2014 State of the Unions NYS NYC

THE STATE OF THE UNIONS 2014:
A PROFILE OF ORGANIZED LABOR IN
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK STATE,
AND THE UNITED STATES
RUTH MI LKMAN AND STEPHANI E LUCE
THE JOSEPH S. MURPHY INSTITUTE FOR WORKER EDUCATION AND LABOR STUDIES
AND THE CENTER FOR URBAN RESEARCH, CUNY GRADUATE CENTER
SEPTEMBER 2014
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Ruth Milkman holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of California, Berkeley. She is Professor of
Sociology at the CUNY Graduate Center and Professor and Research Director at the Joseph S. Murphy Institute
for Worker Education and Labor Studies. She is the author of L.A. Story: Immigrant Workers and the Future of
the U.S. Labor Movement (2006), co-author (with Eileen Appelbaum) of Unfinished Business: Paid Family Leave
and the Future of U.S. Work-Family Policy (2013). Her most recent book, co-edited with Ed Ott, is New Labor in
New York: Precarious Workers and the Future of the Labor Movement (2014).
Stephanie Luce holds an M.A. in Industrial Relations and a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Wisconsin,
Madison. She is Professor of Labor Studies at the Joseph S. Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor
Studies and on the graduate faculty in Sociology at the CUNY Graduate Center. She is the author of Fighting
for a Living Wage (2004) and co-editor (with Jennifer Luff, Joseph A. McCartin, and Ruth Milkman) of What Works
for Workers: Public Policies and Innovative Strategies for Low-Wage Workers (2014). Her most recent book is
Labor Movements: Global Perspectives (2014).
The State of the Unions 2011 1
THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2013 1
THE STATE OF THE UNIONS 2014:
A PROFILE OF ORGANIZED LABOR IN
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK STATE, AND THE UNITED STATES
R U T H MI L K MA N A N D S T E P H A N I E L U C E
Organized labor in the United States has suffered
sharp decline in numbers and influence in recent
years. In addition to the challenges of an anemic
economic recovery and persistent unemployment
among many of their members, unions in many
parts of the nation have faced unprecedented
attacks on public-sector collective bargaining rights
and aggressive demands for concessions from both
public- and private-sector employers. In New York
City, many public-sector employees are currently
working without contracts; the unions that represent
them have been unable to win improvements in
wages and benefits in the aftermath of the financial
crisis of 2007-08, and inequality in income and
wealth have reached levels not seen since the early
twentieth century.
Relative to the nation as a whole, organized labor
remains strong in New York City and State; indeed,
unions have had a modest rebound in the last year,
reversing a pattern of steady erosion during the
previous several years, as Figure 1a shows. According
to the U.S. Current Population Survey (CPS) data that
serve as the primary basis of this report, nearly one-
fourth (24.0 percent) of all wage and salary workers
residing in the five boroughs of New York City were
union members in 2013-14, up from 21.5 percent
in 2012.
1
The unionized share of the workforce was
slightly higher in New York State (24.6 percent)
than in the city; indeed, New York ranks first in
union density among the nation’s fifty states, with a
unionization rate more than double the U.S. average
of 11.3 percent in 2013-14.
2
In absolute terms, New
York State had more union members – almost 2
million – than any state except California, which has
a far larger population. In 2013-14, there were about
812,000 union members in the five boroughs of New
York City, representing roughly two out of every five
union members in the state.
3
In recent years, losses in union membership have
been disproportionately concentrated in the private
sector (see Figures 1b and 1c), a trend that acceler-
ated after 2007 as the Great Recession unfolded.
4

By contrast, in the public sector, union density has
been relatively stable (see Figure 1c). In a striking
deviation from this pattern, private-sector density
has increased modestly in New York City and State
since our last report a year ago, reflecting the gradual
recovery of employment in unionized industries
hard hit by the recession, like construction and
hotels. (See p. 5 for discussion.) Meanwhile, public
2 THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014
Figure 1a. Union Density in New York City, New York State and the United States, 2001 - 2014
Figure 1b. Private-Sector Union Density in New York City, New York State and the United States, 2001 - 2014
11.2%
24.6%
24.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013-14
United States New York State New York City
Percentages shown for 2013-14 include the 18 months from January 2013 to June 2014.
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2001 - June 2014.

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

u
n
i
o
n
i
z
e
d

6.7%
15.1%
16.2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013-14
United States New York State New York City
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

u
n
i
o
n
i
z
e
d

Percentages shown for 2013-14 include the 18 months from January 2013 to June 2014.
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2001 - June 2014.

THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014 3
Figure 1c. Public-Sector Union Density in New York City, New York State and the United States, 2001 - 2014
Figure 2. Union Density, by Sector, New York City, New York State and the United States, 2013-14
35.4%
71.0%
71.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013-14
United States New York State New York City
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

u
n
i
o
n
i
z
e
d

Percentages shown for 2013-14 include the 18 months from January 2013 to June 2014.
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2001 - June 2014.

35%
7%
11%
71%
15%
25%
71%
16%
24%
71%
14%
25%
67%
12%
21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Public Sector Private Sector Both Sectors
United States New York State NYC (5 Boroughs) NYS Excluding NYC NYC Metro Area
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

u
n
i
o
n
i
z
e
d

Percentages shown for 2013-14 include the 18 months from January 2013 to June 2014.
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2013 - June 2014.
4 THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014
68%
70%
79%
69%
71%
7%
16%
28%
15%
15%
17%
23%
38%
24%
25%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Rochester MSA
Buffalo - Niagara Falls MSA
Albany - Schenectady - Troy MSA
New York City Metropolitan Area
New York State
Total Private Sector Public Sector
Percentages shown for 2013-14 include the 18 months from January 2013 to June 2014.
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2013 - June 2014.
Percentage unionized
sector density has declined slightly in the City, and is
unchanged from the previous year in the State.
Geographical Variation in Union Density
Figure 2 shows the 2013-14 private- and public-
sector union density levels for the United States
overall, New York State, New York City, upstate
New York (excluding the five boroughs of New York
City), and the larger New York City metropolitan
“Combined Statistical Area.”
5
These are the five enti-
ties for which we present detailed data in the bulk of
this report.
By way of background, however, we begin with
some summary figures for additional geographical
areas. Figure 3 shows the 2013-14 private- and
public-sector density figures for the State, the New
York City metropolitan area, and the next three
largest metropolitan areas in the State.
6
In each of
these regions, unionization levels were consistently
higher in the public than in the private sector, and
consistently higher than the national public-sector
average (35.4 percent), with well over two-thirds
of public-sector workers unionized in all of them.
Private-sector union density was lower across the
board, but in this sector too, New York State greatly
exceeded the national average of 6.7 percent for
2013-14. As Figure 3 shows, that was not only the
case in the State as a whole – where private-sector
density was double the national level – but also in
three of its four largest metropolitan areas. The one
exception is the Rochester metropolitan area, where
private-sector density was 7 percent, just above the
national average (and where public-sector density
was also lower than in the other metropolitan areas
shown).
The large public-private sector differential,
combined with the fact that the Capital District has a
disproportionate share of public-sector employment,
helps to explain why union density is higher in the
Albany-Schenectady-Troy metropolitan area than
in the other areas shown in Figure 3. As is typical of
Figure 3. Union Density by Sector, New York City and Its Boroughs, 2013-14
THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014 5
REVERSING PREVIOUS TREND, UNION DENSITY ROSE IN NEW YORK CITY IN 2013-14
In 2005, 28.4 percent of New York City’s population residents were
union members. Over the next seven years, as Figure D1 shows, the City’s
unionization rate declined steadily, hitting a low of 21.5 percent in 2012.
Since then, however, the rate has increased, reaching 24.0 percent for the
18-month period from January 2013 to June 2014, inclusive. Although it
remains lower than before the Great Recession, union density in New York
City has rebounded in this period.
This recent rise in New York City unionization has been almost
entirely concentrated in the private sector. Although there have been
modest fluctuations in public sector membership over recent years,
the 2013-14 level (71.1 percent) is slightly below the 2012 figure (71.8
percent) and nearly identical to that for 2005 (71.3 percent). By contrast,
the City’s private-sector union density rose from 12.9 percent in 2012 to
16.2 percent in 2013-14. It is still well below the 2005 rate (20.1 percent)
but nevertheless a striking reversal of the long -term trend.
What drove this sudden reversal of fortune? In large part, it reflects
the economic rebound of key sectors of the economy that suffered
dramatic employment losses during the Great Recession. The most
important such sector is construction, a highly unionized industry in
which employment virtually collapsed during the recession, and which
remained depressed for years after the start of the anemic recovery,
but is now again showing signs of life. In that industry, the unionization
rate increased from 18 percent in calendar year 2012 to 25 percent in
2013-14. Although for several years before the recession, unionization in
construction was trending downward, and union decline was accelerated
by the economic downturn, the recent data reported here suggests that
the unionized sector has now begun to recover. As Figure D2 shows, there
was substantial employment growth in construction in 2013.
7
There was also a significant increase (from 11 to 16 percent) in the
rate of unionization in the “finance, insurance and real estate” (FIRE)
industry. Almost none of the workers in the finance and insurance
industries are unionized, but one sub-component of FIRE, the “real estate,
rental and leasing” industry, includes janitors and building cleaners as
well as baggage porters, bellhops and concierges, many of whom are
union members. This may also reflect growth in the ranks of unionized
hotel workers. As Figure D2 also shows, during the recession employment
declined (albeit much less than in construction) in both the hotel industry
and the real estate, rental and leasing industry during the recession, and in
both it has recently begun to recover.
Unionization rates change under a variety of circumstances. In
this instance, it appears that the 2013-14 resurgence of private-sector
unionism in New York City was due to growth in historically unionized
industries, particularly construction.
24.0%
16.2%
71.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013-14
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

