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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Unaffiliated Local and Single-Employer 

Unions in the United States

1961

B ulletin 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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Preface

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,

"America1 s forgotten labor organization." Generally, the American labor movement is defined 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 national 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 extreme, 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 Bureau1 s Division of Wages and Industrial Relations

by Harry P. Cohany and James Neary.

Contents

Page

Scope and method ____________________________________________________________________________ \

Size and composition of membership ______________________________________________________ 3

Women members _________________________________________________________________________ 4

White-collar members______________________________________________________________ 5

Industrial distribution ___________________________________________________________________ 6

State membership-------------------------------------- 6

Number of locals ____________ — ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

Collective bargaining _____ _ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

Association of independents--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

T ables:

1. Dues-paying membership of intrastate and single-employer unions, May 1961____ 2

2. Agreement coverage of intrastate and single-employer unions, May 1961________ 2

3. Proportion of women members in intrastate and single-employer unions,

May 1961_______________________________________________________________ _______ ___—~ 3

4. Proportion of white-collar members in intrastate and single-employer unions,

May 1961____________________________________ ______________________________________ _ 3

5. Dues-paying membership and agreement coverage of intrastate and single -

employer unions, by industry, May 1961_________________________________ _____ ___ 4

6. Dues-paying membership and agreement coverage of intrastate and singleemployer unions, by State, May 1961 ____________________ ____________...__________ 5

7. Number of locals affiliated with intrastate and single-employer unions,

May 1961 ____________________________________________________——_____________________ 6

8. Number of basic collective bargaining agreements negotiated by intrastate

and single-employer untions, May 1961

111

7

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Unaffiliated Local and Single-Em ployer Unions

in the United States, 1961

I n mid-1961, unaffiliated intrastate and singleemployer 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:

Union member ship

in the United States

Number

(thousands) Percent

Total_______ ______ _______ _____ 17,456 100

AFL-CIO affiliates (including federal 

labor unions and local industrial

unions) ...............— ______ _______ 14, 103 80. 8

National unaffiliated unions____________ 2, 901 16. 6

Single-company and intrastate unaffiliated

unions_____________________________ 452 2. 6

The number of workers represented by such 

unions in collective bargaining exceeded membership by 42,000.

Many of these local and single-employer unions, 

including the larger ones, were found in industries—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.

In the absence of earlier studies, it is not possible 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 statistical basis for research into the nature of these 

organizations.

Scope and Method

The filing requirements of the Labor-Management 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 information 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

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 characteristics of national unions made throughout this article, see Directory of

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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2

T able 1. D ues-Paying M embership of I ntrastate and Single-Employer Unions, M ay 1961

Number of dues-paying

members

All unions Single-employer unions Intrastate unions

Number Percent

Dues-paying members

Number Percent

Dues-paying members

Number Percent

Dues-paying members

Number

(thousands)

Percent Number

(thousands)

Percent Number

(thousands)

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................... i 451 35.3 10.1 2.2 i 432 36. 6 9.6 2.5 19 19.4 0.5 0.7

51-100 members________ 230 18.0 17.1 3.8 212 18.0 15.9 4.2 18 18.4 1.2 1.6

101-150 members............. 105 8.2 13.2 2.9 98 8.3 12.3 3.3 7 7.1 .9 1.2

151-200 members............. 81 6.3 13.9 3.1 73 6.2 12.5 3.3 8 8.2 1.4 1.9

201-250 members............. 47 3.7 10.7 2.4 44 3.7 10.1 2.7 3 3.1 .7 .9

251-300 members............. 59 4.6 16.3 3.6 55 4.7 15.2 4.0 4 4.1 1.1 1.5

301-400 members............. 62 4.9 22.1 4.9 54 4.6 19.2 5.1 8 8.2 2.9 3.8

401-500 members............. 64 5.0 29.4 6.5 59 5.0 27.2 7.2 5 5.1 2.3 3.0

501-1,000 members.......... 75 5.9 54.1 12.0 66 5.6 47.0 12.4 9 9.2 7.1 9.6

1,001-2,500 members___ 73 5.7 111.9 24.7 63 5.3 95.7 25.3 10 10.2 16.2 21.8

2,501-5,000 members___ 22 1.7 76.7 17.0 17 1.4 57.5 15.2 5 5.1 19.2 25.9

Over 5,000 members___ 8 .6 76.8 17.0 6 .5 56.0 14.8 2 2.0 20.9 28.1

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

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 LM RDA, no unions of

government employees were included in this survey.

