New Report Evaluates Union Membership and Money Post-Janus

NEW YORK, NY — Back in 2018 when the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, Justice Kagan warned of “large-scale consequences;” others feared possible extinction for public-sector unions. Flashforward to the school closures of 2020 and 2021, and teachers’ unions, at least, seem stronger than ever. So have unions found a way around the potential downfalls—like eroded membership and decreased revenues—of Janus? Or have they just postponed inevitable decline?  

In a new Manhattan Institute report, senior fellow Daniel DiSalvo reviews the best available data on union membership and concludes that while Janus weakened public sector unions and eliminated any real prospects for their growth, it has not completely overhauled the status quo ante. Barring other policy interventions, union membership will likely stabilize close to where it is now. 

Key findings of DiSalvo’s analysis include: 

• It seems both the existing organizational environment prior to Janus, and new laws passed since, have worked to prevent attrition from public sector unions across the country. National data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Department of Labor suggest union membership has been relatively stable in most states impacted by Janus. And in reported cases of large declines, it’s unclear whether employees opting out of union membership relates to Janus or whether declines are the result of an overall reduction in particular states’ public workforce. 
• State employee data, however, tells a different story: Employer records from Washington state and Oregon show larger declines in union membership than elsewhere. Washington’s AFSCME Council 28 saw its dues-paying membership fall from 95.8 percent of represented employees in June 2018 to 64.7 percent in November 2021. In Oregon, SEIU 503 went from 100 percent paying membership in June 2018 to only 62.6 percent. Because this data source is the most accurate available, it suggests that other data sources, which rely on reporting by unions themselves or individual workers, may overestimate union membership. 
• After initial losses of agency fee revenues, public unions have been able to stabilize their finances—in some cases, by raising dues. Nevertheless, unions will eventually be unable to raise dues any higher without causing membership attrition—and, as a result, public-union federations will be less able to generously subsidize unions in weak union states using monies from revenue in strong union states. 

Given the weaknesses in the data sources available, post-Janus predictions and analyses are difficult to make. A small step toward rectifying this situation, DiSalvo argues, would be to improve the federal reporting requirements of all public sector unions so that government employers and the public can accurately assess the character of unions who negotiate with government to set important public policies. 

Click here to view the full report.