Midwest Information office

In 2007, 14.1 percent of wage and salary workers in Ohio were union members, similar to the 14.2 percent in 2006, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. Regional Commissioner Jay A. Mousa noted that, despite little change, the 2007 union membership rate was the lowest recorded in the 19 years of the data series. At its peak in 1989, 21.3 percent of all workers in Ohio belonged to a union. (See table A.)

Nationally, union members accounted for 12.1 percent of employed wage and salary workers in 2007, essentially unchanged from 12.0 percent in 2006. The union membership rate for the U.S. has declined from a high of 20.1 percent in 1983, the first year for which comparable national union data were available. Ohio was 1 of 20 states that had union membership rates above the national average in 2007.

In Ohio, 730,000 wage and salary workers were union members in 2007. An additional 67,000 workers were represented by a union on their main job or were covered by an employee association or contract while not being union members themselves. Nationwide, nearly 15.7 million wage and salary workers were union members in 2007, while another 1.6 million wage and salary workers were represented by a union on their main job but not union members themselves.

In 2007, 30 states and the District of Columbia had union membership rates below that of the U.S. average, 12.1 percent, while 20 states had higher rates. (See table 1.) Relative to 2006, 27 states registered lower union membership rates, 20 states recorded higher membership rates, and 3 states and the District of Columbia had no changes in their rates.

Four of the five states in the East North Central division (which includes Ohio) had union membership rates above the national average in 2007. Joining Ohio with a higher rate were Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Indiana had a union membership rate slightly less than the U.S. average. All states in the Middle Atlantic and Pacific divisions reported union membership rates above that for the United States. In contrast, all the states in the East South Central and West South Central divisions had union membership rates below the national average. 

Five states reported union membership rates below 5.0 percent in 2007. North Carolina posted the lowest rate (3.0 percent), followed by Virginia (3.7 percent), South Carolina (4.1 percent), Georgia (4.4 percent), and Texas (4.7 percent). Four states had union membership rates over 20.0 percent—New York (25.2 percent), Alaska (23.8 percent), Hawaii (23.4 percent), and Washington (20.2 percent).

Nearly half (7.8 million) of the 15.7 million union members in the United States lived in six states (California, 2.5 million; New York, 2.1 million; Illinois, 0.8 million; Michigan, 0.8 million; Pennsylvania, 0.8 million; and New Jersey, 0.7 million), though these six accounted for only about one-third of wage and salary employment nationwide.

State union membership levels depend on both the union membership rates and the employment levels. For example, Ohio had 58 percent more union members than Texas, despite having 4.7 million fewer wage and salary workers. Similarly, Tennessee and Hawaii had comparable numbers of union members even though Tennessee’s wage and salary employment level was more than four and one-half times that of Hawaii.

For personal assistance or further information on union membership, as well as other Bureau programs, contact the Chicago Information Office at 312-353-1880 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. CT. Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: 202-692-5200, TDD message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339.

Statistics based on the CPS are subject to both sampling and nonsampling error. When a sample, rather than the entire population, is surveyed, there is a chance that the sample estimates may differ from the "true" population values they represent. The exact difference, or sampling error, varies depending upon the particular sample selected, and this variability is measured by the standard error of the estimate. There is about a 90-percent chance, or level of confidence, that an estimate based on a sample will differ by no more than 1.6 standard errors from the "true" population value because of sampling error.

The CPS data also are affected by nonsampling error. Nonsampling error can occur for many reasons, including the failure to sample a segment of the population, inability to obtain information for all respondents in the sample, inability or unwillingness of respondents to provide correct information, and errors made in the collection or processing of the data.

For a full discussion of the reliability of data from the CPS and information on estimating standard errors, see the "Explanatory Notes and Estimates of Error" section of Employment and Earnings.

The principal definitions used in this release are described briefly below.

Last Modified Date: March 27, 2008

Back to Top	Freedom of Information Act | Customer Survey | Do you have a technical Web site question?	bls.gov
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Midwest Information Office Room 960, 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604 http://www.bls.gov/RO5/ | Telephone: (312) 353-1880 | Fax: (312) 353-1886 Do you have a Midwest Region (R05) data question?