u
n
i
o
n
i
z
e
d

Percentages shown for 2013-14 include the 18 months from January 2013 to June 2014.
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2005-2014.
Total
Private
Public
Figure D1. Union Density in New York City, 2005-2014
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Construction Real estate, rental & leasing Hotels
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

Note: 2013 data are preliminary. Data for hotels include only Manhattan and Staten Island.
Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2005 - 2013.
Figure D2. Total Employment in Construction, Real Estate, Rental & Leasing, and Hotels, New York City, 2005 to 2013
6 THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014
Figure 4. Union Density By Sector, New York City and Its Boroughs, 2013-14
78%
71%
61%
74%
72%
71%
11%
19%
9%
17%
26%
16%
26%
26%
14%
26%
34%
24%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Staten
Island
Queens
Manhattan
Brooklyn
Bronx
NYC
(5 Boroughs)
Total Private Sector Public Sector
Percentage unionized
NOTE: Several values reflect subgroups with fewer than 100 observations. See endnote 1.
Percentages shown for 2013-14 include the 18 months from January 2013 to June 2014.
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2013-June 2014.
metropolitan areas that surround state capitals in
highly unionized states, private-sector union density
is also substantially higher in Albany-Schenectady-
Troy than in any other area shown in Figure 3.
8
Within New York City, as Figure 4 shows, union
density varies across the five boroughs, with
substantially higher levels of unionization among
residents of the outer boroughs than among those
living in Manhattan in 2013-14. The highest private-
sector union density level in the city is that for the
population of the Bronx; in the case of public-sector
unionization there is less variation, but Staten Island
is the leader. Given CPS sample size limitations,
unfortunately we cannot analyze these inter-borough
variations in more detail.
9
Union Membership by Age, Earnings, and
Education
Unionization rates are much higher for older than
younger workers. As Figure 5 shows, they are highest
for workers aged 55 years or more, somewhat lower
for those aged 25-54, and far lower – by a factor of
about three relative to the 55+ group – for those
aged 16-24. This pattern is consistent across all the
geographical entities shown, reflecting the limited
extent of union organizing among new labor market
entrants. In addition, as Figure 6 shows, unionized
jobs typically provide workers with higher earnings
than non-union jobs do. Because higher wages are
strongly associated with lower turnover, this tends to
generate an older workforce. In addition, unionized
jobs typically offer more job security than non-union
jobs, further reducing turnover and thus further
THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014 7
Figure 5. Unionization Rates by Age, Selected Geographical Areas, 2013-14
Figure 6. Mean Hourly Earnings, Union Members and Non-Union Workers, Selected Geographical Areas, 2013-14
4%
13%
13%
10%
25%
31%
13%
23%
32%
9%
27%
29%
9%
21%
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
16-24 25-54 55 and over
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

u
n
i
o
n
i
z
e
d

USA New York State NYC (5 Boroughs) NYS Excluding NYC NYC Metro Area
Percentages shown for 2013-14 include the 18 months from January 2013 to June 2014.
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2013 - June 2014.

$26.82
$22.22
$29.68
$24.83
$26.20
$26.00
$29.68
$24.83
$31.17
$29.28
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
$35.00
$40.00
Union Members Non-union Workers
M
e
a
n

h
o
u
r
l
y

e
a
r
n
i
n
g
s

USA New York State NYC (5 Boroughs) NYS Excluding NYC NYC Metro Area
Figures reflect preliminary estimates, in 2013 dollars.
Percentages shown for 2013-14 include the 18 months from January 2013 to June 2014.
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2013 - June 2014.

8 THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014
Figure 7. Unionization Rates by Education, Selected Geographical Areas, 2013-14
13%
11% 11%
6%
25%
25%
26%
18%
20%
28%
29%
21%
29%
23%
25%
13%
20%
21%
24%
15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Earned a 4-year college
degree
Some college Graduated from high
school
Did not graduate from high
school
USA New York State NYC (5 Boroughs) NYS Excluding NYC NYC Metro Area
Percentages shown for 2013-14 include the 18 months from January 2013 to June 2014.
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2013 - June 2014.

