Recent Trends in Trade Union Membership:
Don't Believe Everything You Think!
Written by Peter Hall-Jonesi for The International Transport Workers' Federation, November 2013
Replay
As everybody knows, trade unions are in decline. They have been for years. We've tried everything but nothing seems to
work. That is the dominant narrative. The trouble is, according to the best data we have available, it is wrong for most
countries. In this paper I hope to show that our international perspective has been distorted by the experience (and the
media) of post-industrial nations. The real story is far more instructive. It also suggests a new way forward. Rather than
running our unions as ailing small businesses, we should be putting more emphasis on organizing across borders.
The usual story begins some time in the late '70s. Sotto voce: The rise of neoliberalism — as
personified by Reagan and Thatcher — signalled the beginning of the end for trade unionism.... Since
this fateful moment we have been struggling to turn a rout into an orderly retreat. However, even at
this early stage, the story is rather far-fetched. After all, this was also the era of Gorbachev, who
personified a new direction for twenty one "Marxist Leninist" nations. Then there was Nelson Mandela,
followed by Subcomandante "Marcos", Aung San Suu Kyi and so many others — people who
personified democratic liberation struggles. This was also the era in which 120 countries proudly
identified themselves as "non-aligned". In fact, to speak of any coherent international narrative in
unionism from the 1970s to the 1990s is something of a nonsense. It was a period in which some
countries industrialised while others saw an end to state centralism. Some decolonised, others
democratised, many did both. Some saw a shift towards the services sector, others poured wealth into
free trade zones. There was huge growth in female labour force participation, while some countries saw
their working class decimated by Cold War position plays and civil war. And of course there were those
countries who maintained their agricultural base, centred around small holdings and peasant labour. In
short, the dominant narrative of extended and relentless union decline arises from the generalised
experience of a few wealthy nations. History is being written by the victors.
When it comes to mapping trends in global unionism, there is no particular reason to begin in the late
1970s. Rather, if we are looking for a coherent story we probably need to wait for almost a generation,
while neoliberalism effectively sweeps the board. By the end of the 1990s state centralism had imploded
and Asia's "tiger economies" had weathered their first crisis. National liberation movements had
triumphed (in the main), while transnational corporations had taken control of one quarter of the
world's productive assets. The Internet and mobile phones were connecting a billion dots, tariff
systems were largely dismantled, capital was being financialized, conditional loans had brought
dissenting nations into line, and multilateral trade arrangements had become all the vogue. Forget
Francis Fukuyama's proclamation of "the end of history" — social justice activists heralded this new era
best when they stopped railing against globalisation and began to declare "another world is possible".
What makes better sense then, for the purposes of this study, is to consider global trends in trade
unionism from about the year 2000 onwards.
Finding the plot
There is one immediate problem. The ILO's last major study of global unionism was published in 1997.
Since then, analysts have had to collect data from a huge range of disparate sources, many of which use
different measures in their calculations. Worse, there has been an academic shift towards simplistic
"membership density" figures. These effectively hide both the membership numbers and any
fluctuations in the labour force. This is rather like calling out the punch line without bothering with the
rest of the joke.
In 2007 volunteers from the New Unionism Networkii decided to try and "crowd source" an interim
reassessment of the movement. We began by collecting data from as many sources as possible. This
included excellent sets from the ILO and OECD, as well as incomparable work by Jelle Visser at the
Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies. There were also studies by GURN, FES, the
LO/FTF Council, the US Solidarity Centre, EIRO and Eurofound. On top of this there were
ITUC/ICFTU reports to the WTO, independent academic work, government reports and media
analyses. Taking all this together, our database was soon capable of tentatively assessing changes in
coverage for the majority of the world's workers. By tracking raw numbers (rather than composite
density figures) we also avoided many of the standard methodological traps. A rather surprising story
began to emerge. After five more years we have enough data to affirm this confidently. In fact, our
conclusions are only being corroborated as further datasets become available.
