Full text of Unaffiliated Local and Single-Employer Unions in the United States, 1961 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1348

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

Unaffiliated Local and Single-Employer




Unions in the United States

1961

Bulletin No. 1348
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Ewan Clague, Commissioner

Unaffiliated Local and Single-Employer




Unions in the United States

1961

Bulletin No. 1348
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Ewan Clague, Commissioner




Unaffiliated Local and Single-Employer
Unions in the United States

1961

Bulletin No. 1348
November 1962

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Ewan Clague, Commissioner

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.G.



Price 15 cents




P reface
Although unaffiliated local and single-employer unions are one of the oldest forms of
labor organization in the United States, they have become, as one writer recently put it,
"A m erica1s forgotten labor organization." Generally, the American labor movement is de­
fined to include the AFL-CIO, its affiliated unions, and the national and international unions
which are outside the federation; single-employer unaffiliated unions usually earn, at best, a
brief footnote.
The eclipse of local unaffiliated unions was started with the passage of the
National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act, and was hastened by the emergence of strong na­
tional unions in mass production industries and their growth during the war period.
Nevertheless, unaffiliated local and single-employer unions have continued to exist,
often in the face of the determined opposition of national unions.
In the absence of reliable
statistics, partisan interests have claimed membership in the millions or, at the other ex­
treme, the decline and ultimate disappearance of these organizations.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics biennial surveys of union membership have been
confined to national and international unions, that is, labor organizations that bargain with
different employers in more than one State.
In this study, the Bureau accounts for the
first time for the membership of unaffiliated unions confined to a single employer or to
a single State.
The Bureau hopes that in closing this gap in its membership statistics it
has also provided a sound basis for further research into the nature and activities of
these organizations.
This study was prepared in the Bureau1s Division of Wages and Industrial Relations
by Harry P. Cohany and James Neary.

Contents
Page
Scope and method ____________________________________________________________________________
Size and composition of membership ______________________________________________________
Women members _________________________________________________________________________
White-collar m em bers______________________________________________________________
Industrial distribution ___________________________________________________________________
State m em bership-------------------------------------Number of locals ____________ —-------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------Collective bargaining _____ _
---------------------------------------------------------------------------Association of independents--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------T ables:
1. Dues-paying membership of intrastate and single-employer unions, May 1961____
2. Agreement coverage of intrastate and single-employer unions, May 19 61________
3. Proportion of women members in intrastate and single-employer unions,
May 1961_______________________________________________________________ _______ ____ —~
4. Proportion of white-collar members in intrastate and single-employer u n ion s,
May 1961____________________________________ ______________________________________ _
5. Dues-paying membership and agreement coverage of intrastate and single employer unions, by industry, May 1961_________________________________ _____ ___
6. Dues-paying membership and agreement coverage of intrastate and singleemployer unions, by State, May 1961 ____________________ _____________ ...__________
7. Number of locals affiliated with intrastate and single-employer unions,
May 1961 ____________________________________________________——_____________________
8. Number of basic collective bargaining agreements negotiated by intrastate
and single-employer untions, May 1961



111

\

3
4
5
6
6
6
7
7
2
2
3
3
4
5
6
7




Unaffiliated Local and Single-Employer Unions
in the United States, 1961
In the absence of earlier studies, it is not possi­
ble to determine how these unions, as a whole,
have fared over time. The present findings will
serve as a benchmark against which to measure
future change and should furnish a sound statisti­
cal basis for research into the nature of these
organizations.

I n mid-1961, unaffiliated intrastate and single­

employer unions, exclusive of government unions,
constituted a numerically marginal group in the
American labor movement. Based on reports to
the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 1,277 unions
in this category, their membership represented 2.6
percent of the membership of all United States
unions,1 as shown in the following tabulation:

Scope and Method

Union member ship
in the United States
Number
(thousands) Percent

T otal_______ ______ _______ _____
A FL -C IO affiliates (including federal
labor unions and local industrial
unions) ...............— ______ _______
National unaffiliated unions____________
Single-company and intrastate unaffiliated
unions_____________________________

17,456

100

14, 103
2, 901

80. 8
16. 6

452

The filing requirements of the Labor-Manage­
ment Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959
afforded the first opportunity for a comprehensive
listing of organizations of this type. Unions
whose reports to the Department of Labor’s
Bureau of Labor-Management Reports indicated
that they were not national in scope, as defined
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for directory
purposes, were canvassed by a mail questionnaire
and were asked to report whether their collective
bargaining relationships were confined to a single
employer or, if two or more employers were under
contract, to a single State. An affirmative
answer to either of these screening questions
placed the union within the scope of this survey.
Such a union was further asked to furnish informa­
tion on the number of its dues-paying members
as of May 1961 (or any other recent period),
the number of workers covered by its collective

2. 6

The number of workers represented by such
unions in collective bargaining exceeded mem­
bership by 42,000.
Many of these local and single-employer unions,
including the larger ones, were found in indus­
tries— notably petroleum, chemicals, steel, and
telephone— and companies with which they have
traditionally been identified, and where national
unions have repeatedly failed to dislodge them.
A more recent development, possibly shaped by
the decisions of the National Labor Relations
Board on questions of the appropriate bargaining
unit under the National Labor Relations Act, is
the unaffiliated union of professional employees
or of guards and watchmen.
Characteristically, the unaffiliated union is a
small organization. Only 103 of them reported
more than 1,000 members. Similarly, a great
majority have only a single local and are parties
to only one agreement. Very few maintain
formal ties with other unions.




i Although the figures In the tabulation for national unions are for 1960,
it is unlikely that the time difference significantly affects the comparison.
For details regarding these figures and for source of statements on the charac­
teristics of national unions made throughout this article, see Directory o f
National and International Labor Unions in the United States, 1961 (BLS
Bulletin 1320, 1962) or “ Membership of American Trade Unions, I960,”
Monthly Labor Review, December 1961, pp. 1299-1308.

l

2
T able 1. D ues-P aying M embership

of

I ntrastate

and

Single-employer unions

All unions

Number

Number

Percent
Number
(thousands)

Intrastate unions

Dues-paying members

Dues-paying members

Number of dues-paying
members

Single-E mployer U nions, M ay 1961

Number
(thousands)

Percent

Dues-paying members
Number

Percent

Percent
Number
(thousands)

Percent

Percent

All unions........ .....