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

u
n
i
o
n
i
z
e
d

contributing to the relatively higher average age of
unionized workers.
Figure 7 shows that – contrary to popular belief
– in both New York State and the United States,
the more education workers have, the higher their
unionization rate tends to be. Whereas decades
ago the archetypal union member was a blue collar
worker with limited formal education, today mid-
level professionals in fields like education and public
administration are more likely to be unionized than
virtually any other group of workers (as documented
in detail below). However, the traditional pattern
is still in evidence in the five boroughs of New York
City, and to a lesser degree in the New York City
metropolitan area, where high school graduates have
higher unionization rates than workers with some
college (but not a four-year college degree) have
rates nearly as high. This reflects the high union
density of New York City’s transportation and health
care industries (discussed below), both of which
employ large numbers of workers with high school
and two-year college degrees.
Industry Variation in Unionization Rates
As Table 1 shows, more than half (53.6 percent)
of all unionized workers in the United States are in
three basic industry groups: educational services,
health care and social assistance, and pubic
administration. In New York City and State, those
three industry groups account for an even greater
proportion of all unionized workers (58 percent and
60.3 percent, respectively). All three of these industry
groups are comprised predominantly of public sector
jobs (although the health care component of “health
care and social assistance” is largely in the private
sector), and all three include relatively large numbers
of college-educated workers.
As Table 1 shows, the composition of union
membership in New York City (both in the five
boroughs and in the larger metropolitan area),
and to a lesser degree in the State as well, differs
in some other respects from the national pattern.
Manufacturing accounts for a far smaller share of
union membership in New York than nationally,
THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014 9
Industry Group USA
New York
State
NYS
Excl. NYC
NYC
(5 Boroughs)
NYC
Metro Area
Construction 7.4% 6.0% 7.0% 4.4% 6.5%
Manufacturing 10.0% 4.9% 6.7% 2.3% 3.0%
Wholesale and retail trade 5.6% 5.1% 5.9% 4.0% 5.7%
Transportation and utilities 12.8% 9.6% 9.3% 10.2% 10.4%
Information services 1.9% 2.2% 1.9% 2.5% 2.4%
Finance, insurance and real estate 1.6% 4.1% 1.6% 7.8% 5.2%
Professional and business services 2.6% 3.8% 2.9% 5.2% 3.9%
Educational services 27.5% 26.0% 30.5% 19.5% 26.5%
Health care and social assistance 11.3% 19.3% 14.9% 25.7% 18.4%
Leisure and hospitality 2.8% 2.8% 1.5% 4.7% 3.1%
Other services 1.2% 1.1% 1.3% 1.0% 0.8%
Public administration 14.8% 15.0% 16.5% 12.8% 14.1%
Other 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
NOTE: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Table 1: Composition of Union Membership by Industry Group,
for Selected Geographical Areas in New York and the United States, 2013-14
Industry Group USA
New York
State
NYS
Excl. NYC
NYC
(5 Boroughs)
NYC
Metro Area
Construction 5.4% 4.8% 5.3% 4.2% 4.9%
Manufacturing 11.1% 7.3% 9.7% 3.9% 6.6%
Wholesale and retail trade 14.1% 13.1% 14.2% 11.5% 12.2%
Transportation and utilities 5.3% 5.3% 5.0% 5.8% 5.6%
Information services 2.2% 3.0% 2.6% 3.5% 3.4%
Finance, insurance and real estate 6.8% 8.9% 7.0% 11.5% 10.1%
Professional and business services 10.4% 11.4% 9.9% 13.5% 13.0%
Educational services 9.9% 10.8% 12.3% 8.8% 10.3%
Health care and social assistance 14.1% 17.1% 16.2% 18.3% 16.1%
Leisure and Hospitality 9.6% 8.7% 8.0% 9.6% 8.1%
Other services 4.4% 4.1% 3.6% 4.7% 4.2%
Public administration 5.2% 5.3% 5.7% 4.7% 4.6%
Other 1.7% 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
NOTE: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Table 2: Composition of Wage and Salary Employment by Industry Group, for Selected
Geographical Areas in New York and the United States, 2013-14
10 THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014
especially in the City, while finance, insurance and
real estate (FIRE) and professional and business
services account for a larger share of the total than
elsewhere in the nation.
Table 2 shows the composition of wage and salary
employment by industry group for the same five
geographical entities for which the composition of
union membership is presented in Table 1. Comparing
the two tables reveals that, for most industry groups,
the share of union membership deviates greatly
from the share of employment. Industry groups with
high union density, such as educational services, or
transportation and utilities, make up a much larger
share of union membership than of employment.
By contrast, wholesale and retail trade, and the
leisure and hospitality industry group, account for a
far more substantial share of employment than of
union membership.
Figure 8 depicts the industry group data in a
different format, showing unionization rates by
industry (as opposed to the share of the unionized
workforce employed in each industry group, as
shown in Table 1) for the City, the metropolitan area,
the State, and the nation. Unionization rates vary
widely across the twelve industry groups shown.
Everywhere education and public administration
are the most highly unionized industry groups, as
noted above, followed by the transportation and
utilities industry group. In New York City, as well
as in the larger metropolitan area and New York
State, the next most unionized industry group is
health care and social assistance. By contrast, in the
United States as a whole, the unionization rate for
this industry group is only slightly above average,
and below the rate for construction. At the other
extreme, union density is consistently low—in the
single digits—for wholesale and retail trade, and for
“other services,” regardless of geography.
Because these industry group data are highly
aggregated, they obscure the complexity of the
City, State and nation’s extremely uneven patterns
of unionization by industry. The limited sample
size of the CPS restricts our ability to capture that
complexity for 2013-14. For this reason, we created
a different data set that consolidates CPS data over
a much longer period, the eleven and a half years
from January 2003 to June 2014, inclusive.
10
This
138-month blend provides a much larger sample
size, permitting a far more disaggregated analysis of
industry variations. Because of the longer time span
represented in the data, the unionization rates derived
from this data set differ somewhat from those shown
in Figure 8 for 2013-14.
11
Table 3 summarizes the 2003-2014 data for 41
industry groups, showing unionization rates in the
five boroughs of New York City, New York State,
and the United States as a whole. For almost all
of these industries, both New York City and New
York State had far higher union density than in the
United States as a whole in this period. The few
exceptions include food manufacturing and couriers
and messengers, both of which had higher density
in the State than in the nation as a whole, but in
more limited unionization in New York City. Another
exception is retail grocery stores, in which the City
lags both the State and the nation, reflecting the fact
that unlike the rest of the country, New York City
proper has vast numbers of small specialty retail food
stores, very few of which are unionized. The City also
has a lower density rate than the State or the nation
for “other transportation.”
In 10 of the 41 industries shown, 2003-14 union-
ization rates were above 33 percent in New York City:
utilities, bus service and urban transit, postal service,
wired and other telecommunications, elementary
and secondary schools, hospitals, nursing care facili-
ties, home health care services, hotels, and public
administration. With the exception of hotels and
nursing care facilities, these industries also had rates
at or above 33 percent in the State; air transporta-
tion was also well above that threshold in the State
(but not in the City). In the case of air transportation
and postal service, the high unionization rates are the
product of national-level collective bargaining, but
THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014 11
Figure 8. Unionization Rates by Industry Group, Selected Geographical Areas, 2013-14
63.1%
4.1%
7.9%
23.6%
53.4%
6.2%
10.7%
14.6%
38.0%
8.8%
9.3%
27.4%
32%
3%
3%
9%
31%
3%
3%
10%
27%
4%
10%
15%
70%
7%
8%
28%
59%
8%
11%
18%
45%
10%
17%
30%
66%
5%
12%
34%
53%
9%
16%
17%
42%
8%
14%
25%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Public
administration
Other services
Leisure and
hospitality
Health care and
social assistance
Educational
services
Professional and
business services
Finance, insurance
and real estate
Information
services
Transportation
and utilities
Wholesale
and retail trade
Manufacturing
Construction