To cut a long story short, we currently have comparable data points on union membership trends
(between 2000 and 2013) for 94 countries. Table One presents the results.
UNION MEMBERSHIP POST 2000: 94 COUNTRIES
UNION MEMBERSHIP: 62 COUNTRIES, HIGH CERTAINTY
This came as such a surprise that we decided to review our sources. We divided them into three
categories, with only a few classified as having a high level of certainty. An explanation of this is
available at http://www.newunionism.net/unions.htm, along with the specific national figures we used
and direct links to the data sources.
Table Two above presents the data we have for our second group. This is made up of 62 nations for
which we have highly reliable data that is directly comparable.iii The dominant narrative is clearly on
shaky ground.
2
The plot thickens
Although the conclusion is broadly the same, there is also a clear difference between Table One and
Table Two. How might we explain this? Almost by definition, the nations for which we have the best
information are those with the most wealth. Because of this, the list of nations in Table Two contains a
higher proportion of rich countries. Perhaps unions in these countries are more likely to be in decline?
In order to test this we compared data for the 34 OECD member states (Table Three) with data for the
world's 34 poorest countries (Table Four)iv A very different story emerges. There are, in fact, two quite
distinct stories.
UNION MEMBERSHIP: 34 OECD NATIONS
UNION MEMBERSHIP: 34 POOREST NATIONS
When it comes to the OECD nations, we have all the data we need. It seems the majority are
experiencing union decline. (That said, even here the picture is not as bleak as we are led to believe).
However, when it comes to the world's 34 poorest countries, it seems membership is growing. With
this in mind, we looked at the remaining 52 countries for which we have data.
Table Five confirms the finding. The
dominant narrative is misrepresenting
the experience of most countries.
Looking at these tables we can also
infer some other trends. For a start, it
would seem likely that the more data
we collect, the more growth we will
uncover. Also, as nations industrialise,
membership statistics are likely to rise.
In short, it seems highly probable that
there will be many more union
members in 2015 than there are today.
3
Aside
As well as being wrong, the idea of relentless decline is also profoundly demotivating. For one thing, it
negates the value of the work done by millions of volunteers in the world’s largest and most
representative movement. In rich countries it promotes a feeling of helplessness. Despite all our
political lobbying and experiments with service provision, despite all our work to prove a business case
for membership, the membership numbers keep falling. And in developing countries there is a fear (so
often justified) that if the membership grows too strong, production will relocate. Our sociallyconstructed fatalism also has huge implications for the global movement. Organisations such as the
ITUC and the global union federations are largely dependent on support from countries where
membership is falling. Framed in this way, our problems feel insurmountable. Whether we say it out
loud or not, many believe this is the sunset of trade unionism.
Taking control of our own story
Such conclusions highlight the need for hard data and open discussion. Perhaps there are also specific
approaches and areas of union growth we could be learning from? We cannot rely on the private media
for this information — they have created and perpetuated the current myth. In the meantime at least,
the ILO seems to have resiled from the job as well. My belief is that we need to take ownership of the
task ourselvesv. Until we do this, we are stuck with inadequate data and academic analyses that we
cannot really use. Nor do we have an independent view of the contexts in which these statistics appear.
For one thing, the world's population increased (between 2000 and 2010) by 12.6%.vi. Is it any wonder,
then, that some unions have grown? And what about the size of the global labour force? Given the
world's legislative frameworks, are there fewer or more people eligible to join? It seems astonishing that
we do not know how fast the global working class is growing, yet alone how this relates to union
membership numbersvii.
In my opinion we should resolve at a global level to collect and maintain, at minimum, the following
data for each and every country:
1) The total number of paid-up union members;
2) The total size of the labour force;
3) The total number of people eligible for union membership;
4) The total size of the population;
5) Contact information and coverage details for all major national unions.
If this sounds overly ambitious, consider the collective process that brought us Wikipedia. In fact, the
latter could be used as a base, making this an organizing task more than anything else.