* Included in this group were 52 unions which reported affiliation with

AFL-CIO unions and 13 with national unaffiliated unions. Fifty-seven

stated that they were no jlonger in existence without giving reasons for1 the

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 inclusion in the Bureau’s next directory of national and international unions.

None of these unions is signatory to agreements covering 1,000 or more workers, 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.

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

totals.

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 BLMR; others, because of inadeT a b l e 2. A g r e e m e n t C o v e r a g e o f I n t r a s t a t e a n d S in g l e - E m p l o y e r U n io n s , M a y 1961

Number of workers

in bargaining unit

All unions Single-employer unions Intrastate unions

Number Percent

Workers in bargaining

unit

Number Percent

Workers in bargaining

unit

Number Percent

Workers in bargaining

unit

Number

(thousands)

Percent Number

(thousands)

Percent Number

(thousands)

Percent

All unions.............. 1,277 100 0 494.4 100.0 1,179 100.0 430. 2 100.0 98 100.0 64.2 100.0

1-50 workers.................... 432 33.8 10.7 2.2 410 34.8 10.0 2.3 22 22.4 .6 1.0

51-100 w orkers........... 222 17.4 16.5 3.3 207 17.6 15.4 3.6 15 15. 3 1.0 1.6

101-150 workers............... 107 8.4 13.3 2.7 101 8.6 12.6 2.9 6 6. 1 .7 1.1

151-200 workers............... 86 6.7 14.9 3.0 76 6.4 13.1 3.1 10 10.2 1.8 2.8

201-250 workers.......... . 46 3.6 10.4 2.1 43 3.6 9.8 2.3 3 3. 1 .7 1.1

251-300 workers________ 60 4.7 16.7 3.4 56 4.7 15. 5 3.6 4 4. 1 1.2 1.8

301-400 workers................ 64 5.0 22.6 4.6 57 4.8 20.1 4.7 7 7.1 2.5 3.9

401-500 workers________ 55 4.3 25. 2 5.1 50 4.2 22.8 5.3 5 5.1 2.4 3.7

501-1,000 workers............ 91 7. 1 66.0 13.4 81 6.9 57.9 13.5 1 10 10.2 8.1 12.6

1,001-2,500 workers......... 78 6.1 120.7 24.4 69 5.9 106.1 24.7 9 9.2 14.6 22.7

2,501-5,000 workers......... 28 2.2 96.8 19.6 22 1.9 73.7 17.1 6 6.1 23.2 36.1

Over 5,000 workers......... 8 .6 80.6 16.3 7 . 6 73.1 17.0 1 1.0 7.5 11.7

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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3

T able 3. Proportion of W omen M embers 1 in I ntrastate and Single-E mployer Unions, M ay 1961

Percent of women

members

All unions Single-employer unions Intrastate unions

Number Percent

Women members

Number Percent

Women members

Number Percent

Women members

Number

(thousands)

Percent Number

(thousands)

Percent Number

(thousands)

Percent

All unions.............. 1,277 100.0 132.8 100.0 1.179 100.0 91.0 100.0 98 100.0 41.7 100.0

No women members___ 3 632 49. 5 3 593 50.3 39 39.8

Less than 10 percent___ 187 14.6 4.6 3.5 173 14.7 4.4 4.8 14 14.3 0.2 0.6

10 and under 30 percent. 158 12.4 13.3 10.0 148 12.6 12.8 14.1 10 10.2 .5 1.2

30 and under 50 percent. 100 7.8 17.4 13.1 94 8.0 14.5 16.0 6 6.1 2 9 6.9

60 and under 70 percent- 101 7.9 25.2 19.0 89 7.5 17.8 19.6 12 12.2 7.4 17.7

70 and under 90 percent- 56 4.4 21.9 16.5 50 4.2 18.5 20.3 6 6.1 3.4 8.1

90 percent and over........ 43 3.4 50.3 37.9 32 2.7 22.9 25.2 11 11.2 27.4 65.6

i Number of women members computed by applying reported percentage N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal

to ducs-paying membership. totals.

3 Includes 49 unions which reported no dues requirements.

quate information, may have escaped identification. 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.

