On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, SA wrote:
> These figures aren't comparable - at least between France and the U.S.
> If you take the average American's common sense conception of what it
> means to be a "union member" and use that as your definition, "union
> density" in France is more than 90%. In other words, for most Americans,
> being a union member means (1) a union collectively negotiates your
> wages and working conditions; (2) there's a "union presence" in the
> workplace (e.g., where you can take grievances); and (3) union
> representatives have direct contact with you about politics and
> mobilizations. This describes more than 90% of French workers, but only
> 12% of American workers.
Wow. I can't believe I've never heard this before. A mystery people have pondered for decades (and written interested books to explain) dispelled as a mere artifact of data?
I must say, the world makes much simpler sense this way.
> So while it's true that union density may not be a good index of
> militancy *at a moment in time*
Perhaps. Although from the data you give, it looks like there is a remarkably close correlation between militancy and density once it is corrected for comparability:
> There is a separate statistic called "bargaining coverage density,"
> which the OECD also puts out; it refers to the % of workers covered by
> collective bargaining agreements....for France it's more than 90%, for
> Germany I think it's something like 60%[, for the USA it's 12%].
Which seems pretty much like their rank order of militancy, no?
Michael