This is the perfect refutation to the right wing argument that unions are too strong and need to be broken. With union jobs leaving the country as fast as BushCo can pave the way through NAFTA and GATT, it doesn't surprise me that union membership has dropped as much as it has. But, speaking as a union member, workers only have themsleves to blame - they voted for Reagan twice, Bush I once, didn't defend Clinton when he really needed support, and then allowed Bush II to steal the White House (and everything else). When you hear someone ask "Why didn't someone do/say anything?", tell them to look in the mirror.

We need a new Operation Dixie! But one that isn't a failure, of course :)

The reason it wouldn't work as a refutation of the right wing argument that unions are too strong is that they would say 'See, they still dictate the outcome of elections despite having almost no members - that's not democracy!'

Of course, I'd be interested to see a comparison of the percentages of union members/workers and voters/citizens, state by state. I suspect that unions still are one of the best forces for getting people to actually vote, and that it is more effective, the more union workers there are in a region.

Also—Nathan, what's with the progressives' disrespect of unions? I deal with it myself, and I don't understand it at all. Your argument seems not only obvious but totally unnecessary; surely it's obvious prima facie that strong unions are good for Democrats.

Thank you,
-Vardibidian.

To understand progressive antipathy toward unions one must return to the dark ages of 1968. The "hard hats" - mostly union constructiion workers, but not exclusively - turned against the anti-Vietnam movement. There are reports that these "good Americans" would wade into anti-war demonstrations and cause bodily harm. Then, these same people became Nixon's "Silent Majority". These same people were the ones who elected Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

When a progressive issue arose, all the unions could care about was the short-term effect on jobs. This short-sightedness did not save jobs in the long run, because employers learned that if they threatened jobs, then they could get what they wanted. Each time they got what they wanted, they cut jobs anyway.

Unions are in serious trouble today because they did not adapt to the times. They didn't notice as the laws were "re-interpreted" against labor. They sell out (See: Hoffa and ANWR Oil Drilling) on a vague promise that never comes in, all the while workers across America lose good livelihoods and become temporary workers.

If unions would have stood up to Big Business while they still had some power (pre-PATCO Reagan), instead of kissing up to it, then progressives would not be so angry at organized labor for abandoning those who needed them most.

Pessimist,

I tend to agree with most of what you say, but I would point out it was President Clinton, in his FIRST term, that pushed through NAFTA (with a Democratic Congress to boot!)

I think that legislative act, more than anything else, contributed to the 1994 Republican Revolution and has kept the Democrats in the minority, and will keep them there until they articulate a fair trade agenda.

Pessimist,

Well, and I'm an optimist, so there you are.

Most of my progressive friends are far too young to have been at anti-war rallies in 1968, but they might, I suppose, have picked up the antipathy as part of the cultural scene later. As for the unions electing Reagan, by my reading it was more that the union vote was split than consistently R in 80. We're used to it being consistently D (thank you), so from the left a split can make it seem like the unions are on the other side, I guess.

Thank you,
-Vardibidian.

Kumar - Point noted on Nafta, but it wasn't passage of the act to which I refer. It was to how Bush promotes Nafta and the WTO as beneficial to the American worker in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Only his corporate buddies really benefit.

And Vardibidian, while Dems tended to get union votes for local seats, the union membership also tended to vote for Republicans as President. I saw this happen with Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I. I would ask my fellow members (I belong to IATSE) how they could vote against their own interests like this. The lamest response I got when Reagan was first elected: "But Reagan's got GUNS!" Even now, the majority of my local is strongly Republican, but as soon as you mention all the things that the GOP is doing to labor, they begin reciting the Gospel according to Rush. We progressives are seriously outnumbered.

hawaii actually gained unionized jobs. what's its secret?

Huge Democratic majority.

A couple of observations:

1. It's true that we saw too many union members voting for Nixon, Reagan and Bush I. It was the strong union vote for the Gingrich-Contract On America crowd that really shocked labor into action. Unions realized that they actually needed to educate their members, not just tell them who to vote for. And since 94, they've been amazingly successful, not just in turning out the union vote, but making sure that it voted Democratic. (Indeed, if it hadn't been for strong labor turnout in PA, MI, WI and other states, George Bush might have been elected President.)

2002 was an exception -- especially in labor turnout. Mainly because union members -- even well educated union members -- correctly saw that the Democrats were not presenting any credible opposition to Bush.

2. Given the high turnout and strong labor vote for Democrats in the last few elections, it's hard to understand why every Democrat is not making a stronger labor movement his or her first priority.

3. Clearly we still have a long way to go in educating union members. Yet the success show that people (not just union members) can be educated to vote according to their interests, not just according to what they hear on the radio.

Great stats. And a fine blog. Is it usual in the States to colour Republicans red? This foxed me slightly at first sight of the table - red not being the colour I associate with the Right. (the workers' flag is deepest red, it shrouded oft our martyred dead..) Equally, most conservative parties I've ever heard of are symbolically blue. A graph of the voting %'s against the organisation rate might be interesting too.