the official blog of the evergreen freedom foundation

Washington state ranks 8th in the nation ... for union membership

Posted by Rachel Culbertson - March 10, 2010

The Puget Sound Business Journal reported yesterday that unions in Washington state have a total number of 574,000 members, the 8th highest number among all states in the U.S. 
 
In addition, 20.2% of Washington's workforce is unionized, making it the 4th highest percentage of unionized workers in the nation. 
 
In 2009, those state with the lowest union membership rates (falling below 5.0 percent) were North Carolina (3.1 percent), Arkansas (4.2 percent), South Carolina (4.5 percent), Georgia (4.6 percent), Virginia (4.7 percent), and Mississippi (4.8 percent). All of these states are "Right-to-Work" states, meaning that state law gives employees the right to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union.
 
Conversely, the four states with union membership rates over 20.0 percent in 2009 -- New York (25.2 percent), Hawaii (23.5 percent), Alaska (22.3 percent), and Washington (20.2 percent) -- are not "Right-to-Work" states, meaning that union membership is mandatory for employees who work in a unionized workplace.
 
The correlation may seem obvious: when given the choice to join a union, not all employees favor doing so. This report serves as a reminder that coercive union membership does not mean the same thing as true representation.



Thoughts?   Add Comment -

km said on Mar 10 2010 at 3:52pm
Rachel: Yes, Washington is among the most unionized states in the US. Nothing new there.

Correlations are just that; that does not mean there's a statistically significant causal relationship between the two.

If I were offered the benefits of union representation in the form of better wages and working conditions, and at the same time offered the choice to join the union or not to join the union; why would anyone be surprised if I chose not to join. That would grant me the benefits of union membership for free.

Doesn't sound very equitable to me.

tiresias said on Mar 10 2010 at 4:18pm
km, you start from the wrong premise. The question is not about what is equitable. Rather, it is about individual freedom of choice.

You are essentially saying that people must be forced to pay for a service they didn't ask for and don't want, just so that they can keep their jobs.

Isn't this akin to saying that everyone who shops at a certain grocery store must buy a certain product every time they shop (even if they don't want the product) because the good of the whole store/community depends on the economic "benefits" of forcing money out of people?

Let those who want to pay a union for its services pay them. Let those who want nothing to do with the union keep their money.

The equitable thing to do is allow every individual to make his or her own choice, not coerce payments out of people and call it their "fair share."

Don said on Mar 10 2010 at 4:21pm
And they are concentrated at Boeing (leaving the state) and the public sector (going broke). They are perfect examples of what happens when union political influence creates a legal and regulatory environment which tilts "arms length" bargaining in a manner that heavily favors one side.

Northwest Professional Educators said on Mar 10 2010 at 4:34pm
Actually, employees in non-Right to Work states like WA are not forced to JOIN the union, but they are forced to PAY the union. They have certain rights designed to protect their free speech, such as the right to become a religious objector and direct all funds to a charity or, as a nonunion member, objecting to the use of dues for matters other than representation and getting back a rebate. In WA, nonunion teachers can get a $200-$300 rebate of union dues. These rights are less than adequate, but they are available for those who resist union membership. For more information about teachers' rights, see http://nwpe.org/PDF/Summary_of_Rights_Handout.pdf.

Northwest Professional Educators is a nonunion professional educators organization providing many of the same benefits of a union, such as liability insurance and legal services, but without the politics teachers do not want to fund. See www.nwpe.org. Become a NWPE Facebook fan to keep abreast of news and developments from the independent educator movement at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Northwest-Professional-Educators/14325479888.

Mathew C. Martin said on Mar 10 2010 at 5:34pm
I'm interested in the legality of King County not requiring Union Representatives, by exemption, from filing as Lobbyists when they in fact perform this work. Why are Unions exempt when they already have the benefit of collective bargaining that non-union folks don't share. Additionally, why are unionized government employees allowed to air their work related greivances in public with their Representatives when the rest of us would be fired for doing the same? Isn't their an HR dept. for these individuals to complain to? Thanks!

km said on Mar 11 2010 at 10:21am
tiresias: If you make union membership optional, then those who don't belong to the union don't earn union negotiated pay, hours, or working conditions. They must go by themselves to their employer and negotiate their own pay scale, hours and working conditions.
As I see you premise, it's ok for non-union workers to be freeloaders. That's the equity issue. If free choice is the issue, chose another job; that's truly your free choice.
Don: Please clarify "arms length" bargaining. I've never heard that term before.
Mathew: I'm unaware of an lobbyist registration exemption. Please clarify.

tiresias said on Mar 11 2010 at 10:58am
km: People should not be forced to buy a product they don't want and didn't ask for. Why should people be precluded from employment based on the labor choices of current or past workers?

You mention optional union membership (and thus benefits) as if there is something wrong with the concept. I like the idea. If people want the product of labor representation, they can pay for it. If they don't want it, they don't have to pay. It is simple and very freeing. It balances individual liberty with voluntary, collective rights.