Size and Composition of Membership

In May 1961, 1,277 unaffiliated single-employer 

and intrastate unions had enrolled 452,463 members (table 1). The number of workers represented by these unions in collective bargaining 

was slightly higher—494,399 (table 2). Accounting 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

of dues-paying membership (in 123, by margins 

of 20 percent or more)—a situation likely to prevail 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- *•

• 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 required by the Railway Labor Act) ia its file of collective bargaining agreements, 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 agreement coverage by more than 16,000. This was particularly true in organizations of nurses and other hospital personnel where, often, only a fraction of 

the membership was employed in institutions signatory to an agreement.

T able 4. P roportion of W hite-C ollar M embers 1 in I ntrastate and Single-E mployer U nions, M ay 1961

Percent of whitecollar members

All unions Single-employer unions Intrastate unions

Number Percent

White-collar members

Number Percent

White-collar members

Number Percent

White-collar members

Number

(thousands)

Percent Number

(thousands)

Percent Number

(thousands)

Percent

All unions.............. 1,277 100.0 113.0 100.0 1,179 100.0 77.4 100.0 98 100.0 35.7 100.0

No white-collar members 2 902 70. 6 3 844 71.6 58 59.2

Less than 10 percent___ 76 6.0 1.7 1.5 70 5.9 1.5 1.9 6 6.1 0.2 0.4

10 and under 30 percent. 95 7.4 14.9 13.2 86 7.3 13.4 17.3 9 9.2 1.5 4.1

30 and under 50 percent- 21 1.6 3.7 3.3 20 1.7 3.7 4.8 1 1.0 (s) .1

50 and under 70 percent- 15 1.2 2.0 1.7 15 1.3 2.0 2.5

70 and under 90 percent- 18 1.4 14.2 12.5 16 1.4 11.2 14.5 2 2.0 3.0 8.3

90 percent and over........ 150 11.7 76.6 67.8 128 10.9 45.6 58.9 22 22. 4 31. 0 87.0

* Number of white-collar members computed by applying reported percentage to dues-paying membership.

* Includes 49 unions which reported no dues requirements.

• Less than 100 members.

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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4

prising a small number of employees 7 and, presumably, 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 workers 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 localities, as the findings on industrial distribution and 

geographic location of these unions demonstrate. 

At the same time, the small size of these organizations may also help to explain their continued 

existence; they do not present conspicuous or 

inviting targets for potential raiders.

T able 5.

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 percent or more of all members).

In large measure, this proportion of women in 

independent unions reflects the labor force composition 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),

7 Probably also confined to small establishments, although this could not

be determined from the data.

D ues-P aying M embership and A greement Coverage of I ntrastate and Single-E mployer U nions,

b y I ndustry , M a y 190L

Industry

All unions Single-em ployer unions Intrastate unions

N um ­

ber

Dues-paying

members

W orkers In 

bargaining 

unit

N um -

ber

Dues-paylng 

mem bers

W orkers In 

bargaining 

unit

N um ­

ber

Dues-paying

members

W orkers In 

bargainiug 

unit

N um ­

ber

(th ousands)

Percent

N um ­

ber

(thousands)

Percent

N um ­

ber

(thousands)

Percent

N um ­

ber

(thousands)

Percent

N um ­

ber

(thousands)

Percent

N um ­

ber

(thousands)

Percent

A ll industries ‘ ............ ............................. * 1.277 452. 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

M anufacturing---------------------------- 821 298.9 66. 1 336 6 68 1 771 272.5 72. 1 306.8 71.3 50 26.5 35.6 29.8 46.4

Ordnance and accessories 4 2.3 0 5 3.0 0.6 4 2.3 0 6 3.0 0 7

Food and kindred products— ....................... 6fi 11.4 2.5 11.8 2.4 59 10.2 2.7 10.6 2.5 7 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.9

Tnhaprn ttimn’ i fact'TCS- _______________ ___

T exti’e mill products — ................................ 50 10.3 2.3 11.0 2.2 47 9.7 2.6 10.4 2.4 3 .6 .8 .6 .9

Appnrel and other finished textile

products........................ ..................................... 12 1.6 .4 1.6 .3 11 1.6 .4 1.6 .4 1 .1 .1 .1 .1

Lum ber and w ood products (except

fu rn itu re ).......................................................... 14 1.1 .2 1.1 .2 12 .9 .2 .9 .2 2 .2 .2 .2 .2

