Victor Posted: Jul 6, 2007 10:28 AM >Seeing a nefarious union conspiracy behind every policy >decision ought to land one on a therapy couch at least >a couple of times a week. Medication may also be >advisable.
Technical information: (202) 691-6378 USDL 07-0113 http://www.bls.gov/cps/ For release: 10:00 A.M. EST Thursday, January 25, 2007
UNION MEMBERS IN 2006
In 2006, 12.0 percent of employed wage and salary workers were union members, down from 12.5 percent a year earlier, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of persons belonging to a union fell by 326,000 in 2006 to 15.4 million. The union membership rate has steadily declined from 20.1 percent in 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available.
==> NB: these numbers are for all wage and salary ==> workers, including public sector workers. In the ==> private sector, the numbers for the unions are even ==> grimmer ( < 10%, I think).
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=2324 Given the rate at which workers have been leaving unions, the labor movement will have to add nearly 700,000 members per year just to maintain its current levels of employee representation. ----------------
Victor, do you think the unions don't know this? Do you imagine this fact does not factor into their every calculation? Do you think this little vignette is not on their minds every waking hour of every day?
They think of almost nothing else.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11958-2005Mar6.html >"These are the darkest days that I have ever seen for >American workers across the United States," said >McEntee, one of Sweeney's strongest allies. >... >Hoffa, Stern and Wilhelm countered that labor must >build up its membership through organizing drives >before it can effectively flex its political muscle.
And so on and so forth. You can google "labor movement declining membership" to see all you need on the subject.
In other words, maybe it has not occurred to you, but there is not a snowball's chance in Hell that the AFT and NEA are insensitive to or unaware of what smaller class size will mean to their membership.