1,277

100.0

452.5

100.0

1,179

100.0

378.1

100.0

98

100.0

74.4

100.0

0-50 members...................
51-100 members________
101-150 members.............
151-200 members.............
201-250 members.............
251-300 members.............
301-400 members.............
401-500 members.............
501-1,000 members..........
1,001-2,500 members___
2,501-5,000 members___
Over 5,000 members___

i 451
230
105
81
47
59
62
64
75
73
22
8

35.3
18.0
8.2
6.3
3.7
4.6
4.9
5.0
5.9
5.7
1.7
.6

10.1
17.1
13.2
13.9
10.7
16.3
22.1
29.4
54.1
111.9
76.7
76.8

2.2
3.8
2.9
3.1
2.4
3.6
4.9
6.5
12.0
24.7
17.0
17.0

i 432
212
98
73
44
55
54
59
66
63
17
6

36. 6
18.0
8.3
6.2
3.7
4.7
4.6
5.0
5.6
5.3
1.4
.5

9.6
15.9
12.3
12.5
10.1
15.2
19.2
27.2
47.0
95.7
57.5
56.0

2.5
4.2
3.3
3.3
2.7
4.0
5.1
7.2
12.4
25.3
15.2
14.8

19
18
7
8
3
4
8
5
9
10
5
2

19.4
18.4
7.1
8.2
3.1
4.1
8.2
5.1
9.2
10.2
5.1
2.0

0.5
1.2
.9
1.4
.7
1.1
2.9
2.3
7.1
16.2
19.2
20.9

0.7
1.6
1.2
1.9
.9
1.5
3.8
3.0
9.6
21.8
25.9
28.1

* Includes 49 unions which reported no dues requirements.
ment coverage was 11,433 workers.

N ote : Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal
totals.

Their agree­

bargaining agreements, and the industry and city
in which the workers were employed. Other
questionnaire items dealt with the proportion of
women and white-collar workers, the number of
agreements and locals, multiemployer bargaining,
and affiliation with other unions. As is custom* Because of tho reporting requirements of the L M R D A , no unions of
government employees were included in this survey.
* Included in this group were 52 unions which reported affiliation with
AF L-C IO unions and 13 with national unaffiliated unions. Fifty-seven
stated that they were no jlonger in existence without giving reasons for1the
demise, while 32 had suffered defeats in NLRB elections. These figures
would seem to indicate a high degree of turnover among organizations of
this type.
* It appears that many of these unions may have misinterpreted the
“ scope” question. In any case, they will be resurveyed for possible inclu­
sion in the Bureau’s next directory of national and international unions.
None of these unions is signatory to agreements covering 1,000 or more work­
ers, according to the Bureau’s contract file. The financial reports submitted
by these unions to the Bureau of Labor-Management Reports point to a
membership total of less than 5,000.

T

able

2. A

greem ent

C

overage

of

ary in most BLS surveys, respondents were
assured that information submitted would be
used for statistical purposes only.
Of the 1,805 questionnaires mailed out by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1,545 were returned—
a response rate of 85 percent.2 On examination,
1,277 (71 percent of the total mailing) proved to
be usable. Of the 268 which were excluded, the
largest number (154) reported that they were no
longer functioning or were no longer unaffiliated.3
Another 43 reported no agreements in existence,
and returns from 71 were incomplete or the unions
claimed to be national unions.4
Obviously the BLS can not claim that this
study has accounted for all unions of this type
in the country. Some may not have submitted
reports to the BLM R; others, because of inade-

I ntr astate

All unions

and

Number

n io n s ,

M

ay

Percent

Percent

Number
(thousands)

Percent

100.0

All unions..............

1,277

100 0

494.4

100.0

1,179

100.0

430. 2

432
222
107
86
46
60
64
55
91
78
28
8

33.8
17.4
8.4
6.7
3.6
4.7
5.0
4.3
7. 1
6.1
2.2
.6

10.7
16.5
13.3
14.9
10.4
16.7
22.6
25. 2
66.0
120.7
96.8
80.6

2.2
3.3
2.7
3.0
2.1
3.4
4.6
5.1
13.4
24.4
19.6
16.3

410
207
101
76
43
56
57
50
81
69
22
7

34.8
17.6
8.6
6.4
3.6
4.7
4.8
4.2
6.9
5.9
1.9
.6

10.0
15.4
12.6
13.1
9.8
15. 5
20.1
22.8
57.9
106.1
73.7
73.1

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.

Workers in bargaining
unit
Number

1-50 workers.......... ..........
51-100 w o rk e r s...........
101-150 workers...............
151-200 workers...............
201-250 workers.......... .
251-300 workers________
301-400 workers................
401-500 workers________
501-1,000 workers............
1,001-2,500 workers.........
2,501-5,000 workers.........
Over 5,000 workers.........