F "rn it"rc an»l fixtures _ __ 9 1 4 .3 1.5 .3 9 1.4 .4 1.5 .3

Paper and allied products............................... 37 7.2 1.6 9 8 2.0 35 6.8 1.8 9.4 2.2 2 .4 .5 .4 .6

Printing, pul lis ing, and allied Industries. 37 5. 1 1 .1 5.4 1. 1 32 4.5 1.2 4.7 l . l 5 .6 .8 .7 l . l

Cl em icalsand allied products....................... 91 37 8 8 4 40.4 8.2 89 37. 1 9.8 39.7 9.2 2 .7 .9 .7 l . l

Products of petroleum and coal........... ......... 60 28 6 6.3 33 0 6.7 56 25 6 6.8 29.9 7.0 4 2.9 4.0 3.0 4.7

piitit>Cf prn#|nr*ts 22 3 2 .7 3.2 .6 22 3.2 .8 3.2 .7

Leather and leather products ....................... 23 14 0 3.1 14. 1 2.9 21 8.8 2.3 9.0 2.1 2 5 1 6.9 5.) 8.0

Stone, clay, and class products------------------ 14 1.7 . 4 2. 1 .4 11 .9 .2 1.2 .3 3 .8 1. 1 .9 1.5

Prim ary metal industries........... ............... .. 67 27. 1 6.0 34.4 7.0 54 25.1 6.6 32.4 7.5 3 2.0 2.8 2.0 3.2

Fabricated metal products________________ 79 10 0 2.2 11.3 2.3 77 9.7 2.6 11.0 2.6 2 .3 3 .3 .4

M achinery (except electrical)............... ......... 65 40.6 9.0 43. 1 8.7 90 39.5 10.4 42 0 9.8 5 1.1 1.5 1.1 1.8

Electrical m achinery......................................... 77 47 8 10 6 51.0 10.3 75 42.8 11.3 46.0 10.7 2 5. 1 6.8 5. 1 7 9

Transportation equipm ent...................... ....... 46 39 2 8 7 50. 1 10. 1 43 35.4 9.4 43.3 10.1 3 3.8 5. i 6.8 10.5

Jn<triH"vof* related p r o d u c ts ._______ 10 5.0 1. 1 5.0 1.0 10 5.0 1.3 5.0 1.2

M iscellaneous manufacturing industries... 18 3.5 .8 3.5 .7 14 1.9 .5 1.9 .4 4 1.6 2.2 1 6 2.5

N onm anufacturing......................... 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

M ining, cr” de petroleum, and natural

gas production _ _______________ . . . 38 10 5 2.3 13 8 2.8 38 10.5 2.8 13 8 3.2

Transportation __________________________ 83 13 6 3 0 15.2 3 1 80 11.9 3.2 13 6 3.2 3 1.6 2.2 1 6 2.5

Com m unications ............................................ 16 25 9 5.7 34.2 6 9 15 25.8 6 8 34.2 7.9 1 (*) 0 ) (*) 0 )

U ti l j t jos: E lect ric and gas................................ 28 26 4 5 8 28 6 5 8 26 24 5 6.5 26. 1 6.1 2 1.9 2.6 2.5 4.0

W holesale trade-------- ---------------------------------- 156 14.2 3. 1 16. 4 3 3 151 13 8 3.7 16.0 3.7 5 .4 .6 .4 .7

BetaII trade------------------------------------------------- 66 21.9 4.8 21.9 4.4 47 10.4 2.7 10.4 2.4 9 11.5 15.5 11.5 18.0

H otels and restaurants-------------------------------- 4 .3 . I .4 .1 2 . 1 0 ) .1 (<) 2 .2 .3 .2 4

Sen ices_______ _____________________________ 43 34.6 7.6 20.2 4.1 24 4.6 1.2 4.8 1.1 19 30.0 40.4 15.4 24.0

Construction ....................................................... 4 .1 (<) . 1 («) 2 (») (<) .1 (<) 2 .1 .1 .1 .1

M iscellaneous nonm anufacturing Industries .................................................................. 17 4.3 .6 5.0 1.0 13 3.3 .9 3.5 .8 4 1.0 1.3 1.5 2.4

Unclassifiahlc establishm ents______ _______ 11 1.8 .4 2.0 .4 10 .8 .2 1.0 .2 1 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.6

i Excludes government.

* Indudes 49 unions which reported no dues requirements.

* Less than 100 members or workers covered by agreement.

