BOOK REVIEWS
| Published date | 01 June 1963 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1963.tb00986.x |
| Date | 01 June 1963 |
BOOK REVIEWS
THE DECLINE
OF
THE LABOR MOVEMENT
A COMMENT
LEO
TROY*
IN
The Decline
of
the
Labor
Movement,'
Solomon Barkin, Research
Director of the Textile Workers of America, has sought to account for
the recent down-turn in American unionism and suggests proposals to
reverse the trend.
For the present state of the American labour movement, Barkin
offers
a
number of explanations
:
'
(1)
The major cause for attrition in union membership
has
been
the shrinkage
of
employment in the organized industries (p.
lo);
(2)
Total union membership is slipping because increases in the
expanding segments of the economy have not been sufficient to offset
the losses in the contracting ones
(p.
16);
(3)
The cessation of union
growth is not the result of the collapse of locals under pressure of
overt attacks by employers (p.
9);
(4)
One
of
the most serious obstacles
to the growth of unionism in America is the unwillingness of em-
ployers to accept unions and collective bargaining as an integral
part of the industrial system.' (p.
16).
However, in addition and foremost among the factors Barkin holds
responsible
for
the decline is the Taft-Hartley Act and its administra-
tion by the Eisenhower labour board. According
to
Barkin, the Taft-
Hartley Act's
'
major consequence has been to hamper union growth
'
(p.
20).
The Eisenhower labour board
'
start(ed) with the assumption
that all unions have great power, and that individual employees must
be protected from them and employers must be able to counter them
'
(p.
21).
In his opinion the
'
legislators and judiciary
. . .
have yielded
to demands for laws and interpretations that restrain trade unions.
The pendulum has already swung
so
far
as
to halt the growth
of
the
labour movement and actually constrict it.' (p.
66).
In contrast,
I
believe that the Eisenhower labour board and the
Taft-Hartley Act has had
at
most
only
a
marginal influence on the
decline
of
unionism and that the more important causes have been
the ones that are primarily economic in nature.
Associate Professor
of
Economics, Rutgers University.
'A Report
to
the Center for
the
Study of Democratic Institutions
at
Santa Barbara,
4'2
Fund
for the Republic,
1961.
BOOK
REVIEWS
413
The Course
of
Union Membership
The defects in Barkin's report begin with the lack of a clear defini-
tion of membership and an accurate account
of
the real changes in
union memberships. The statements made by Barkin on membership
suggest that he may equate absolute membership with union strength.
But if this is the measure, his charges against the Eisenhower labour
board are contradicted by the facts. During the period
1952-1960,
union membership
aduanced
in five of the eight years and touched
an all-time high of
17.7
million in
1957
(Table
I).
Two years of
decline,
1954
and
1958,
were years of business recess,ion when member-
ship could be expected to accompany the decline in non-farm employ-
ment.
Table
I
Total Membership
of
American Trade
Unions," 1953-1960
'953
1954
1955
1956
igq
195
'959
1960
Total
Mem bershipa
1
7,3 15,600
16,612,000
16,989,700
17,383,200
17,686,900
16,702.300
16,509,300
16,606,800
Change from
Preceding Year
Source:
Leo Trov.
A
Half-Centurv
of
Union
Membershib,
National Bureau
of
Economic Research'(in process
of
publication
.
a
Includes Canadian membership and other membership
outsi
h
e
continental United States.
If union strength is measured by relating it to the national labour
force and to non-farm employment (Table
2),
it is evident that union
growth began to slow down after World War
I1
except for a brief
upswing during the Korean war. By
1960,
the extent of union organiza-
tion had dropped to levels below those of
1945.
Long-run trends in employment areas which have been historically
non-union in the
US.,
namely in the decline of agriculture and the
growth of white-collar employment, affect the degree of total union
organization as shown in Table
2.
Given a steady total membership,
a decline in the non-union component of the national labour force will
tend to increase the ratio of membership to the total labour force.
However, the decline in farm labour has been offset by an increase in
white-collar employment. Thus with the total labour force ratio
already falling, the non-farm ratio has fallen more rapidly. Between
1950
and
1960,
the density of organization
of
the labour force edged
To continue reading
Request your trial