1961

Intrastate unions

Workers in bargaining
unit
Number

Percent
Number
(thousands)




U

m ployer

Single-employer unions

Workers in bargaining
unit

Number of workers
in bargaining unit

S in g l e - E

2.3
3.6
2.9
3.1
2.3
3.6
4.7
5.3
13.5 1
24.7
17.1
17.0

Percent
Number
(thousands)

Percent

98

100.0

64.2

100.0

22
15
6
10
3
4
7
5
10
9
6
1

22.4
15. 3
6. 1
10.2
3. 1
4. 1
7.1
5.1
10.2
9.2
6.1
1.0

.6
1.0
.7
1.8
.7
1.2
2.5
2.4
8.1
14.6
23.2
7.5

1.0
1.6
1.1
2.8
1.1
1.8
3.9
3.7
12.6
22.7
36.1
11.7

3

T able 3.

P roportion

of

W omen M embers 1 in I ntrastate

All unions
Percent of women
members

Percent

All unions..............

1,277

100.0

No women members___
Less than 10 percent___
10 and under 30 percent.
30 and under 50 percent.
60 and under 70 percent70 and under 90 percent90 percent and over........

3 632
187
158
100
101
56
43

49. 5
14.6
12.4
7.8
7.9
4.4
3.4

Single-E mployer U nions, M ay 1961

Single-employer unions

Women members
Number

and

Number
(thousands)

Women members
Number

Percent

Percent

132.8
4.6
13.3
17.4
25.2
21.9
50.3

Intrastate unions

100.0

1.179

100.0

3.5
10.0
13.1
19.0
16.5
37.9

3 593
173
148
94
89
50
32

50.3
14.7
12.6
8.0
7.5
4.2
2.7

Number
(thousands)
91.0
4.4
12.8
14.5
17.8
18.5
22.9

Women members
Number

Percent

Percent

Number
(thousands)

Percent

100.0

98

100.0

41.7

100.0

4.8
14.1
16.0
19.6
20.3
25.2

39
14
10
6
12
6
11

39.8
14.3
10.2
6.1
12.2
6.1
11.2

0.2
.5
2 9
7.4
3.4
27.4

0.6
1.2
6.9
17.7
8.1
65.6

i Number of women members computed by applying reported percentage
to ducs-paying membership.
3 Includes 49 unions which reported no dues requirements.

N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal
totals.

quate information, may have escaped identifi­
cation. On the other hand, all unions which have
negotiated major agreements (those covering
1,000 or more workers) are believed to be included
in this survey.5 Thus, organizations which may
have been overlooked or which failed to respond
would have only a minor effect on the membership
and agreement coverage totals presented in this
study.

of dues-paying membership (in 123, by margins
of 20 percent or more)— a situation likely to pre­
vail in the absence of union shop requirements.6
Of the unaffiliated unions surveyed, only 8
percent bargained with two or more employers
(in one State) and, in total, represented 13 percent
of the covered workers.
Nearly three-fifths of the membership was
accounted for by 103 unions, each reporting more
than 1,000 members. Most unaffiliated unions,
however, particularly those whose activities were
confined to one employer, were organizations com-*•

Size and Composition of Membership
In May 1961, 1,277 unaffiliated single-employer
and intrastate unions had enrolled 452,463 mem­
bers (table 1). The number of workers repre­
sented by these unions in collective bargaining
was slightly higher— 494,399 (table 2). Ac­
counting for the difference between these totals
were 49 unions which bargained for 11,433 workers
but reported no dues requirements and 269
unions which reported contract coverage in excess
T able 4.

P roportion

of

W

h ite -C ollar

M embers 1 in I ntrastate

Number

Percent
Number
(thousands)

All unions..............

1,277

100.0

No white-collar members
Less than 10 percent___
10 and under 30 percent.
30 and under 50 percent50 and under 70 percent70 and under 90 percent90 percent and over........

2 902
76
95
21
15
18
150

70. 6
6.0
7.4
1.6
1.2
1.4
11.7

113.0
1.7
14.9
3.7
2.0
14.2
76.6

Intrastate unions

Percent

100.0

1,179

100.0

1.5
13.2
3.3
1.7
12.5
67.8

3 844
70
86
20
15
16
128

71.6
5.9
7.3
1.7
1.3
1.4
10.9

W hite-collar members
Number

Number
(thousands)

Percent

* Number of white-collar members computed by applying reported per­
centage to dues-paying membership.
* Includes 49 unions which reported no dues requirements.




S ingle -E m ployer U nions , M a y 1961

White-collar members

White-collar members
Number

and

Single-employer unions

All unions
Percent of whitecollar members

• For many years, the Bureau has been striving to include all agreements
covering 1,000 or more workers (exclusive of the railroad and airline industries,
for which agreements are filed with the National Mediation Board, as re­
quired by the Railway Labor Act) ia its file of collective bargaining agree­
ments, which has been set up under the provisions of section 211 of the Labor
Management Relations Act of 1947.
• The reverse was also noted. In 19 unions, membership exceeded agree­
ment coverage by more than 16,000. This was particularly true in organi­
zations of nurses and other hospital personnel where, often, only a fraction of
the membership was employed in institutions signatory to an agreement.

77.4
1.5
13.4
3.7
2.0
11.2
45.6

Percent

Percent

100.0
1.9
17.3
4.8
2.5
14.5
58.9

Number
(thousands)
98

100.0

58
6
9
1

59.2
6.1
9.2
1.0

2
22

2.0
22. 4

Percent

35.7

100.0

0.2
1.5

0.4
4.1
.1

3.0
31. 0

8.3
87.0

(s)

• Less than 100 members.
N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.