NYC Metro Area NYC (5 Boroughs) New York State USA
Percentages shown for 2013-14 include the 18 months from January 2013 to June 2014.
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2013 - June 2014.
12 THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014
Industry
New York City
(5 boroughs)
New York State United States
TOTAL (All Industries) 24.5% 24.7% 11.8%
Agriculture and mining NA 4.3% 4.3%
Utilities 49.7% 54.4% 27.9%
Construction 27.4% 30.6% 15.5%
Food manufacturing 5.8% 13.6% 15.0%
Textile and apparel manufacturing 14.5% 13.9% 4.0%
Paper products and printing 20.9% 23.6% 12.7%
Other manufacturing 14.6% 15.8% 10.5%
Wholesale grocery and beverages 19.6% 18.3% 10.0%
Other wholesale trade 10.3% 8.1% 3.0%
Retail grocery stores 13.0% 24.0% 17.7%
Pharmacy and drug stores 11.8% 9.5% 4.9%
Department and discount stores 13.7% 5.9% 2.6%
Other retail trade 4.7% 3.9% 1.9%
Air transportation 32.6% 43.7% 42.9%
Truck transportation 14.7% 17.9% 10.2%
Bus service and urban transit 75.2% 65.0% 42.5%
Postal service 72.9% 74.2% 63.8%
Couriers and messengers 24.4% 29.7% 29.1%
Other transportation 24.8% 33.2% 37.0%
Newspaper, periodical and book publishing 10.0% 12.8% 6.7%
Motion pictures and video 21.4% 18.6% 11.5%
Radio, television and cable broadcasting 20.9% 16.3% 7.4%
Wired and other telecommunications 38.7% 36.6% 17.5%
Other information services NA 29.3% 19.1%
Finance, insurance and real estate 14.3% 10.4% 2.6%
Building and security services 20.1% 14.3% 4.5%
Other management and professional services 4.7% 4.5% 1.9%
Elementary and secondary schools 67.3% 69.8% 41.3%
Other educational services 24.2% 28.2% 13.4%
Offices of physicians and other health providers 8.2% 5.2% 2.2%
Hospitals 47.1% 40.0% 14.4%
Nursing care facilities 41.0% 29.6% 7.5%
Home health care services 41.3% 34.6% 9.1%
Child day care services 13.2% 10.9% 3.2%
Other health care and social assistance 27.8% 24.4% 9.3%
Performing arts, museums, and sports 21.4% 22.6% 12.1%
Amusement, gambling and recreation 8.8% 6.5% 4.9%
Hotels 34.0% 21.8% 7.7%
Restaurants, food service & drinking places 3.7% 2.8% 1.4%
Other private-sector service industries 7.6% 7.0% 3.1%
Public administration 65.0% 68.2% 32.0%
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2003-June 2014.
Table 3. Unionization Rates by Industry, New York City, New York State, and the United States, 2003-2014
THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014 13
for the other industries they reflect union strength in
local and regional labor markets.
Union contracts may no longer set the wage
standard for the City’s workforce as a whole, but
they often do so in such key sectors of the urban
economy as hotels, hospitals, nursing care, and
telecommunications, as well as in public sector
industries like transit, education, home health care
(the unionized portion of which is publicly funded)
and public administration.
That said, the detailed portrait of industry-specific
unionization rates in Table 3 fails to capture some
important points of differentiation. For example,
although union density in New York City retail
grocery stores overall was 13.0 percent in the
2003-14 period, nearly all traditional supermarkets in
the city are unionized. Similarly, while overall density
for department and discount stores in New York
City as a whole was only 13.7 percent, some major
Manhattan department stores are unionized “wall to
wall.” These data also fail to capture the differences
among industry segments within construction; for
example, commercial construction is far more union-
ized than its residential counterpart (including the
affordable housing sector) in the City, the State and
the nation alike.
Union Membership Demographics
The patterns of unionization by industry have a
powerful effect on the demographics of unionism,
because males and females, as well as workers
of various racial and ethnic origins, are unevenly
distributed across industries.
12
For example, educa-
tional services, as well as health care and social
assistance, which have very high unionization rates,
rely disproportionately on female workers. So do
retail industries like drug stores and department
stores, hotels, child day care services, and finance,
insurance and real estate. These patterns help explain
why the 2013-14 unionization rate for women in
New York City was higher than that of men, as Figure
9 shows. The male unionization rate was slightly
greater than that of females in 2013-14 for the other
geographical areas shown in Figure 9, but the gender
gap is relatively small.
Unionization rates also vary by race and ethnicity,
as Figure 10 shows. Like the gender dynamic, this
too reflects differential racial and ethnic patterns of
employment across industries. Blacks are the most
highly unionized group in the nation, in New York
State as well as in New York City, largely because
of their disproportionately high representation in
public-sector employment. This effect is further
amplified in New York City because of the highly
unionized transit sector, in which Blacks are also
overrepresented. Although this is not the case for the
other geographical areas shown in Figure 10, in New
York City, Latinos had the second highest unioniza-
tion rate among the racial /ethnic groups shown in
2013-14, higher than that of non-Hispanic whites.
Immigrants and Unionization
Unionization rates vary with nativity as well.
As Figure 11 shows, in 2013-14 U.S.-born workers
tend to be more highly unionized than foreign-born
workers, regardless of geography, due to the fact that
relatively few foreign-born workers are employed
in the highly unionized public sector. However, in
New York City, the gap has closed: the foreign-born
unionization rate is now virtually equal to that of
the U.S. born.
13
In addition, workers born in the U.S.
territory of Puerto Rico – a substantial population
group in both New York City and the rest of the State
– are highly unionized.
14
Their unionization rate is in
fact consistently higher than that of Blacks. Puerto
Rican-born workers (all of whom are U.S. citizens) are
highly overrepresented in public sector employment.
In contrast, the foreign-born are underrepresented
in that segment of the workforce, especially among
those who arrived in the United States recently.
As Figure 12 shows, however, foreign-born workers
are by no means a homogenous group. Nationally
Industry
New York City
(5 boroughs)
New York State United States
TOTAL (All Industries) 24.5% 24.7% 11.8%
Agriculture and mining NA 4.3% 4.3%
Utilities 49.7% 54.4% 27.9%
Construction 27.4% 30.6% 15.5%
Food manufacturing 5.8% 13.6% 15.0%
Textile and apparel manufacturing 14.5% 13.9% 4.0%
Paper products and printing 20.9% 23.6% 12.7%
Other manufacturing 14.6% 15.8% 10.5%
Wholesale grocery and beverages 19.6% 18.3% 10.0%
Other wholesale trade 10.3% 8.1% 3.0%
Retail grocery stores 13.0% 24.0% 17.7%
Pharmacy and drug stores 11.8% 9.5% 4.9%
Department and discount stores 13.7% 5.9% 2.6%
Other retail trade 4.7% 3.9% 1.9%
Air transportation 32.6% 43.7% 42.9%
Truck transportation 14.7% 17.9% 10.2%
Bus service and urban transit 75.2% 65.0% 42.5%
Postal service 72.9% 74.2% 63.8%
Couriers and messengers 24.4% 29.7% 29.1%
Other transportation 24.8% 33.2% 37.0%
Newspaper, periodical and book publishing 10.0% 12.8% 6.7%
Motion pictures and video 21.4% 18.6% 11.5%
Radio, television and cable broadcasting 20.9% 16.3% 7.4%
Wired and other telecommunications 38.7% 36.6% 17.5%
Other information services NA 29.3% 19.1%
Finance, insurance and real estate 14.3% 10.4% 2.6%
Building and security services 20.1% 14.3% 4.5%
Other management and professional services 4.7% 4.5% 1.9%
Elementary and secondary schools 67.3% 69.8% 41.3%
Other educational services 24.2% 28.2% 13.4%
Offices of physicians and other health providers 8.2% 5.2% 2.2%
Hospitals 47.1% 40.0% 14.4%
Nursing care facilities 41.0% 29.6% 7.5%
Home health care services 41.3% 34.6% 9.1%
Child day care services 13.2% 10.9% 3.2%
Other health care and social assistance 27.8% 24.4% 9.3%
Performing arts, museums, and sports 21.4% 22.6% 12.1%
Amusement, gambling and recreation 8.8% 6.5% 4.9%
Hotels 34.0% 21.8% 7.7%
Restaurants, food service & drinking places 3.7% 2.8% 1.4%
Other private-sector service industries 7.6% 7.0% 3.1%
Public administration 65.0% 68.2% 32.0%
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2003-June 2014.
14 THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014
Figure 9. Unionization Rates by Gender, Selected Geographical Areas, 2013-14
Figure 10. Unionization Rates by Race and Ethnicity, Selected Geographical Areas, 2013-14
11%
13%
9%
10%
25%
35%
22%
14%
19%
38%
24%
14%
25%
26%
16%
13%
21%
31%
18%
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
White
(Non-Hispanic)
African-American (Non-
Hispanic)
Hispanic Asian - Pacific Islander
(Non-Hispanic)
USA New York State NYC (5 Boroughs) NYS Excluding NYC NYC Metro Area
Percentages shown for 2013-14 include the 18 months from January 2013 to June 2014.
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2013 - June 2014.

