You think Reason writers will join the union?
Wouldn't THAT be rich!
I'm pretty sure the hollywood strikes were the last cut to pull that golden egg out of the goose. There's literally nothing of interest to me on TV, and the rare shows I might have enjoyed last year I don't see on the rotten tomatoes latest TV list. I wonder if they're gone forever, even if they aren't it's been so long I just don't care about them anymore.
The comment about the absolute number of union workers rising interests me. I wonder if the absolute number is tied to an increase in government employees or not.
Shogun on FX was surprisingly solid.
They, like the rest of the left, have also gone insane.
Chicago teacher unions now want the entirety of last year's ENTIRE CITYWIDE BUDGET to go to them. And for reasons that have nothing to do with education (abortions, illegals, LGBT pedo grooming, etc). When they're already spending far more per student, but have one of the highest failure and illiteracy rates in the nation.
The unions no longer work for the unionized (or anyone the unionized claim to benefit). Every dollar that goes to them is a slush fund that bankrolls Marxist efforts to socially, culturally, and economically destroy America.
Always have to include your lies and hate about LGTB people.
Fuck you and fuck your god that doesn’t exist you uneducated, backwards bigot.
If we ever met in person I would fucking curb stomp you. Nazis like you have no right to exist in MY country!
"If we ever met in person I would fucking curb stomp you. "
Sure you would, sonny.
Reminder: KARtikeya is so stupid, he thinks the main theme of my half-decade of Charles Koch criticism is that CK is a communist!
Despite the fact that every time I mention that geezer, I point out that he wants to depress workers' wages so that billionaires like him can get richer - which makes him the *** literal antithesis *** of a communist.
"C'mon, Sandy, nobody's reading comprehension is bad enough to so fundamentally misinterpret your subtle-as-a-sledgehammer POV. You must be twisting his words."
Nope! He really thinks my agenda is to paint a greedy mustache-twirler with a $60,000,000,000 inherited fortune as a "commie": Koch isn’t some commie like you make him out to be. Your whole parody is flawed.
Oops! Now I'll point out my own mistake. 🙁
I said CK has a $60B inherited fortune. In fact now it's closer to $70B because he's up almost $7B in year 4 of #Bidenomics.
Hmmmmmmmm there's a Democrat in the White House, implementing pro-billionaire / anti-worker policies like loose borders, and polls repeatedly show voters in general aren't happy with the economy ....... but the 30 richest Americans are rapidly getting richer?!
Seems "[my] whole parody" is right on target.
What lies? Remove your cranium from your rectal orifice and pay attention. These are real demands of the Chicago Teacher's Union.
Language.
Honestly KAR, at this point I'm pretty convinced that the only reason you get this upset about having these facts pointed out to you is... well, it's the same reason the Marxist left gets so worked up about LOTT. To the point of doxxing, harassing, threatening her and her family's lives, etc.
They hate having the mirror held up to them. They can't deny what they see because they know every word that's said about them is true. And the reason you get so angry every time the subject comes up is, well... it's probably very true for you, and you don't want that pointed out.
Well too bad, because it's fairly obvious that you're either a pedophile yourself; or you're actively, consciously, and intentionally enabling them. And that's probably very scary for you right now, knowing that everyone's finally waking up to what your little rainbow groomer cult has been up to all this time. And it should be.
Because soon they'll be coming for you, and there's no place they won't find you.
Here Here!
Not only that, but they screeched and ree’d about how the original commenter was allegedly lying about and hating on the Rainbow Alphabet Nazis, except when I read the comment KAR is replying to, there does not even appear to be any specific mention of the Rainbow Alphabet Nazis.
Also, libertarianism, by definition, *opposes* genocide, aggressive/pre-emptive warfare, and government collusion with corporations, which were… kind of the whole schtick of Hitler and the Nazis, were they not?
Is this clear enough for Rainbow Alphabet Nazi KAR? All Nazis, then and now, are literally devoid of any redeeming qualities whatsoever, with the sole exception of their hatred of communists (To be fair, all communists are also literally devoid of any redeeming qualities whatsoever, with the sole exception of their hatred of Nazis; however, they're either too stupid to know what an actual Nazi is, or they lie and call everything that isn't communism "Nazism").
KAR is apparently confused about what a Nazi actually is. Not having government give them their way on everything isn’t “Nazi” policy. In fact, it should be considered the exact opposite, because the ACTUAL, LITERAL Nazi policy was basically to force everyone to blindly and enthusiastically obey their genocidal corporatist-government gestalt, without complaint! And to crush all dissent… brutally and even murderously!