4
Women Members. About 30 percent of the
members of unaffiliated local unions were women
(table 3), nearly twice the proportion computed
for national unions. Also in marked contrast to
national unions was the concentration of the
majority of women members in unions in which
they constituted the preponderant group (70 per­
cent or more of all members).
In large measure, this proportion of women in
independent unions reflects the labor force com­
position of the industries in which independents
have gained or maintained a foothold. Nearly
two-fifths of the 132,751 women members were
employed in hospitals and related occupations
(28,625) and in the telephone industry (24,072),

prising a small number of employees 7 and, pre­
sumably, had resources commensurate with their
size. More than half of the unions (681) had 100
or fewer members each, but accounted for only 6
percent of total membership covered by the study.
Fully a third of the workers represented by these
independents were in bargaining units of 50 work­
ers or fewer, and in three-fifths of the units the
coverage did not exceed 150. On the whole, these
unions do not appear to be serious competitors with
national unions in particular industries or local­
ities, as the findings on industrial distribution and
geographic location of these unions demonstrate.
At the same time, the small size of these organi­
zations may also help to explain their continued
existence; they do not present conspicuous or
inviting targets for potential raiders.
T able 5.

D ues -P ayin g M em bership

and
by

7Probably also confined to small establishments, although this could not
be determined from the data.

A greemen t C overage
I n d u stry, M ay

D ues-payin g
m em bers

W orkers In
bargaining
unit

and

N um ­
ber
(th o u ­
sands)

Per­
ce n t

S ingle -E m ployer U nions ,

Intrastate unions

W orkers In
bargaining
unit

D ues-payln g
m em bers
N um ber

N um ­
ber

A ll industries ‘ ............ ............................. * 1.277

I ntrastate

S ingle-em ployer unions

A ll unions

In d u s tr y

of

190L

N um ­
ber
(th o u ­
sands)

P er­
cent

D ues-pa yin g
m em bers

W orkers In
bargainiug
un it

N um ­
ber
N um ­
ber
(th o u ­
sands)

P er­
cent

N um ­
ber
(th o u ­
sands)

P er­
cent

N um ­
ber
(th o u ­
sands)

P er­
cen t

N um ­
ber
(th o u ­
sands)

P er­
cen t

452. 5 100.0

494 4 100.0

* 1.179

378.1

100 0

430.2

100.0

98

74.4

100 0

64.2

100.0

298.9

66. 1

336 6

68 1

771

272.5

72. 1

306.8

71.3

50

26.5

35.6

29.8

46.4

3.0
11.8

0.6
2.4

4
59

2.3
10.2

0 6
2.7

3.0
10.6

0 7
2.5

1.9

M a n u fa ctu rin g ----------------------------

821

O rdnance and accessories
F ood and kindred p rod u cts— .......................
Tnhaprn ttimn ’ ifact'TCS- _______________ ___
T e x ti’e m ill products — ................................
A ppnrel
and
oth er
finished
textile
p rod u cts........................ .....................................
L u m b er and w ood p rod u cts (except
f u r n it u r e ) ..........................................................
__
F " r n i t " r c an»l fixtures
_
Paper and allied p rod u cts.................. .............
P rin tin g, pul lis ing, and allied Industries.
Cl em ica lsa n d allied p ro d u cts.......................
P rod u cts of petroleum and co a l........... .........
piitit>Cf prn#|nr*ts
Leather and leather products .......................
Stone, clay, and class produ cts-----------------P rim ary metal industries........... ............... ..
Fabricated metal produ cts________________
M ach in ery (except electrica l)............... .........
E lectrical m a ch in ery.........................................
T ran sp ortation e q u ip m e n t...................... .......
Jn<triH "vof*
related p r o d u c t s . _______
M iscellaneous m anufacturing in d u s trie s ...

4
6fi

2.3
11.4

0 5
2.5

7

1.1

1.5

1.2

50

10.3

2.3

11.0

2.2

47

9.7

2.6

10.4

2.4

3

.6

.8

.6

.9

12

1.6

.4

1.6

.3

11

1.6

.4

1.6

.4

1

.1

.1

.1

.1

14
9
37
37
91
60
22
23
14
67
79
65
77
46
10
18

1.1
14
7.2
5. 1
37 8
28 6
3 2
14 0
1.7
27. 1
10 0
40.6
47 8
39 2
5.0
3.5

.2
.3
1.6
1 .1
84
6.3
.7
3.1
.4
6.0
2.2
9.0
10 6
87
1. 1
.8

1.1
1.5
9 8
5.4
40.4
33 0
3.2
14. 1
2. 1
34.4
11.3
43. 1
51.0
50. 1
5.0
3.5

.2
.3
2.0
1. 1
8.2
6.7
.6
2.9
.4
7.0
2.3
8.7
10.3
10. 1
1.0
.7

12
9
35
32
89
56
22
21
11
54
77
90
75
43
10
14

.9
1.4
6.8
4.5
37. 1
25 6
3.2
8.8
.9
25.1
9.7
39.5
42.8
35.4
5.0
1.9

.2
.4
1.8
1.2
9.8
6.8
.8
2.3
.2
6.6
2.6
10.4
11.3
9.4
1.3
.5

.9
1.5
9.4
4.7
39.7
29.9
3.2
9.0
1.2
32.4
11.0
42 0
46.0
43.3
5.0
1.9

.2
.3
2.2
l.l
9.2
7.0
.7
2.1
.3
7.5
2.6
9.8
10.7
10.1
1.2
.4

2

.2

.2

.2

.2

2
5
2
4

.4
.6
.7
2.9

.5
.8
.9
4.0

.4
.7
.7
3.0

.6
l.l
l.l
4.7

2
3
3
2
5
2
3

5 1
.8
2.0
.3
1.1
5. 1
3.8

6.9
1. 1
2.8
3
1.5
6.8
5. i

5 .)
.9
2.0
.3
1.1
5. 1
6.8

8.0
1.5
3.2
.4
1.8
7 9
10.5

4

1.6

2.2

16

2.5

N on m a n u fa ctu rin g.........................