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

u
n
i
o
n
i
z
e
d

12%
11%
25%
24%
23%
25%
26%
24%
21% 21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Male Female
USA New York State NYC (5 Boroughs) NYS Excluding NYC NYC Metro Area
Percentages shown for 2013-14 include the 18 months from January 2013 to June 2014.
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2013 - June 2014.

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

u
n
i
o
n
i
z
e
d

THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014 15
Figure 11. Unionization Rates by Selected Places of Birth, Selected Geographical Areas, 2013-14
19%
23%
10%
20%
18%
34%
22%
22%
NA
15%
19%
19%
NA
25%
22%
NA
12%
28%
24%
44%
24%
24%
28%
13%
25%
22%
40%
26%
11%
12%
9%
8%
9%
15%
12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Born in Europe or
Canada
Born in Africa
Born in Asia
Born in Latin
America
All Foreign-Born
Born in Puerto Rico
U.S.-Born
USA New York State NYC (5 Boroughs) NYS Excluding NYC NYC Metro Area
NA = Sample size is insufficient to generate reliable estimates. See endnote1.
Percentages shown for 2013-14 include the 18 months from January 2013 to June 2014.
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2013 - June 2014.
Percentage unionized
16 THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014
and in New York City and State, the 2013-14
unionization rates of naturalized U.S. citizens and
of immigrants who arrived in the United States
before 1990 are substantially higher than that of
U.S.-born workers (although this is not true for
upstate New York). Recent immigrants, by contrast,
have extremely low rates of unionization. These
newcomers are relatively young, and as noted above,
few younger workers are union members, regardless
of nativity. Moreover, the most recent immigrants
are disproportionately employed in informal-sector
jobs that have relatively low unionization rates.
15

Over time, however, these data suggest that many
immigrant workers do manage to move up in the
labor market, into sectors where unions are present.
Figure 13 shows that unionization rates for
foreign-born workers vary much less within the
public and private sectors than between them. Even
foreign-born workers who arrived in the U.S. in or
after 1990, whose overall unionization rates are
generally low (as Figure 12 shows), had 2013-14
public-sector unionization rates of 57 percent in New
York State, 55 percent in the New York City metro-
politan area, and 28 percent in the nation as a whole.
Relatively few noncitizens and recently arrived
immigrants work in the public sector, however.
Only 5.2 percent of all foreign-born noncitizens
in the United States, and only 7.3 percent of all
foreign-born workers who arrived in or after 1990,
were employed in the public sector in 2013-14. By
contrast, 15.8 percent of the overall U.S. workforce
was in the public sector. As a result, the high level
of public-sector unionization for these particular
immigrant groups does little to boost their overall
unionization rate. As the bottom half of Figure 13
shows, in the private sector, unionization rates are
consistently lower for all groups, regardless of citi-
zenship status or date of arrival.
Table 4 offers a closer look at patterns of immi-
grant unionization by national origin. Due to the
limited sample size of the CPS, for this purpose we
used the data set (described above) that includes
CPS data from January 2003 to June 2014. Table
4 presents unionization rates for immigrants from
various countries and regions for that period, for
foreign-born wage and salary workers living in New
York City, New York State, and the nation.
16
(Because
they are based on multiple years, the data in Table
4 differ from those shown in Figures 11, 12 and 13;
since unionization declined between 2003 and 2013
the rates shown in Table 4 are consistently higher
than the comparable rates in 2013-14.)
Table 4 reveals that unionization rates vary widely
among immigrants by place of birth. There are a
number of reasons for this. One involves date of
arrival; as Figure 12 shows, immigrants who have
been in the United States for an extended period
are more likely to be unionized than recent arrivals.
Similarly, naturalized citizens are more likely to be
unionized than non-citizen immigrants (as Figure
12 also shows). The case of Mexican immigrants in
New York City is an extreme one in this respect; as
recent arrivals to the City, few of whom are citizens
and many of whom are unauthorized, they have the
second lowest unionization rate of any group shown
in Table 4. (The rate for Koreans, who are often
self-employed or employed by co-nationals in small
businesses, is slightly lower.)
17
At the other end of
the spectrum, Italian-born workers, as well as those
born in the Caribbean, are more likely to have arrived
decades ago and to have become citizens.
It is striking that several of the immigrant
nationalities shown in Table 4 have unionization rates
that exceed those of U.S.-born workers. In New York
City, that is the case for those born in Italy, Pakistan,
the Philippines, Honduras, Barbados, the Dominican
Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago,
Colombia, Guyana and Ghana. Typically workers
from these nationality groups are overrepresented
in highly unionized industries. Thus for example,
40 percent of all Italian-born workers in the city
are employed in education, health care and social
assistance and construction (compared to 30 percent
of all U.S. born workers in the city). For several other
THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014 17
Figure 12. Unionization Rates by Nativity, Citizenship Status,
and Date of Arrival in the United States, Selected Geographical Areas, 2013-14
13%
17%
25%
25%
12%
23%
22%
10%
17%
23%
26%
22%
10%
26%
18%
21%
33%
32%
16%
29%
24%
16%
20%
30%
30%
14%
27%
25%
6%
8%
13%
15%
6%
13%
12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Arrived 2000 or
later
Arrived 1990-99
Arrived 1980-89
Arrived before
1980
Foreign-born Non-
citizens
Naturalized
Citizens
All U.S.-Born
USA New York State NYC (5 Boroughs) NYS Excluding NYC NYC Metro Area
Percentages shown for 2013-14 include the 18 months from January 2013 to June 2014.
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2013 - June 2014.

Percentage unionized
18 THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014
Figure 13. Public and Private Sector Unionization by Nativity, Citizenship Status
and Date of Arrival, United States, New York State, and New York Metropolitan Area, 2013-14
Public Sector
Private Sector
35%
41%
22%
42%
28%
72%
71%
NA
74%
57%
68%
67%
NA
71%
55%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
U.S.-born Foreign-born Citizens Foreign-born Non-
citizens
Foreign-born, Arrived
before 1990
Foreign-born, Arrived
1990 or later
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

u
n
i
o
n
i
z
e
d

USA New York State NYC Metro Area
7%
9%
5%
9%
5%
15%
23%
14%
20%
12%
12%
16%
10%
18%
11%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
U.S.-born Foreign-born Citizens Foreign-born Non-
citizens
Foreign-born, Arrived
before 1990
Foreign-born, Arrived
1990 or later
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

u
n
i
o
n
i
z
e
d

NA = Sample size is insufficient to generate reliable estimates. See endnote 1.
Percentages shown for 2013-14 include the 18 months from January 2013 to June 2014.
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2013 - June 2014.

THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014 19
Table 4. Unionization Rates for Foreign-born Workers by
Place of Birth, New York City, New York State, and the United States, 2003-2014
Place of Birth
New York City
(five boroughs)
New York State United States
E
U
R
O
P
E
Italy 36.8% 32.9% 18.9%
Great Britain and Ireland 18.7% 21.9% 9.6%
Other Western Europe 13.3% 21.7% 12.1%
Russia 20.0% 20.1% 9.5%
Poland 17.6% 19.1% 12.4%
Ukraine 24.8% 23.6% 12.7%
Other Eastern Europe 22.9% 22.1% 10.1%
A
S
I
A
Middle East 14.2% 18.1% 12.3%
China (including Hong Kong) 10.3% 10.8% 8.4%
Bangladesh 16.2% 14.6% 9.0%
India 16.6% 17.6% 5.3%
Pakistan 29.4% 25.6% 9.2%
Philippines 32.7% 30.5% 17.4%
Korea 4.3% 7.3% 7.6%
Other Southeast Asia 10.2% 9.1% 9.1%
Other Asia 12.9% 11.0% 8.6%
L
A
T
I
N

A
M
E
R
I
C
A
Mexico 4.6% 6.0% 6.5%
El Salvador 19.2% 13.8% 8.3%
Honduras 36.5% 22.8% 6.1%
Other Central America 36.1% 25.8% 7.0%
Barbados 31.8% 31.3% 23.0%
Dominican Republic 28.3% 26.5% 16.8%
Haiti 44.9% 40.3% 16.5%
Jamaica 40.8% 38.2% 20.2%
Trinidad and Tobago 28.9% 28.4% 18.1%
Other Caribbean 32.4% 32.5% 9.3%
Columbia 28.4% 22.9% 10.0%
Ecuador 16.4% 15.6% 11.4%
Guyana 31.4% 29.8% 22.5%
Other South America 18.4% 16.8% 8.1%
A
F
R
I
C
A
Ghana 34.3% 36.5% 16.3%
Other Africa 29.1% 28.0% 11.3%
Other foreign-born 17.7% 17.6% 10.0%
U.S. (except Puerto Rico) 25.1% 25.5% 12.2%
Puerto Rico 42.1% 36.3% 16.7%
Source: U.S. Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group, 2003-June 2014
20 THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014
nationality groups, overrepresentation in the health
care and social assistance sector largely accounts
for their high unionization rates: 41 percent of
Filipino immigrants, 24 percent of Dominican-born,
44 percent of the Haitian-born, 42 percent of the
Jamaican-born, 27 percent of the Guyana-born, and
22 percent of the other African-born workers in New
York City are employed in the highly unionized health
care and social assistance industry group; by contrast
that industry group employs only 15 percent of the
city’s U.S. born workers. Similarly, immigrants from
Barbados, Bangladesh, Haiti, Pakistan, and Africa
are overrepresented in the highly unionized trans-
portation industry, which helps to account for their
relatively high unionization rates. The specifics are
a bit different for immigrants in New York State and
in the United States as a whole, but in general the
varying unionization rates among the groups shown
in Table 4 are closely correlated with their distribu-
tion across industries, which have a wide range of
union density levels (see Figure 8), as well as with
their dates of arrival and citizenship status.
Conclusion
Actively recruiting new members into the ranks
of the labor movement, as many dedicated labor
organizers have sought to do in recent years, is the
primary means by which unions themselves can
act to increase the unionization level. Indeed, this
is one key counterweight to the downward trend in
organized labor’s influence. Yet many factors that
the labor movement cannot control also critically
influence the level of union density. All else equal,
if employment declines in a highly unionized sector
of the economy, or expands in a non-union (or
weakly unionized) sector, union density will fall. The
best-known example of this is the steady decline
of manufacturing, a former union stronghold, over
the past few decades, along with the expansion of
private-sector service industries where unions have
historically been weak; indeed these combined trends
have been a major driver of the general erosion of
union density. Conversely, if employment expands in
a highly unionized sector or declines in a non-union
or weakly unionized one, the overall level of density
will increase. That is precisely what lifted the New
York City and State unionization rates in the past
year, as the highly unionized construction sector and
the hotel industry began to rebound from the Great
Recession. Privatization and subcontracting, both of
which often involve a shift from union to non-union
status for affected workers, further complicate the
picture in some settings. Over the long term, given
the “churning” effects of employment shifts and
(in non-recessionary periods) normal labor market
growth and turnover, simply to maintain union
density at a given level requires a great deal of new
organizing; and to increase density requires far more
extensive effort.
In New York City and State, unionization levels
have increased recently, and even before that were
far higher than in other parts of the nation – about
double the national average. This was not the case
in the mid-20th century, when unionization was at
its peak: In 1953, 34.4 percent of New York State’s
workers were unionized, only slightly above the
32.6 percent national level.
18
Although since then
organized labor has more than held its own in New
York relative to the nation, in absolute terms unions
have lost considerable ground in both the City and
State over the past few decades, especially in the
private sector. As recently as 1986, New York City’s
private-sector union density was 25.3 percent, nearly
ten percentage points above the 2013-14 level
(16.2 percent) level, and statewide the figure was
24.0 percent as recently as 1983 (compared to 15.1
percent in 2013-14).
19
As union strength in the private sector has
declined, the ratio of public- to private-sector
unionization in New York City and State has soared
to record highs. In the City in particular, where the
Great Recession accelerated the decline in private-
sector density, that ratio is of serious concern. In
THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014 21
labor’s glory days, a strongly unionized private sector
helped foster a social-democratic political culture
in New York City.20 The decline in private-sector
density is among the factors that have threatened to
undermine that tradition in recent years. Although
thus far public-sector density in the City has been
preserved intact, in the wake of the fiscal crisis
generated by the recent economic downturn, public-
sector unions have been increasingly on the political
defensive. They were unable to negotiate new
contracts for several years in the wake of the Great
Recession. Although that is now in the process of
being remedied under the new mayoral administra-
tion, many public sector workers have not received
any increases in pay or benefits for several years.
Even taking into account New York City and State’s
unusually high union density levels – the highest of
any major U.S. city and the highest of any state –
this is a period of profound challenges for organized
labor. The 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Harris
v. Quinn, is only the most recent example. For the
time being, however, New York’s unions continue to
offer significant protection to a diverse population
of workers in both the City and State, including
middle-class teachers and other professionals as well
as a substantial segment of women, racial-ethnic
minorities, and immigrants – in both professional and
nonprofessional jobs. The recent increases, however
modest, in unionization rates and the resumption of
contract bargaining in the public sector, offer a basis
for cautious optimism.
Notes
1. This report (apart from the Appendix) is based on analysis
of the U.S. Current Population Survey (CPS) Outgoing Rotation
Group data for 2013 and the first six months of 2014. We
created a merged data set from the 18 monthly surveys
conducted from January 2013 to June 2014, inclusive; the
2013-14 data discussed here and shown in the figures and
tables below are the averages for those 18 months. All results
are calculated using the CPS unrevised sampling weights, for
employed civilian wage and salary workers aged 16 and over.
We followed the sample definition and weighting procedures
described in Barry T. Hirsch and David A. Macpherson, Union
Membership and Earnings Data Book (Washington D.C.: Bureau
of National Affairs, 2014), pp. 2-6. To ensure reliability, given
the limitations of the CPS data set, we report unionization
rates only for subgroups that have a minimum of 100
observations, unless otherwise noted. Rates for subgroups that
fall below this threshold are labeled NA (not available). The
New York City figures for earlier years are from our September
2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 reports, based on CPS data for
January 2009-June 2010, January 2010- June 2011, January
2011-June 2012 and January 2012-June 2013, respectively,
available at http://www.ruthmilkman.info/rm/Policy_Reports.
html.
2. “Union density” denotes the proportion of all wage and
salary workers who are union members in a region, occupation,
or industry. For the state rankings, see Hirsch and Macpherson
2014.
3. An estimated 811,902 union members resided in New
York City’s five boroughs in 2013-14, while the statewide
total is estimated at 2,099,791. The CPS data on which these
estimates are based rely on respondents’ self-reports as to
whether or not they are union members. (Respondents who
indicate that they are not union members are also asked
whether they are covered by a union contract, but the analysis
in this report does not include those who replied affirmatively
to that question.) The geographical data in the CPS (and in
this report) refer to respondents’ place of residence – not the
location of their workplaces. Since many workers commute
from other areas to their jobs in the city, this makes the data
for the five boroughs of New York City a rather imperfect
approximation of the extent of unionization in the city. Some
sections of this report present data on union members residing
in the wider New York metropolitan area, but that group
includes many individuals who are employed outside New York
City.
4. In January 2003, methodological changes were made in the
CPS (for details, see http://www.bls.gov/cps/rvcps03.pdf). As a
result, the data shown in Figures 1a, 1b and 1c for 2003-2013
are not strictly comparable to those for 2001 and 2002.
5. Throughout this report, unless otherwise indicated, we use
the term “New York metropolitan area” to denote the New
York-Newark-Bridgeport NY-NJ-CT-PA Combined Statistical
Area (CSA), based on the CSA definitions introduced in 2003.
The New York-Newark-Bridgeport CSA includes the following
counties (in addition to the five boroughs of New York
City proper): Duchess, Nassau, Orange, Putnam, Rockland,
Suffolk, Ulster and Westchester Counties, New York; Bergen,
Essex, Hudson, Hunterton, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth,
Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex and Union Counties,
New Jersey; Litchfield, New Haven and Fairfield Counties,
Connecticut. The CSA also includes Pike County, Pennsylvania,
but that is not included in our data set. For details, see http://
22 THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/
bulletins/fy2009/09-01.pdf.
6. These are “Metropolitan Statistical Areas” based on the 2003
U.S. Census (OMB) area definitions.
7. For additional detail on the increase in construction jobs,
see the New York City Construction Outlook Update report
from the New York Building Congress, available at: http://www.
buildingcongress.com/outlook/.
8. The only metropolitan areas (based on 2003 Census area
definitions) outside of New York State for which Hirsch and
Macpherson report greater 2013 union density than the New
York-Newark-NY -NJ-PA CSA were the Honolulu, HI MSA and
the Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville MSA, both of which