* Less than 0.05 percent.

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

totals.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5

T able 6. D ues-Paying M embership and A greement Coverage of I ntrastate and Single-E mployer Unions, by

State, M ay 1961

State

Ail unions Single-employer unions Intrastate unions

Number

Dues-paying

members

Workers in bargaining unit

Number

Dues-paying

members

Workers in bargaining unit

Number

Dues-paying

members

Workers in bargaining unit

Number

(thousands)

Percent

Number

(thousands)

Percent

Number

(thousands)

Percent

Number

(thousands)

Percent

Number

(thousands)

Percent

Number

(thousands)

Percent

United States............... 1,277 452. 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

Alabama.................................. 5 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.1 3 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.1 2 (9 0.1 (9 0.1

Alaska______ ______________ 3 .4 .1 .4 .1 1 .1 (9 .1 (9 2 0.2 .3 0.3 .4

(*) . l (2) . l (9 (9 i

. l (9 . l (9

1 . l (2) . I (9 . l (9 . 1 (9

California................................ 88 31.3 6.9 38.0 7.7 71 22.7 6.0 27.7 6.4 17 8.7 11.7 10.3 16.0

Colorado.................................. 3 .1 (9 . 1 (9 2 . 1 (9 .1 (9 1 (9 (9 (9 (9

19 4.8 1.1 5.5 1.1 19 4.8 1.3 5.5 1.3

5 2.8 .6 3. 1 .6 5 2.8 .7 3.1 .7

District of Columbia............. 3 7.9 1.8 6.6 1.3 1 2.8 .7 2.8 .6 2 5.1 6.9 3.8 5.0

Florida..................................... 8 3.5 .8 3.5 .7 6 .8 .2 .8 .2 2 2.7 3.6 2.7 4.1

3 .2 (9 .2 (9 3 .2 (9 .2 (9

Hawaii..................................... 3 1.1 .2 1.5 .3 1 .1 (9 .1 (9 2 1.0 1.3 1.4 2.1

Idaho _ _______ 3 .9 .2 1.7 3 3 .9 .2 1.7 .4

Illinois...................................... 70 42.8 9.5 47.6 9.6 63 27 5 7 3 32.3 7.5 7 15.3 20.5 15.3 23.8

Indiana.................................... 47 15.0 3.3 16.0 3.2 43 13.3 3.5 14.2 3.3 4 1.8 2.4 1.9 2.9

Iowa.......................................... 10 1.4 .3 1.8 .4 9 1.2 .3 1.6 .4 1 .2 .3 .2 .3

Kansas..................................... 8 1.4 .3 1.5 .3 7 1.4 .4 1.5 .3 1 (9 (9 (9 .1

Kentucky _______________ 14 3.9 .9 4 0 .8 14 3.9 1.0 4.0 .9

Louisiana.................... ............ 17 6.6 1.5 7.8 1.6 14 5.4 1.4 6.7 1.6 3 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.8

Maine....................................... 8 3.4 .8 3.4 .7 7 .6 .2 .7 .2 1 2.8 3.7 2.8 4.3

Maryland _ _________ 18 9 8 2.2 11.9 2.4 18 9.8 2.6 11.9 2.8

Massachusetts........................ 55 14.4 3.2 17.9 3 6 50 13 5 3.6 17.0 4 0 5 .8 1.1 .8 1.3

Michigan................................ 38 7.6 1.7 8.0 1.6 36 7.3 1.9 7.7 1.8 2 .3 .5 .3 .5

Minnesota...................... ........ 13 6.0 1.3 5.4 1.1 10 .7 .2 .7 .2 3 5.3 7.1 4.7 7.2

Mississippi _____________ 1 (9

(2)

(9 (9 1 (9 (9 (9 (9

Missouri................................... 36 6.8 1.5 6.8 1.4 33 5.7 1.5 5.6 1.3 3 1.1 1.5 1.1 1.8

Montana ______________ 7 .6 . 1 .8 .2 7 .6 .2 .8 .2

Nebraska__________________ 2 .1 (*) . 1 (9 2 . 1 (9 . 1 (9

Nevada _ _ ____ _________ 2 .2 (2) .2 (9 2 .2 (9 .2 (9

New Hampshire, 5 3.7 .8 3.7 .7 5 3 7 1.0 3 7 .9

New Jersey_____ __________ 96 38.5 8.5 41.7 8.4 92 37.6 9.9 40.8 9.5 4 .9 1.2 .9 1.4