Look in a mirror, Rainbow Alphabet Nazi KAR. We all know what you are deep down in your lying, blackened, shriveled heart.
…
(Also, as an aside, it took me a brief, bemusing moment to process that LOTT is Libs of Tik Tok, and not an enormous robotic Trent Lott from some obscure Kurt Vonnegut story. Never saw it as an acronym before today.).
That argument is sure to change minds. Hey by the way with 52+ genders what does the B stand for now?
99.99% of people that claim online "If I ever met you in person, I would ...", would RUN if they ever met whoever they are threatening in person. When they stopped, they would need to change their underwear.
NO. Unions DO NOT have a right to exist, not in their present form. The idea that you can quit your job, tell your former employer to not hire a replacement, and that they have to hire you back after they have submitted, and all this extortion is enforced by government laws and guns -- that is truly bonkers.
If employees want to band together and be hired, fired, and quit together, sure, go ahead, picket to your heart's content. But it is immoral for governments to force employers to not hire replacements and to hire back the quitters.
How is this different from Employers forcing non-compete clauses on their employees ? Leave and you can't work in your field of expertise for X years because they say it isn't fair to them. Perfectly good people willing to work , but can't due to contract shenanigans. Nothing like paying government dole money to former 6 figure earners ... and believe it that they'd rather be WORKING in the private sector making their 6 figures again and not trying to live on government scraps.
Uh, no, governments don't force those conditions on employees.
"in their present form" is, I think, doing a lot of work in that opening sentence. Freedom of association is a pretty foundational right and unions fall squarely under that right. But I agree that they should not enjoy the government-enforced monopoly powers that they currently do.
To Liberty's comment, who put a gun to the head of those employees to sign those contracts? No one? You mean they were voluntarily entered into in exchange for valuable consideration? Sorry, I don't have a lot of sympathy. As a former employer, I think that most non-compete clauses are counter-productive and are more a matter of unthinking tradition than rational business choice - but that is not a legal basis for invalidating them. It's not illegal to be stupid.
“In their present form” means that the government forces employers to not hire replacements, and to rehire strikers afterwards.
That is a huge thumb on the scales.
If I run a business, I should have the right to tell unionized "workers" that they have every right to bargain collectively, and I have every right NOT to bargain with the union. I hire PEOPLE, not unions.
I believe public sector unions shouldn't exist.
It was good of her to be straightforward about this, so that we can evaluate her analysis with that in mind. She also gives her justification for that belief.
Taxpayers—the ones paying the bills when government unions successfully negotiate pay and benefits hikes—are not adequately represented at the negotiation table. In fact, with their political donations, public sector unions help decide who sits on the other end of that negotiating table.
This is a one-sided take on campaign spending. If public employee unions "help decide" who gets elected to set overall budgets, taxes, and spending priorities, then so do businesses with a lot of incentive to push for low tax rates. Unions are then competing with other special interests for influence over politicians.
This would be better expressed as a general concern about how voters don't have the amount of influence over their elected leaders as they should.* This is due to the need for candidates to raise money from special interests and wealthy individuals with agendas in order to fund successful campaigns. But hey, restricting campaign contributions restricts free speech, some say. If you have less money, then you get less speech.
*Public employee unions end up as a highly partisan point of contention because most of them have come to support Democrats almost exclusively. The unions that actually tend to support Republicans more often, or at least as often, are police unions, firefighter unions, and corrections officer unions. They always seem to get exempted from restrictions or other actions Republicans pass against public employee unions generally. Imagine that.
My argument against public unions is pretty simple.
When unions raises the price of goods and services that a company provides, customers can go somewhere else. If the union causes prices to go beyond what people are willing to pay, the company goes out of business. I'm fine with that. Customers are ultimately in charge.
When unions raise the cost of government, government raises taxes. If you don’t like it, fuck you. I'm not fine with that, because that puts government workers in charge.
When unions raise the cost of government, government raises taxes. If you don’t like it, fuck you. I’m not fine with that, because that puts government workers in charge.
So, what, people can't vote for politicians that won't raise taxes?
I've seen Republican politicians in my state announce how they were going to give police officers and other first responders bonuses and raises and say that they needed to do it in order to attract enough good people for those jobs. I haven't heard any backlash from Republican voters about how that will raise their taxes.
That is how it is supposed to work. Politicians try and figure out what the most voters want from government and then offer it to them at a price they are willing to pay. If they are not willing to pay it, then they will vote for someone else. If they aren't getting the amount of services or quality of services that they want from the current crop of politicians, but are willing to pay more to get them, then they will vote for politicians that will give them what they want instead.