include the state capitals of highly unionized states. See Hirsch
and Macpherson 2014, pp. 38-49. Note that smaller MSAs are
not included due to small sample sizes.
9 For the Bronx, Manhattan and Staten Island, the values
shown for the public sector are based on fewer than 100
observations (for the Bronx, N=96, for Manhattan, N=91
and for Staten Island, N=47) so these data points (especially
Staten Island) should be interpreted with caution.
10. The CPS methodology changed substantially in January
2003, making it impractical to include data from before that
date.
11. Since unionization has declined somewhat since 2003 (see
Figure 1a-c), the results of this analysis slightly overestimate
the actual levels of density for each industry shown in Table 3.
12. Given the nation’s winner-take-all union representation
system, and the fact that a relatively small proportion of
present-day union membership is the product of recent
organizing, the demographic makeup of union membership
mainly reflects the demographic makeup of employment in
highly unionized industries and sectors. Although unionized
workers are more likely than their non-union counterparts to
express pro-union attitudes, this is typically a consequence
rather than a cause of union affiliation. See Richard B. Freeman
and Joel Rogers, What Workers Want (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1999), pp. 68-77. Moreover, individual workers seldom
have the opportunity to make independent decisions about
union affiliation. Instead, unionization occurs when entire
workplaces (or occasionally, entire industries) are organized,
and once established, unionization in those workplaces tends
to persist over time. Later, as a result of workforce turnover
and de-unionization, strongly pro-union workers may be
employed in non-union settings, and workers with little
enthusiasm for organized labor may find themselves employed
in union shops.
13. This statement should be qualified: adding another decimal
point, the unionization rate for the foreign-born was 23.7
percent, just below the 24.3 percent for U.S.-born workers.
14. Puerto Ricans born on the U.S. mainland cannot be
separately identified in these data. Those born in Puerto Rican
are likely to be older, all else equal, which further contributes
to their higher unionization rate. In addition, the number of
observations in the 2013-14 data set for respondents born in
Puerto Rico are below our standard threshhold of 100 (84 for
New York City and 61 for the New York City metropolitan area,
and should therefore be interpreted cautiously.
15. Recent immigrants are also disproportionately employed in
professional services in the State and nationally, although this
is not the case in New York City.
16. Table 4 only includes nationalities for which there are
100 or more observations in the 2003-14 data set, with the
exception of the New York City data for Pakistan (N=98) and
Honduras (N=97).
17. The CPS data do not include information on immigration
status. Note that Mexicans have much higher unionization
rates in the United States as a whole, reflecting the fact that in
many other parts of the country the Mexican-born population
includes many individuals who arrived decades ago and many
who have become naturalized citizens.
18. See Leo Troy, Distribution of Union Membership among
the States, 1939 and 1953 (National Bureau of Economic
Research, 1957), available at http://www.nber.org/chapters/
c2688.pdf. In 1939 the figures were 23.0 percent for New York
State and 21.5 for the nation. Figures for New York City union
membership levels during these years, unfortunately, are not
available.
19. The 1986 private-sector figure is 25.3% for the New York
PMSA (NYC’s five boroughs as well as Putnam, Westchester
and Rockland Counties). This and the 1983 statewide
figure can be found at http://unionstats.gsu.edu. See also
Gregory DeFreitas and Bhaswati Sengupta, “The State of
New York Unions 2007,” (Hofstra University Center for
the Study of Labor and Democracy, 2007), which includes
1980s data, available at https://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/cld_
stateofnyunions2007.pdf.
20. Joshua B. Freeman, Working-Class New York (New York: The
New Press, 2000).
THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014 23
Appendix*
The table below is compiled from a variety of
sources and indicates the number of members
claimed by individual unions with jurisdiction over
New York City-based workplaces. Unlike the U.S.
Current Population Survey data that serve as the
basis for the rest of this report, the membership
numbers shown below reflect unionized jobs in New
York City, not City residents who are union members.
For a variety of reasons, the total number shown
in the table is higher than the CPS figure cited on
page 1 of the report (the latter figure is 812,000)
for the number of union members in New York City.
Perhaps the most important factor here is that many
union members who are employed in the City live
in the surrounding suburban areas. In addition, some
unions may inflate their membership numbers, and
unions with broader geographical jurisdictions may
not know precisely how many of their members
are employed within the City. Moreover, many of
the unions listed, especially those in sectors like
transportation, building construction and entertain-
ment, have large numbers of members whose
employment is irregular and for whom unemploy-
ment is common. Even when they are employed,
workers in these sectors often oscillate between jobs
in the City and those in other locations. All these
factors help account for the larger total in the table
below than in the body of this report. There is also a
factor operating in the opposite direction: since the
CPS is a household survey that relies on responses
from individuals, it is likely to include numerous
cases of unionized workers who are unaware of the
fact that they are members of labor organizations,
potentially leading to an undercount. (It is also
possible that some individuals believe they are union
members when in fact they are not, but in all likeli-
hood the greater error is in the opposite direction.)
*The data in this table were compiled from the most recent available
LM-2/3/4 forms (typically 2013) and other sources by Luke Elliott.
Thanks to Ed Ott for assistance with this effort as well.
Union Name Reported
Membership
Alliance for Economic Justice 19
Amalgamated Transit Union
a, c
15,111
American Association of University Professors 452
American Federation of Government Employees 7,865
American Federation of Musicians
b
7,306
American Federation of School Administrators - Council of Supervisory Associations 6,098
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
c
122,376
American Federation of Teachers
c, d
153,604
(includes 16,857 members of PSC-CUNY and 123,847 members of the NYC UFT)
American Postal Workers Union 8,175
Associated Actors and Artistes of America
b
55,957
(includes 18,588 members of Actors Equity Association; 1,186 members of the American
Guild of Musical Artists; and 36,104 members of SAG-AFTRA)
Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union
c
1,515
Benefit Fund Staff Association 611
Brotherhood of Security Personnel 99
24 THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014
Building and Construction Trades Department
b
160
Civilian Technicians Association 8
Communication Workers of America
a, c
30,368
Evelyn Gonzalez Union 98
Fordham Law School Bargaining Committee 80
Furniture Liquidators of New York 10
Graphic Artists Guild
b
784
Hearst International Employees Association 117
Hot and Crusty Workers Association 22
Hotel Maintenance Carpenters Valet and Utility Workers 718
Hunts Point Police Benevolent Association 34
Independent School Transportation Workers Association 300
Independent Guard Union 9
Industrial Workers of the World 60
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees
b
18,757
International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers
b
7,904
International Association of Fire Fighters
a
8,742
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers
b
882
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
d
10,149
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
b
551
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
b
29,024
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
c
55,000
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers 143
International Longshoremen’s Association
c
2,703
International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers
b
7,321
International Union of Elevator Constructors
b
2,539
International Union of Journeymen and Allied Trades
b
36,894
International Union of Operating Engineers
b
17,496
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades
b
7,086
Jewish Committee Staff Organization 95
Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center Staff Association 16
Laborers’ International Union of North America
b
17,238
League of International Federated Employees
c
710
Local One Security Officers 580
Maritime Trades Department Port Council 37
Metal Trades Department
b
20
Mount Sinai Pharmacy Association 98
National Air Traffic Controllers Association 152
THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014 25
National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees 784
National Association of Letter Carriers 7,559
National Labor Relations Board Union 95
National Postal Mail Handlers Union
c
1,693
National Production Workers Union 49
National Treasury Employees Union 3,174
National Union of Labor Investigators 103
Neergaard Employees Association 8
New York Professional Nurses Association 1076
New York State Federation of Physicians and Dentists 90
New York State Nurses Association
d
24,307
Newspaper and Mail Deliverers Union 789
Novelty Production Workers 2,140
Office and Professional Employees International Union
c
13,756
Operative Plasterers’ and Cement Masons’ International Association
b
1,179
Organization of Staff Analysts
a
4,617
Organization of Union Representatives 11
Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association
a
22,777
Police Fraternal Order (Independent Union) 425
Postal and Federal Employees Alliance 397
Professional Association of Holy Cross High School 52
Professional Dieticians of New York City 40
Restaurant Workers Union 318 125
Security Alliance Federation of Employees 62
Service Employees International Union
a, c
255,194
(includes 158,724 NYC members in SEIU 1199; 70,000 members in SEIU Local 32B-J; and
10,000 members in Workers United)
Sheet Metal Workers International Association
b
3,499
Special Patrolman Benevolent Association 200
Stage Directors and Choreographers
b
2,643
Taxi Workers Alliance
e
18,000
Transport Workers Union
a
45,620
UNITE HERE
c
30,997
United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters
b
13,677
United Auto Workers
d
10,781
(includes 306 members of the National Writers Union
e
)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
b, c
16,935
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
c
15,665
26 THE STATE OF THE UNI ONS 2014
(includes 11,327 members of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union)
United Nations International School Staff Association 218
United Production Workers Union 2,025
United Steelworkers 559
United Transportation Union 190
United Uniformed Workers of New York
a, f
125,000
United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers
b
1,017
Utility Workers of New York
c
7,100
Writers Guild of America
b
2,100
TOTAL 1,272,821