445

151.8

33.5

155.9

31.5

398

104.9

27.7

122.5

28.5

47

46.9

63 1

33.4

52.0

38
83
16
28
156
66
4
43
4

10 5
13 6
25 9
26 4
14.2
21.9
.3
34.6
.1

2.3
3 0
5.7
5 8
3. 1
4.8
.I
7.6
(<)

13 8
15.2
34.2
28 6
16. 4
21.9
.4
20.2
.1

2.8
3 1
6 9
5 8
3 3
4.4
.1
4.1
(«)

38
80
15
26
151
47
2
24
2

10.5
11.9
25.8
24 5
13 8
10.4
.1
4.6
(»)

2.8
3.2
6 8
6.5
3.7
2.7
1.2
(<)

13 8
13 6
34.2
26. 1
16.0
10.4
.1
4.8
.1

3 .2
3.2
7.9
6.1
3.7
2.4
(<)
1.1
(<)

3
1
2
5
9
2
19
2

1.6
(*)
1.9
.4
11.5
.2
30.0
.1

2.2
0)
2.6
.6
15.5
.3
40.4
.1

16
(*)
2.5
.4
11.5
.2
15.4
.1

17
11

4.3
1.8

.6
.4

5.0
2.0

1.0
.4

13
10

3.3
.8

.9
.2

3.5
1.0

.8
.2

4
1

1.0
1.0

1.3
1.3

1.5
1.0

M in in g , cr” de petroleu m , and natural
gas p roduction _
_______________ . . .
T ran sp ortation
__________________________
C om m u n ica tion s
............................................
U ti lj t jos: E lect ric and gas................................
W holesale trade-------- ---------------------------------BetaII trade------------------ ------------------------------H otels and restaurants-------------------------------S e n ices_______ _____________________________
C on stru ction .......................................................
M iscellaneous nonm an ufacturing Indus­
tries
..................................................................
U nclassifiahlc establishm ents______ _______

i Excludes government.
* Indudes 49 unions which reported no dues requirements.
* Less than 100 members or workers covered by agreement.




0 )

2.5
0 )

4.0
.7
18.0
4
24.0
.1
2.4
1.6

* Less than 0.05 percent.

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items m ay not equal
totals.

5

T able 6. D ues-P aying M embership

and

A greement C overage of I ntrastate
State , M ay 1961

Ail unions
Dues-paying
members
State

Num­
ber

Num­
ber
(thou­
sands)

and

Single-E mployer U nions,

Single-employer unions
Dues-paying
members

Workers in bar­
gaining unit
Num­
ber

Per­
cent

Num­
ber
(thou­
sands)

Per­
cent

Intrastate unions

Workers in bar­
gaining unit

Dues-paying
members
Num­
ber

Num­
ber
(thou­
sands)

Per­
cent

Num­
ber
(thou­
sands)

Per­
cent

United States...............

1,277

452. 5

100.0

494.4

100.0

1.179

378.1

100.0

430.2

100.0

98

Alabama..................................
Alaska______ ______________

5
3

0.6
.4
.l
.l
31.3
.1
4.8
2.8
7.9
3.5
.2
1.1
.9
42.8
15.0
1.4
1.4
3.9
6.6
3.4
9 8
14.4
7.6
6.0
(9
6.8
.6
.1
.2
3.7
38.5
(9
54.2
.8
.2
52.2
1.7
1.9
43.8
3.5
.2

0.1
.1
(2)
(2)
6.9
(9
1.1
.6
1.8
.8

0.7
.4
.l
.I
38.0
.1
5.5
3. 1
6.6
3.5
.2
1.5
1.7
47.6
16.0
1.8
1.5
4 0
7.8
3.4
11.9
17.9
8.0
5.4
(9
6.8
.8
.1
.2
3.7
41.7
(9
46.8
.8
.2
60 7
1. 9
2. 1
45 0
3. 6
.2

0.1
.1
(9
(9
7.7
(9
1.1
.6
1.3
.7

3
1
(9 i

0.5
.1
.l
.l
22.7
.1
4.8
2.8
2.8
.8
.2
.1
.9
27 5
13.3
1.2
1.4
3.9
5.4
.6
9.8
13 5
7.3
.7
(9
5.7
.6
.1
.2
3 7
37.6
(9
35.6
.8
.2
51.5
.6
1.8
43 4
3 5
.2

0.1
(9
(9
(9
6.0
(9
1.3
.7
.7
.2

0.6
.1
.l
.1
27.7
.1
5.5
3.1
2.8
.8
.2
.1
1.7
32.3
14.2
1.6
1.5
4.0
6.7
.7
11.9
17.0
7.7
.7

0.1
(9
(9
(9
6.4
(9
1.3
.7
.6
.2

2
2

(*)
California.... ............................
Colorado..................................
District of Columbia.............
Florida.....................................
Hawaii.....................................
Idaho
_
_______
Illinois......................................
Indiana....................................
Iowa..........................................
Kansas.....................................
Kentucky _______________
Louisiana.................... ............
Maine.......................................
Maryland
_ _________
Massachusetts........................
Michigan................. ...............
Minnesota...................... ........
Mississippi
_____________
Missouri...................................
Montana
______________
Nebraska__________________
Nevada
_ _ ____ _________
New Hampshire,
New Jersey_____ __________
New Mexico
New York...............................
North Carolina
North Dakota..___________
Ohio.................... ....................
Oklahoma...............................
Oregon....................................
Pennsylvania..........................
Rhode Island _____________
South Carolina
___ __
South Dakota_____________
Tennessee....... ................... —.
Texas........................................
Utah
...............................
Vermont
___ __
Virginia
Washington.............................
West Vi rein in
_ _ ____
Wisconsin
__
__ _
Wvoming ______ ___
Not classified by State«.......

