48.9% of Unions members work for the Government

[StLucieBengal]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/489-union-members-worked-government-2015

I realize I am anti Union in general but it just seems wrong that their are public workers who are unionized.   No public workers should be able to strike.  

When I was teaching I always felt like it hurt good teachers and only provided cover for the teachers who were playing out the string.

Quote:(CNSNews.com) - The percentage of American wage and salary workers who belonged to a union was only 11.1 percent in 2015, but the percentage of union members who worked for government was 48.9 percent, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“The union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of unions--was 11.1 percent in 2015, unchanged from 2014,” the BLS said in press release published today.

But the 7,241,000 government workers whom the BLS estimates were members of unions in 2015 equaled almost half of the estimated total of 14,795,000 union-member wage and salary workers in the nation.

And these unionized government workers outnumbered the Census Bureau’s estimated 2015 populations for all but 12 of the states.

The 7,241,000 unionized government workers, for example, exceeded the populations of Washington (7,170,351), Arizona (6,828,065), Massachusetts (6,794,422) Indiana (6,619,680) and Tennessee (6,600,299).

The BLS has comparable data on union membership going back to 1983 and the percentage of wage and salary workers who belong to unions has generally been declining since then.

The highest percentage in any year in the 1983 through 2015 period was in 1983 itself. That year there were approximately 17,717,000 wage and salary workers who were members of unions and they equaled 20.1 percent of the total of 88,290,000 wage and salary workers estimated that year.

In 2012 and 2013, the percentage who belonged to unions was 11.3 percent. In 2014 and 2015, it was 11.1 percent.

Of the approximately 133,743,000 wage and salary workers employed in the United States in 2015, according to BLS, 14,795,000 were members of a union. (See Table 1.)

But of those 14,795,000 union members, 7,241,000—or 48.9 percent—worked for government. (See Table 3.)

Of the estimated 14,576,000 union members in 2014, 7,218,000—or 49.5 percent—worked for government.

Government wage and salary workers were far more likely to belong to a union than private-sector wage and salary workers, the BLS reported.

“Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (35.2 percent) more than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.7 percent),” the BLS said in the press release that accompanied the release of the data.

Union membership was most prevalent among local government workers.

On the federal-government level, said BLS, there were approximately 3,591,000 wage and salary workers and 979,000—or 27.3 percent—were union members.

On the state-government level, there were 6,875,000 wage and salary workers and 2,079,000—or 30.2 percent--were union members.

On the local-government level, there 10,126,000 wage and salary workers and 4,183,000—or 41.3 percent—were union members.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-29-2016, 02:31 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/489-union-members-worked-government-2015

I realize I am anti Union in general but it just seems wrong that their are public workers who are unionized.   No public workers should be able to strike.  

When I was teaching I always felt like it hurt good teachers and only provided cover for the teachers who were playing out the string.  

Income equality continues to evaporate and private sector union membership declines at the same time.  Must be a coincidence?  Also interesting that you lament the power of the government yet want government employees to be helpless drones for it.

[Belsnickel]

A union in its intended form for public employees is a good thing. Our jobs are politicized and subject to the uncertainty of the election cycle even though we are not elected officials. An election shake up can result in lost jobs, cut wages, and reduced benefits. I live in a state where public employees are not unionized and we are the worst compensated public employees in the country. I don't think that is a coincidence.

It can't be denied that public sector unions have done some damage, and that is why reform would be good, but I also can't deny their benefit as I sit on the outside looking in.

[BmorePat87]

What an odd way of representing these numbers. They state that 11% of private sector wage/salary earners are union members and then state that a little less than half of all union members work for the government.

Why not give the percent of government workers who are union members so that it is an even comparison? Sure, it's a lower percentage, but it makes just as much of a point that government workers are more likely to be unionized. 11% of public versus 38% of government.

Looking the data, it appears that membership increases as you go from federal to state to local. That makes sense. Local level is your teachers, cops, firefighters, etc. The people who do a lot for their communities but are usually not very well compensated.

[fredtoast]

(01-29-2016, 02:31 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: When I was teaching I always felt like it hurt good teachers 

How did the unions hurt good teachers?

[Belsnickel]

(01-29-2016, 10:37 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Looking the data, it appears that membership increases as you go from federal to state to local. That makes sense. Local level is your teachers, cops, firefighters, etc. The people who do a lot for their communities but are usually not very well compensated.