a
Under the 1959 Landrum-Griffin Act and the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, private-sector, postal and federal employee
unions are required to file LM-2, LM-3 or LM-4 forms. Other public sector unions are not required to file such documents,
and in those cases membership data were obtained directly from the union.
b
Data for these unions include some members working outside New York City. It is impossible to obtain precise data for
those employed in the city, because the occupations they represent are not tied to stable workplaces; rather workers are
hired for specific projects which are typically, but not always, located in the five boroughs of the city. Therefore New York
City data for this union may be overstated.
c
The membership figures for this union are available in LM2/3/4 forms. However because the union’s geographical
jurisdiction extends beyond the five boroughs of New York City, the number shown was obtained directly from the union.
d
Precise membership estimates for one or more locals in this union are not available. The figures shown may be inflated
because they include a limited number of members employed outside New York City.
e
This union has dues-paying members, but does not currently have collective bargaining rights.
f
This includes the following unions: Assistant Deputy/Deputy Wardens Association; Bridge and Tunnel Officers Benevolent
Association; Captains Endowment Association; Correction Captains Association; Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association;
Detectives Endowment Association; United Sanitationmen’s Association (IBT); Lieutenants Benevolent Association; NYC
Detective Investigators Association; NYS Court Officers Association; Police Benevolent Association MTA; Port Authority
Detectives Endowment Association; Port Authority Lieutenants Benevolent Association; Port Authority Police Benevolent
Association; Sanitation Officers Association (SEIU); Sergeants Benevolent Association; Superior Officers Benevolent
Association - Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority; Uniformed Fire Alarm Dispatchers Benevolent Association; and
Uniformed Fire Officers Association.
Source: Unless otherwise indicated, the above data are extracted from the most recent (in most cases 2013) LM-2, LM-3
and LM-4 forms that private sector unions are required to submit annually to the U.S. Department of Labor, available at
http://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/rrlo/lmrda.htm
as well as a substantial segment of minorities
and immigrants – in both professional and
nonprofessional jobs.
About the New York City
Labor Market Information
Service
From Information to Intelligence
New York City Labor Market
Information Service (NYCLMIS), is
the go-to place for timely, action-
oriented intelligence about New
York City’s labor market. NYCLMIS
conducts research studies, provides
training and strategic consulta-
tion, and holds forums that raise
awareness around work-related
issues. The researchers, industry
experts, and policy professionals
that staff NYCLMIS helps educa-
tion and workforce development
practitioners and policy makers
make informed decisions so that
they can help jobseekers to achieve
success in the labor market. The
NYCLMIS began in 2008 as a joint
initiative of the New York City
Workforce Investment Board and
the City University of New York
(CUNY) and is housed at the Center
for Urban Research at the CUNY
Graduate Center.
About the Murphy Institute
The Joseph S. Murphy Institute for
Worker Education and Labor Studies
was established over twenty-five
years ago with the support of the
late CUNY Chancellor Joseph S.
Murphy. The Institute, part of CUNY’s
School of Professional Studies,
conducts strategic research, organizes
public forums and conferences, and
publishes the journal New Labor
Forum. The Institute’s worker educa-
tion program offers a wide variety of
undergraduate and graduate courses
and degree programs designed
to meet the academic and career
advancement needs of working adults
and union members in the New York
City area.
About the Center for
Urban Research
Working with the City University of
New York Graduate Center’s faculty
and students, the Center for Urban
Research organizes basic research
on the critical issues that face New
York and other large cities in the
U.S. and abroad; collaborates on
applied research with public agencies,
non-profit organizations, and other
partners; and holds forums for the
media, foundations, community
organizations and others about urban
research at The Graduate Center of
the City University of New York.