Share of workers represented by a union ranges from 3.2% in South Carolina to 24.7% in New York: Union density of the 50 U.S. states plus D.C., in descending order and grouped into high-, medium-, and low-union-density states
High union density | Medium union density | Low union density | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
NY | 24.7% | PA | 13.3% | WY | 7.7% |
HI | 23.0% | VT | 12.6% | MS | 7.5% |
AK | 19.9% | MD | 12.2% | OK | 7.3% |
WA | 19.5% | WV | 12.1% | FL | 7.3% |
CT | 17.3% | KY | 11.8% | ND | 6.9% |
RI | 17.3% | NH | 11.7% | SD | 6.8% |
NJ | 16.8% | DC | 11.2% | ID | 6.3% |
CA | 16.7% | DE | 11.2% | TN | 6.2% |
MI | 15.8% | MO | 10.7% | AZ | 6.1% |
OR | 15.6% | CO | 10.6% | VA | 5.9% |
NV | 15.5% | IN | 10.3% | LA | 5.8% |
IL | 15.3% | KS | 10.3% | AR | 5.8% |
MN | 15.2% | AL | 9.6% | UT | 5.6% |
ME | 13.9% | IA | 9.6% | TX | 5.5% |
OH | 13.7% | WI | 9.0% | GA | 5.1% |
MA | 13.6% | NE | 8.8% | NC | 3.9% |
MT | 13.5% | NM | 8.3% | SC | 3.2% |
Notes: Union density is defined as the share of workers in the state who are represented by a union, including union members and other workers who are covered by a union contract, based on the variable “union” from EPI extracts of CPS-ORG microdata.
Union density is defined as the share of workers in the state who are represented by a union, including union members and other workers who are covered by a union contract, based on the variable “union” from EPI extracts of CPS-ORG microdata. We average union density data across 2015 to 2019 for each state to give a more accurate estimate of states’ typical unionization rates over time. We do not include data beyond 2019 in our averages, to avoid any potential distortions related to the 2020–2021 COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing recession.
Source: EPI analysis of 2015–2019 Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group (CPS-ORG) microdata for all workers ages 16 and older.
Previous chart: « Measuring the job shortfall since February 2020 : Actual and counterfactual employment, September 2019–September 2021
Next chart: Variation among alt-labor groups in sample (n=28) »