New Mexico 2 (9 (2) (9 (9 2 (9 (9 (9 (9

New York............................... 137 54.2 12.0 46.8 9.5 122 35.6 9.4 37.7 8.8 15 18.6 25.0 9.1 14.2

North Carolina 5 .8 .2 .8 .2 5 .8 .2 . 8 . 2

North Dakota..___________ 2 .2 (*) .2 (9 2 .2 . 1 .2 (9

Ohio.................... .................... 134 52.2 11.5 60 7 12 3 130 51.5 13.6 60 0 13.9 4 .8 1 0 .7 l .l

Oklahoma............................... 7 1.7 .4 1. 9 .4 6 .6 .2 .8 .2 1 1.1 1.5 1.1 1.7

Oregon.................................... 18 1.9 .4 2. 1 .4 17 1.8 .5 2 0 .5 1 . 1 .1 .1 .2

Pennsylvania.......................... 160 43.8 9.7 45 0 9.1 153 43 4 11.5 44.6 10.4 7 .4 .5 .4 .6

Rhode Island _____________ 41 3.5 .8 3. 6 .7 41 3 5 .9 3. 6 .8

South Carolina ___ __ 2 .2 (9 . 2 (9 2 .2 . 1 .2 (9

South Dakota_____________

Tennessee..........................—. 18 2.9 .7 3.2 .6 17 2.7 .7 2.8 .7 1 .3 .3 .3 .5

Texas........................................ 45 12.2 2.7 15.6 3.2 41 10.1 2.7 13.0 3.0 4 2.1 2.8 2.7 4.1

Utah ............................... 6 .5 . 1 .5 . 1 6 .5 . 1 .5 . l

Vermont ___ __ 3 . 4 . t .4 . 1 3 .4 . 1 . 4 . 1

Virginia 20 19. 6 4. 3 27 4 5. 5 20 19. 6 5.2 27. 4 6.4

Washington............................. 10 6.6 1.5 5.3 1.1 7 3 0 .8 3. 1 .7 3 3.6 4.8 2.2 3.4

West Vi rein in _ _ ____ 14 11.1 2. 5 11. 7 2. 4 14 11. 1 2.9 11.7 2. 7

Wisconsin __ __ _ 34 7. 2 1 6 8. 3 1.7 34 7.2 1.9 8. 3 1.9

Wvoming ______ ___ 3 . 4 . 1 .4 . 1 3 .4 . 1 .4

Not classified by State«....... 25 17.0 3.8 20.1 4.1 25 17.0 4.5 20. 1 4.7

* 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 employee (table 4), as against 1 in 8 in national 

unions. In terms of union penetration among 

these occupational groups, however, the 113,029

* 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, primarily services (hospitals) and the telephone

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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.

Industriall Distribution. Although unaffiliated 

unions were found in all industries excepting 

tobacco manufactures (table 5), their main 

strength was concentrated in a few industries that 

are generally considered as their traditional 

strongholds. Six manufacturing industries accounted for about half of all workers covered by 

agreements: electrical machinery, transportation 

equipment, machinery (except electrical), petroleum, chemicals, and primary metals. These, 

plus two nonmanufacturing industries—communications (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 represented 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 independents was smaller. In addition, in industries 

where national unions have failed to score signifi8 State figures for national unafiiliated unions have not been compiled by

the Bureau.

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 geographic 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.

Number of Locals. As expected, the typical singleemployer or intrastate union was a single-local 

organization. Only 83 of the 1,277 unions reported 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

T a b l e 7. N u m b e r o f L o c a l s A f f il ia t e d W it h I n t r a s t a t e a n d S in g l e - E m p l o y e r U n io n s , M a y 1961

Number of locals

All unions Single-employer unions Intrastate unions

Unions Locals

Duespaying

members

(thousands)

Workers in

bargaining

unit

Unions Locals

Duespaying

members

(thousands)

W orkers in

bargaining

unit

Unions Locals

Duespaying

members

(thousands)

Workers in

bargaining

unit

All u n io n s . .............. 1,277 2,056 452.5 494.4 1,179 1,771 378.1 430.2 98 285 74.4 64.2

1 local............................... 11,194 1,194 330.6 364.6 » 1,124 1,124 303.9 338.3 70 70 26.7 26.2