1
88
3
19
5
3
8
3
3
3
70
47
10
8
14
17
8
18
55
38
13
1
36
7
2
2
5
96
2
137
5
2
134
7
18
160
41
2
18
45
6
3
20
10
14
34
3
25

2.9
12.2
.5
.4
19. 6
6.6

11.1

7. 2
.4
17.0

(9

.2
.2
9.5
3.3
.3
.3
.9
1.5
.8
2.2
3.2
1.7
1.3
(2)
1.5
.1
(*)
(2)
.8
8.5
(2)
12.0
.2
(*)
11.5
.4
.4
9.7
.8

(9
.7
2.7
.1
.t
4. 3
1.5
2. 5
1 6
.1
3.8

3.2
15.6
.5
.4
27 4
5.3
11. 7
8. 3
.4
20.1

(9

.3
3
9.6
3.2
.4
.3
.8
1.6
.7
2.4
3 6
1.6
1.1

(9

1.4
.2

(9
(9

.7
8.4

(9

9.5
.2

(9

12 3
.4
.4
9.1
.7

(9
.6
3.2
.1
.1
5. 5
1.1
2. 4
1.7
.1
4.1

* Less than 100 members or workers covered by agreement.
* Less than 0.05 percent.
* One interstate union provided a membership distribution by State.

where they accounted for more than 90 percent of
those enrolled. Other industries contributing
significantly to the total were electrical machinery
(20,679), followed by leather products (8,066) and
retail trade (7,602).
White-Collar Members. One in every four members
of an unaffiliated union was a white-collar em­
ployee (table 4), as against 1 in 8 in national
unions. In terms of union penetration among
these occupational groups, however, the 113,029



71
2
19
5
1
6
3
1
3
63
43
9
7
14
14
7
18
50
36
10
1
33
7
2
2
5
92
2
122
5
2
130
6
17
153
41
2
17
41
6
3
20
7
14
34
3
25

2.7
10.1
.5
.4
19. 6
3 0

11. 1
7.2
.4
17.0

(9
(9

.2
73
3.5
.3
.4
1.0
1.4
.2
2.6
3.6
1.9
.2

(9

(9

9.4
.2
.1
13.6
.2
.5
11.5
.9
.1

5.6
.8
.1
.2
3 7
40.8
(9
37.7
.8
.2
60 0
.8
2 0
44.6
3. 6
.2

.7
2.7
.1
.1
5.2
.8
2.9
1.9
.1
4.5

2.8
13.0
.5
.4
27. 4
3. 1
11.7
8. 3
.4
20. 1

1.5
.2

(9
(9

1.0
9.9

(9

by

(9
(9

.4
7.5
3.3
.4
.3
.9
1.6
.2
2.8
4 0
1.8
.2

(9

1.3
.2

17
1
2
2

Num­
ber
(thou­
sands)

Per­
cent

Workers in bar­
gaining unit
Num­
ber
(thou­
sands)

Per­
cent

74.4

100.0

64.2

100.0

(9
0.2

0.1
.3

(9
0.3

0.1
.4

8.7

11.7
(9

10.3
(9

6.9
3.6

3.8
2.7

(9
5.1
2.7

16.0

(9

5.0
4.1

2

1.0

1.3

1.4

2.1

7
4
1
1

15.3
1.8
.2

20.5
2.4
.3
(9

15.3
1.9
.2
(9

23.8
2.9
.3
.1

(9

3
1

1.2
2.8

1.6
3.7

1.2
2.8

1.8
4.3

5
2
3

.8
.3
5.3

1.1
.5
7.1

.8
.3
4.7

1.3
.5
7.2

3

1.1

1.5

1.1

1.8

(9
(9

.9
9.5

(9

8.8
.2

(9

13.9
.2
.5
10.4
.8

4

.9

1.2

.9

1.4

15

18.6

25.0

9.1

14.2

4
1
1
7

.8
1.1
.1
.4

10
1.5
.1
.5

.7
1.1
.1
.4

l.l
1.7
.2
.6

1
4

.3
2.1

.3
2.8

.3
2.7

.5
4.1

3

3.6

4.8

2.2

3.4

(9
.7
3.0
.l
.1
6.4
.7
2. 7
1.9
4.7

* Reports indicate membership in more than I Slate, but distribution not
available.
N ote : Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.

white-collar members in unaffiliated unions add
but few to the 2.2 million in national unions.
Only 375 of the 1,277 unions reported white-collar
members, and in most cases blue-collar workers
formed a majority. On the other hand, more than
two-thirds of all white-collar members were in 150
unions which drew few, if any, members from bluecollar occupations.
About two-thirds of the white-collar members
were found in nonmanufacturing industries, pri­
marily services (hospitals) and the telephone

6

industry. These two industries accounted for
nearly half of all white-collar members. Another
20 percent were evenly divided between the
electrical machinery industry and retail and
wholesale trade.

cant organizing gains (agriculture, finance, and
insurance), local independents have apparently
also been unsuccessful.
State Membership. The character of unaffiliated
local unions is further highlighted by their geo­
graphic distribution. Ten or fewer unions were
found in 3 out of 5 States; only 3 States— New
York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—had above 100
(table 6). Furthermore, in each State, the number
of workers organized or represented by such unions
was relatively small, the highest being about
61,000. A comparison with AFL-CIO figures
shows the Federation far in the lead in all States.8
In the main, independents resemble Federation
affiliates in major membership concentrations in
highly industrialized States— New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersey, California— ,
although not in this ranking order. Southern
States, as well as other States with “right-to-work”
laws, appear to be equally as unfavorable for
organization by unaffiliated as by national unions.