We also need to remember the context in which these changes occur. When it comes to membership
trends, it may be that certain groups of employees are suddenly excluded from membership by a simple
tweak of legislation. Or unionism may be undermined when their services are opened up to commercial
competition. In a globalised era, it may also be that over-arching problems distort relationships at a
national level. Austerity, for instance, has never been a particularly rational response to crisis. In fact
data shows that "economic competitiveness" is positively correlated with high levels of union
membership. A 2008 assessment found that the top 5 most competitiveviii nations have an average
union membership of 42%. The top 10 have an average of 38%, the top 30 have only 33%. But
without solid data and context, how can we argue the case for more voice in decision-making as a
feasible alternative to slashing social budgets? And how can we develop a global strategy, without a
proper understanding of our strengths and roles?
Beyond the numbers game
One of the things that emerges very clearly from our data is the need to be cautious about correlating
union membership with influence. Without qualitative data about what a union is, we should not make
4
any assumptions about what it does. Setting aside trends for a moment, compare the five countries with
highest levels of unionisation with five from the opposite end of the scale.
Table Six
i) Highest levels of membership density:
Country
Kyrgyzstan
Belarus
China
Iceland
Cuba
Union
density
Density
year
Data source
94%
90%
90%
80%
71%
2008
2007
2000
2008
2008
US State Dept
ILO
ILO
US State Dept
ILO
ii) Low levels of membership density
Country
Union
density
Density
year
Data source
India
France
Spain
Germany
6%
8%
15%
19%
2010
2012
2011
2010
ILO
Eurofound
Eurofound
FES Institute
We all know about France — with its regular and spectacular general strikes. How can they achieve this
with only 8% membership? More to the point, there is very little information (in English at least) about
unions in India — where membership is only 6%. Yet these unions have mounted a series of national
strikes over the last years that dwarf anything ever seen before in the history of the union movement.
Unfortunately, any discussion based on density can only be illustrative. Figures such as those in Table
Six mask any sense of what is really happening. The percentages are compiled in invisible ways, in
accordance with invisible criteria, and are not in any direct sense comparable.ix Nevertheless, it is very
clear that labour influence is far more than a simple numbers game.
Drawing the threads together: Towards a new solidarity?
If we can get them to ask the wrong questions, we don't have to worry about the answers they come up with.
Robert Anton Wilson
Global discussion on how to arrest union decline is misdirected in two ways:
1) The global union movement is not in decline;
2) Numbers in themselves are no guarantee of influence.
If our goal is to build influence for working people, then we need to create better working relationships
across borders. This is a lesson the entire movement should be taking from ITF's Flags of
Convenience campaign. What happens next is a matter for the movement to decide, but here is a place
we might choose to begin the discussion. You might think of this as a kind of counter-narrative.
Union influence is in decline where production and services have globalised. This has created
a situation where unions in developed countries have lost access to levers of power, and where
workers in developing countries have insufficient resources to exert influence.
5
If this revised version of the narrative is correct, then there is potential for a "virtuous circle" of
solidarity. Imagine if unions in post-industrial nations could call on support at various points of
production and distribution in industrial nations. Then imagine if unions in industrial nations could call
on support for building membership and influence. This kind of mutual gain might develop around
supply chains, international campaigns or global framework agreementsx. It might utilise advances in
social networking or resources created through crowd-sourcing. These are matters for the affiliates to
decide and global organisations to facilitate. However, the essential point is that industrial and postindustrial nations could be bartering resources for influence, and vice versa.
At the heart of all this lies a question that often serves as our "elephant in the middle of the room".
How can the union movement thrive in the face of such determined opposition from private enterprise
and (often) the State itself? Must we lower our expectations, setting aside lofty goals such as democracy
at work simply in order to survive? Is union development a question of pragmatics or politics? Of
course there are no right or wrong answers to such questions — it will always be a matter of balance.