In Virginia, local public employees are better compensated than employees of the Commonwealth in most cases.

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2016, 10:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: In Virginia, local public employees are better compensated than employees of the Commonwealth in most cases.

I imagine that's true here too. Most jobs for the state don't pay well. It's the federal government jobs that rake in the big bucks. 

[Vlad]

The fact that we have double the amount of people working in government (22,000,000), than we do in all of manufacturing combined (11,000,0000, including fishing, farming, and forestry) has something to do with it. That was a 2011 stat.

[Benton]

(01-29-2016, 02:35 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Income equality continues to evaporate and private sector union membership declines at the same time.  Must be a coincidence?  Also interesting that you lament the power of the government yet want government employees to be helpless drones for it.

This is one of the biggest reasons our middle class is shrinking.

My opinion is it's in large part due to the trade agreements from the 90s on. A large chunk of U.S. manufacturing got exported with NAFTA. It was great for Canada and Mexico, but horrible for U.S. workers and taxing districts.

[Benton]

(01-29-2016, 10:45 AM)fredtoast Wrote: How did the unions hurt good teachers?

They go for the knees.

[*michaelsean*]

My one problem with public unions, is who is representing the other side? Unions throw around a lot of money.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-29-2016, 11:34 AM)michaelsean Wrote: My one problem with public unions, is who is representing the other side?  Unions throw around a lot of money.

Uh, the government itself, which has a hell of a lot more money than the unions.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-29-2016, 11:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Uh, the government itself, which has a hell of a lot more money than the unions.

Yeah as in elected officials who like money for their campaigns.  

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2016, 11:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah as in elected officials who like money for their campaigns.  

It should be noted that the interest group side of unions is separate from the labor side. Union dues are not used for political purposes. 

I think one of the silliest things is when people act like they're not interest groups, though. If you're railing against the Pharmaceutical Industry being in politics, you have to rail against this too. Money is money.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-29-2016, 11:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah as in elected officials who like money for their campaigns.  

100% incorrect.  The other side of the bargaining table is manned by people whose job is to participate in negotiations.  They have other duties as well, but none of them are elected officials.  I'm glad you brought this up though, it's a very common fallacy among public sector union haters that they're essentially bargaining against themselves.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I can tell you our most recent bargaining was full of acrimony, it's probably more contentious than most private sector negotiations.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-29-2016, 11:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 100% incorrect.  The other side of the bargaining table is manned by people whose job is to participate in negotiations.  They have other duties as well, but none of them are elected officials.  I'm glad you brought this up though, it's a very common fallacy among public sector union haters that they're essentially bargaining against themselves.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I can tell you our most recent bargaining was full of acrimony, it's probably more contentious than most private sector negotiations.

Count me as one who was under that fallacy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-29-2016, 11:47 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Count me as one who was under that fallacy.

I can't honestly blame you as many government officials who want to eliminate unions spread this blatant lie.  It's intentional and insidious.  If you're not super rich or a politician you should want almost every worker in a union.  While they can go too far, no arguments there, the regular worker having a modicum of power as part of a group is a good thing.

[Belsnickel]

(01-29-2016, 11:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can't honestly blame you as many government officials who want to eliminate unions spread this blatant lie.  It's intentional and insidious.  If you're not super rich or a politician you should want almost every worker in a union.  While they can go too far, no arguments there, the regular worker having a modicum of power as part of a group is a good thing.

Very true. The operations of unions as a whole, not just public sector unions, is something that most of the public is unaware of because of the intentional spread of misinformation.

I know some of the people that would be doing the negotiating were we a unionized workforce here, and I can say for certain that it would be far from easy to make any headway.

[StLucieBengal]

 fredto Wrote:How did the unions hurt good teachers?

Locked in pay scale.   So a teacher who has 10 years expierence and has mailed it in and a teacher with 10 years expierence who stays on the cutting edge of their profession while showing progress within the classroom.....  They both get paid the same.

There is zero incentive to be the best. Your pay is the same whether you just show up and watch movies or actually have in depth lessons.

[StLucieBengal]

Bent Wrote:This is one of the biggest reasons our middle class is shrinking.

My opinion is it's in large part due to the trade agreements from the 90s on. A large chunk of U.S. manufacturing got exported with NAFTA. It was great for Canada and Mexico, but horrible for U.S. workers and taxing districts.

Yes. Clinton and old man bush killed the middle class.