Industriall Distribution.
Although unaffiliated
unions were found in all industries excepting
to b a cco m anufactures (table 5), their main
strength was concentrated in a few industries that
are generally considered as their traditional
strongholds. Six manufacturing industries ac­
counted for about half of all workers covered by
agreements: electrical machinery, transportation
equipment, machinery (except electrical), petro­
leum, chemicals, and primary metals. These,
plus two nonmanufacturing industries— communi­
cations (telephone and telegraph) and electric and
gas utilities— encompassed nearly 2 out of 3
workers represented by independent unions.
Relative to the total number of union members
in broad industrial categories, the independents
made their strongest showing in the petroleumchemical-rubber group, but even here they rep­
resented only a small portion of total union
strength. In electric and gas utilities and in
communications (telephone and telegraph), the
vast majority of union members belonged to
national organizations. In all other industry
groups, the proportion organized by the independ­
ents was smaller. In addition, in industries
where national unions have failed to score signifi­

Number of Locals. As expected, the typical single­
employer or intrastate union was a single-local
organization. Only 83 of the 1,277 unions re­
ported 2 or more locals, but these contributed a
considerable number (862) of local affiliates,
bringing the total of chartered bodies to 2,056
(table 7).
Single-employer and intrastate unions differed
markedly in this aspect of internal structure.
While the former were virtually all single-local
organizations, almost 30 percent of the unions

8 State figures for national unafiiliated unions have not been compiled by
the Bureau.

T

able

7.

N

u m b e r of

L

ocals

A

f f il ia t e d

W

it h

I ntrastate

Duespaying
members
(thou­
sands)

Unions

Locals

u n i o n s . ..............

1,277

2,056

452.5

1 local......... ......................
2 locals..............................
3 locals........... .
..........
4 locals______ _
5 locals..._____________

1 1,194
2 26
11
2
4
5

1,194
52
33
8
20
30
7
16
72
159
256
209

330.6
11.6
11.9
7.6
2.5
4.1
.7
.7
5.0
36.8
29.3
11.7

All

locals...... ............ ......
locals..............................
9 lo c a ls _______ _________ .....
10 a n d u n d e r 20 l o c a l s . . .

7
8

20 a n d u n d e r 30 l o c a l s . . .

30 locals and o v e r ...___

2
8

11
10
3

Workers in
bargaining
unit

1 Includes 48 unions which reported no dues requirement.
3 Includes 1 union which reported no dues requirement.




S in g l e - E

U

m ployer

Single-employer unions

All unions
Number of locals

and

Duespaying
members
(thou­
sands)

n io n s ,

Workers in
bargaining
unit

285

74.4

64.2

70
22
12
4
10

26.7
4.3
7.2
7.5
2.1

26.2
4.4
7.9
7.5
5.2

7
8
18
49
54
31

.7
.6
.4
18.8
4.7
1.4

.9
1.0
.4
8.1
2.0
.7

Locals

378.1

430.2

98

303.9
7.2
4.6
.1
.4
4.1

338.3
10.8
5.6
.1
.4
4.3

70
11
4
1
2

.1
5.1
19.8
33.0
12.6

1
1
2
3
2
1

494.4

1,179

1,771

364.6
15.2
13.5
7.6
5.6
4.3
.9
1.1
5.5
27.8
35.0
13.3

» 1,124
2 15
7
1
2
5

1,124
30
21
4
10
30

1
6
8
8
2

8
54
110
202
178

.1
4.6
18.1
24*6
10.3

1961

Duespaying
members
(thou­
sands)

Unions

Locals

ay

Intrastate unions

W orkers in
bargaining
unit

Unions

M

Note: Because of rounding, sums ofindividual items may not equal totals.

7

T able 8.

N umber

B asic C ollective B argaining A greements N egotiated
U nions, M ay 1961

of

All unions

All unions____ ____

21-30 a g r e e m e n ts
31-40 a g r e e m e n ts
41-50 a g r e e m e n ts
Over 50 a g r e e m e n t s ._

Workers
(thousands)

Single-E mployer

Collective bargaining
agreements

Number
Number

and

Intrastate unions

Collective bargaining
agreements

Number

1 agreement..........................
2 agreements........................
3 agreements........................
4-6 agreements....................
7-9 agreements....................
10-20 agreements.................

I ntrastate

Single-employer unions

Collective bargaining
agreements

Number of collective
bargaining agreements

by

Number
Number

Workers
(thousands)

Number

Workers
(thousands)

1,277

2,103

494.4

1,179

1,330

430.2

98

773

64.2

1,129
79
29
13
9
10
2
3
2
1

1,129
158
87
69
09
146
45
116
94
200

374.6
45.4
21.8
26.6
6.9
13.0

1,096
51
18
11
2
1

1,096
102
54
50
16
12

365.3
31.7
5.8
26.1
.9
.4

33
28
11
2
7
9
2
3
2
1

33
56
33
9
53
134
45
116
94
200

9.3
13.7
16.1
.5
6.0
12.6
.7
.6
3. 7
1.2

!6

3.7
1.2
l

N ote : Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.