However, what I hope to have shown is that the two can be reconciled. When viewed internationally, the
trade union movement is growing. This growth looks set to continue. However, our sustainability may
depend upon how we configure international solidarity. This is not just an issue for the relevant
committee to discuss as they apportion grants. The question of solidarity goes straight to the heart of
unionism's role in a globalised society. As AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka put it to a group of
steelworkers back in 2008:
"...in a global economy, we have no alternative but to build truly global unions. Unions with the ability to confront
corporate power wherever it rears its head, whether it's a call center in Bangalore, a shoe factory in Vietnam, or a coal
mine in Colombia. Brothers and sisters, the corporate agenda doesn't end at the water's edge -- and neither can ours!
…(The) question we face isn't just where we organize; it's who."xi.
6
Notes
i
Peter Hall-Jones, the author of this paper, is a founding member and currently Communications Manager for the New
Unionism Network (see www.newunionism.net). He has worked in the union movement for 25 years, including 10
years at international level. He also spent four years working as Communications Officer for Public Services
International in France. He can be reached at phj@newunionism.net.
ii
We have had help from countless network members and supporters in this work, but I would like to particularly
acknowledge Michael Keil, Sofia Lampousaki, Stephen Littlewood, Legna Cabrera, Fuk-ying Tse, Warren Bone, Ian
Raines, Kent Mukoya, Princewill Akamo, Pirzada Imtiaz Syed, Gerald Lombardi and Ismail Buyukakan.
iii
The nations represented in Table Two are, in alphabetical order: Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil,
Bulgaria, Burma Myanmar, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El
Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Republic of (South), Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Mozambique, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone,
Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine,
United Kingdom, United States and Zambia. See http://www.newunionism.net/unions.htm for specific numbers and
links to services.
iv
The nations represented in Table Four are, in alphabetical order: Afghanistan, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central
African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia,
Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger,
Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe. These were
determined by reference to the United Nation's Human Development Report.
v
In saying this I would like to acknowledge the great work done by the LO/FTF Council, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung
Academic Foundation, the Global Union Research Network, the Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies, the
European Industrial Relations Observatory, the U.S. Solidarity Centre, the European Trade Union Institute, and so
many others who have struggled to inject some rigour and objectivity into the dialogue around trade unionism. Without
them, this paper could never have been written.
vi ie from 6,122,770,000 to 6,895,889,000. See http://www.populationinstitute.org/external/files/reports/from-6b-to7b.pdf (accessed 2 November 2013).
vii Cyprus provides a useful illustration of how complex this question can be. On the surface, union membership
density has declined. However, in raw figures membership has grown by 35%.
"Based on the available statistics as provided by the Trade Union Registrar for both union density and union
membership, the decrease in the rate of union density is a result of the large increase in the number of non-union
members in relation to the number of union members. In the same period, the total number of trade union members
showed a steady and substantial increase of around 35%; however, the increase in non-union members was around
350%." See http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/country/cyprus.pdf (accessed 2 November 2013).
viii
For further discussion of the relationship between "competitive economies" and union membership, see :
http://www.newunionism.net/library/member%20contributions/news/Unionism%20and%20Economic%20Performance.
htm (accessed 2 November 2013).
ix
China is a case in point. Membership density estimates vary from 30% to 90%, depending on the parameters that are
used. These parameters then get lost as the figures are blithely reproduced. Of course there are also those who maintain
there are no 'real' unions in China (as they are controlled by the State) so the actual number is 0%. Given that we are
talking about roughly 239,965,000 members (2010), this is a big issue. Interestingly, I have never heard it argued the
other way around — that there has been a huge increase in union membership across the formerly socialist nations of
eastern Europe. This would be the case if the latter logic were applied because in the past these unions were controlled
by the State (hence 0% membership). Nowadays, most of them are 'real' and struggling to find a new footing in
economies dominated by private enterprise.
x
For further discussion on how global solidarity might be built around supply chains, international campaigns, global
framework agreements and/or new forms of social networking etc, see http://www.newunionism.net/global_unions.htm.
xi
See http://www.thenation.com/blog/afl-cios-trumka-embraces-all-workers-including-immigrants (accessed 2
November 2013).
7