Looking at your statement, "if you don't like it, fuck you." That sounds more like you not being okay with being in a minority of voters. If most voters wanted the greater services or supposed higher quality of services that comes with higher pay for government workers (or if those voters figure that someone else is going to be paying the higher taxes), you'd have no choice in the matter. Rather, your choice was to vote for someone else, but your choice lost. You wouldn't have anything you could do about that and continue to live in the same place. That would be correct.
Politicians try and figure out what the most voters want from government and then offer it to them at a price they are willing to pay.
Not at all. Politicians promise to give people free stuff at the expense of everyone else. Tax the rich. Tax businesses. Tax wealth. Tax them. Who says "Please tax me more so I can pay for everyone else's free shit"?
Or as Bastiat said "Government is the great fiction where everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else."
Looking at your statement, “if you don’t like it, fuck you.” That sounds more like you not being okay with being in a minority of voters.
It means that with government you don't have much choice because if they want you to pay for things you neither want nor need, and you refuse, they'll send people to lock you in a cage. If you fight back they will kill you not lose a wink of sleep. That's what "if you don't like it, fuck you" means.
By the way, whether the government workers are unionized or not, you could still get politicians that will pay a premium for some government jobs in order to get good people to fill those positions, just like a private business would. That is why, union or no union, the solution to overpaid government employees is vote for politicians that won't overpay them.
Good people don’t fill government positions. People who can’t produce anything of value for others fill government positions. It’s a job program for idiots who use violence to coerce others into bending to their will. Doesn’t matter what the payscale is, the jobs will be filled by the worst of the worst. It used to be that government didn’t pay well, but instead offered job security. Now it pays better than the private sector with lifetime job security and early, paid retirement. Did the quality of workers improve? No. Why? Because productive people find productive work. Because good people don't seek out the power to coerce others. Because good people don't depend on threats of violence to pay their bills.
What is your solution? Government sucks, so why bother trying to do anything about it? I propose that voting, as imperfect as it is, is still better than doing nothing but complaining about things on the internet.
Voting would be very useful if there were a selection such as Cut Spending by 20% across the board. The problem is that the politicians lie profusely and you can't tell who will be a good candidate until it's too late.
As stated the problem with public unions is the tax payer doesn't get a seat at the table. Their suppose it 'rep does'. Why are the state union pensions broke? Who makes these golden promises? When has a public sector union had cuts?
You also left out that if you do a bad job for a public sector union, you don't get fired just moved. You know like all those sexually harassing teachers in NY years ago that just got a timeout with pay.
Unlike a private sector union, I can't take my business elsewhere if I don't like a public. My property is taxed. If you want public unions to exist, than the raises and packages should be put up for a vote.
By the way in big cities, Police, firefight unions, etc are democrat.
This article is simply not true. Unions remain quite strong worldwide. Within the US, the unpopularity of unions is specifically concentrated among the racist majority of white workers, and also to some degree among nonwhites who are white supremacists & anti-black racists. The world's wealthiest working & middle classes are overwhelmingly in countries with the highest union membership.
Query that last sentence = "The world’s wealthiest working & middle classes are overwhelmingly in countries with the highest union membership."
Many of those other countries with high union membership have lower GDP/capita than the USA. So, for each of those countries, how does their unionized person income and wealth compare with the income and wealth of non-unionized USA persons, particularly the ones living in non-unionized southern states?
About the only thing you won't get a dispute on is that those other countries, mostly, have less income/wealth inequality than the USA does.
LOL. Is this parody?
For the umpteenth time, I will suggest that the Reason staff read "In the Name of Liberty: The Argument for Universal Unionization" by Mark Reiff and "Hell to Pay: How the Suppression of Wages Is Destroying America," by Michael Lind, then re-consider your anti-union animus.
And - also for the umpteenth time - you are having to fruitlessly repeat your worthless suggestion because the works cited are worthless. You have not given any evidence to suggest that Reason staff have not read that baseless propaganda and rejected it because it is worthless.
Everyone has a right to try to form a union and to try to bargain collectively with an employer. Laws requiring employers to refrain from discouraging the organization of their employees into a union, to recognize and bargain in good faith with a union, or even assist a union with organizing and bargaining activities are unconstitutional on their face and should be struck down with extreme prejudice. Although government employees certainly have a right to try to organize a union, government agencies should be forbidden from engaging in collective bargaining with public employees or their unions. Any government employee who fails to come to work during a strike should be automatically fired and banned from being hired by any other government agency. Ever. Again.