in the latter group were multilocal organizations,
representing three-fifths of the workers under
agreements in that group. In large measure, this
reflected the presence of numerous local chapters
in statewide associations of nurses and other
hospital personnel and in unions in retail trade
and electrical machinery fields. Among single­
employer unions, most multilocal organizations
were found in shipbuilding, electric and gas
utilities, and petroleum refining and distribution.
Collective Bargaining. Nearly 9 out of 10 unaf­
filiated local unions had negotiated only a single
agreement. However, 148 unions were signatory
to two or more agreements and, in total, ac­
counted for almost half of the 2,103 agreements
in effect at the time of the study (table 8).
The incidence of separate agreements among
single-employer unions contrasts with that among
intrastate unions and follows directly from the
structure of the two types of organization. Where
the relationship is confined to a single employer,
a single agreement will normally result; similarly,
where an independent union bargains with dif­
ferent employers, separate agreements are likely
to be concluded. Two-thirds of the intrastate
unions held two or more agreements, as compared
with 7 percent of the single-employer group.
Most of the multiagreements in the latter cate­
gory covered workers in widely scattered plants
or service installations, typically in the telephone
and petroleum industries.
By way of comparison, the number of collective
bargaining agreements to which unaffiliated local



unions combined were parties in May 1961 was
exceeded by the agreements reported in 1960 by
each of 18 (out of 172) national unions which was
a party to at least 2,000 contracts.
Of the 98 intrastate unions, 42, representing
25,000 workers, reported that they engaged in
multiemployer (association) bargaining.
More
than three-fifths of the workers covered by multi­
employer agreements were in three industries—
electrical machinery, leather products, and hospi­
tals. The largest number of such agreements
(five) were found in the food industry, but these
covered a total of less than 900 workers.

Association of Independents
The responses to the question on councils,
federations, associations, and other groups joined
by local unions permit only a few general observa­
tions. In some cases, it was not clear whether an
organization listed in the questionnaire was indeed
a federation or association of autonomous unions
or a parent body of a multilocal organization.
Since reporting unions were asked to furnish only
the association’s name, it was not always possible
to classify these organizations into the categories
described below.
It appears, nonetheless, that relatively few
single-employer and intrastate unions surrendered
their independent status to maintain any formal
ties with other unions, and fewer than 200 unions 98
8 This excludes multilocal unions shown in table 7, unless they were part of
an association, federation, or any other group.

8

joined with others to establish associations of
various kinds. Because of the inclusion of several
large unions, the membership represented in all
such associations in 1961 reached a total of about
90,000.
Two national federations, the National Inde­
pendent Union Council (NIUC) and the Con­
federated Unions of America (CUA), accounted for
a total of 18,000 members. Twelve unions total­
ing 6,000 members reported affiliation with the
NIUC, and 9 unions, with a total of 12,000 mem­
bers, were members of the CUA.
Two associations restricted their scope to unaffiliated unions in a single State, and one to those




in a single city. These 3 organizations totaled
about 7,000 members represented by 14 unions.
The companvwide association was, by far, most
prevalent among independent unions. At least
15 separate bodies of this type could be identified
on the basis of reports from more than 80 unions
with a membership of nearly 35,000. These
bodies consisted largely of unions in the chemical
and petroleum industries.
Other associations were composed of unions
drawing their membership from particular oc­
cupations (nurses, engineers, guards) and from
those confined to a single industry in a particular
locality (retail trade, mining, textiles).

* U .S. G O V E R N M E N T P R IN T IN G O F F IC E : 1962 0 — 6 6 6 0 9 7

Recent BLS Industrial Relations Studies
Bulletin
number

Title

Price

Employee—Benefit Plans
1334

Pension Plans Under Collective Bargaining:

1330

Digest of One Hundred Selected Health and Insurance Plans Under Collective B ar­
gaining, Winter 1961—62.

$1. 25

1326

Multiemployer Pension Plans Under Collective Bargaining, I960.

65 cents

1325

Digest of Profit-Sharing, Savings, and Stock Purchase Plans, Winter 1961—62
(20 Selected Plans).

30 cents

Digest of One-Hundred Selected Pension Plans Under Collective Bargaining,
Spring 1961.

50 cents

Health and Insurance Plans Under Collective Bargaining: Life Insurance and
Accidental Death and Dismemberment, Early Summer I960.

25 cents

1293

Health and Insurance Plans Under Collective Bargaining: Major Medical Expense
Benefits, Fall I960.

20 cents

1284

Pension Plans Under Collective Bargaining: Normal Retirement, Early and
Disability Retirement, Fall 1959.

40 cents

Health and Insurance Plans Under Collective Bargaining: Surgical and Medical
Benefits, Late Summer 1959.

30 cents

Health and Insurance Plans Under Collective Bargaining: Hospital Benefits,
Early 1959.

30 cents

1259

Pension Plans Under Collective Bargaining: Part I. Vesting Provisions and
Requirements for Early Retirement. Part II. Involuntary Retirement Provisions,
Late 1958.

25 cents

1250

Health and Insurance Plans Under Collective Bargaining:
Benefits, Fall 1958.

25 cents

1307
1296

1280
1274

Benefits for Survivors, Winter 1960-61.

25 cents

Accident and Sickness

Agreement Provisions
1342

Paid Leave Provisions in Major Contracts, 1961.

30 cents

1336

Antidiscrimination Provisions in Major Contracts, 1961.

20 cents

1304

Subcontracting Clauses in Major Collective Bargaining Agreements, August 1961.

30 cents

1282

Paid Sick Leave Provisions in Major Union Contracts, 1959.

30 cents

1279

Rest Periods, Washup, Work Clothing, and Military Leave Provisions in
Major Union Contracts, April 1961.

30 cents

1272

Union Security and Checkoff Provisions in Major Union Contracts, 1958r-59.

20 cents

.1266

Collective Bargaining Clauses:
October 1959.

35 cents

1251

Company Pay for Time Spent on Union Business,

Premium Pay for Night, Weekend, and Overtime Work in Major Union
Contracts, 1958.

30 cents

Union Activities
1320

Directory of National and International Labor Unions in the United States, 1961.

50 cents

1263

Union Constitution P rovisions: Trusteeship, November 1959.

30 cents

1239

Union Constitution Provisions: Election and Tenure of National and International
Union O fficers, 1958.

30 cents

Work Stoppages
1302

Analysis of Work Stoppages , I960.

1298

The Dimensions of Major Work Stoppages,




30 cents
1947—59.

30 cents