2 locals.............................. 2 26 52 11.6 15.2 2 15 30 7.2 10.8 11 22 4.3 4.4

3 locals............ .......... 11 33 11.9 13.5 7 21 4.6 5.6 4 12 7.2 7.9

4 locals_______ 2 8 7.6 7.6 1 4 .1 .1 1 4 7.5 7.5

5 locals..._____________ 4 20 2.5 5.6 2 10 .4 .4 2 10 2.1 5.2

5 30 4.1 4.3 5 30 4.1 4.3

7 locals........................ 7 .7 .9 1 7 .7 .9

8 locals.............................. 2 16 .7 1.1 1 8 .1 .1 1 8 .6 1.0

9 lo ca ls _______ _________ ..... 8 72 5.0 5.5 6 54 4.6 5.1 2 18 .4 .4

10 an d u n d er 20 lo c a ls ... 11 159 36.8 27.8 8 110 18.1 19.8 3 49 18.8 8.1

20 an d u n d er 30 l o c a ls ... 10 256 29.3 35.0 8 202 24*6 33.0 2 54 4.7 2.0

30 locals and over...___ 3 209 11.7 13.3 2 178 10.3 12.6 1 31 1.4 .7

1 Includes 48 unions which reported no dues requirement. 

3 Includes 1 union which reported no dues requirement.

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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7

T able 8. N umber of Basic Collective Bargaining Agreements N egotiated by I ntrastate and Single-E mployer

Unions, May 1961

Number of collective

bargaining agreements

All unions Single-employer unions Intrastate unions

Number

Collective bargaining

agreements

Number

Collective bargaining

agreements

Number

Collective bargaining

agreements

Number Workers

(thousands)

Number Workers

(thousands)

Number Workers

(thousands)

All unions____ ____ 1,277 2,103 494.4 1,179 1,330 430.2 98 773 64.2

1 agreement.......................... 1,129 1,129 374.6 1,096 1,096 365.3 33 33 9.3

2 agreements........................ 79 158 45.4 51 102 31.7 28 56 13.7

3 agreements........................ 29 87 21.8 18 54 5.8 11 33 16.1

4-6 agreements.................... 13 69 26.6 11 50 26.1 2 9 .5

7-9 agreements.................... 9 09 6.9 2 16 .9 7 53 6.0

10-20 agreements................. 10 146 13.0 1 12 .4 9 134 12.6

21-30 agreem en ts 2 45 2 45 . 7

31-40 agreem en ts 3 116 !6 3 116 . 6

41-50 agreem en ts 2 94 3.7 2 94 3. 7

Over 50 a g r e e m e n ts ._ 1 200 1.2 1 200 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 singleemployer unions, most multilocal organizations 

were found in shipbuilding, electric and gas 

utilities, and petroleum refining and distribution.

Collective Bargaining. Nearly 9 out of 10 unaffiliated local unions had negotiated only a single 

agreement. However, 148 unions were signatory 

to two or more agreements and, in total, accounted 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 different 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 category 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 multiemployer agreements were in three industries— 

electrical machinery, leather products, and hospitals. 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 observations. 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 9 8

8 This excludes multilocal unions shown in table 7, unless they were part of

an association, federation, or any other group.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 Independent Union Council (NIUC) and the Confederated Unions of America (CUA), accounted for 

a total of 18,000 members. Twelve unions totaling 6,000 members reported affiliation with the 

NIUC, and 9 unions, with a total of 12,000 members, 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 occupations (nurses, engineers, guards) and from 

those confined to a single industry in a particular 

locality (retail trade, mining, textiles).

* U.S. G O V ER N M E N T P R IN T IN G O F F IC E : 1962 0 — 666097

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Bulletin

number

1334

1330

1326

1325

1307

1296

1293

1284

1280

1274

1259

1250

1342

1336

1304

1282

1279

1272

.1266

1251

1320

1263

1239

1302

1298

Recent BLS Industrial Relations Studies

Title Price

Employee—Benefit Plans

Pension Plans Under Collective Bargaining: Benefits for Survivors, Winter 1960-61. 25 cents

Digest of One Hundred Selected Health and Insurance Plans Under Collective Bargaining, Winter 1961—62. $1.25

Multiemployer Pension Plans Under Collective Bargaining, I960. 65 cents

Digest of Profit-Sharing, Savings, and Stock Purchase Plans, Winter 1961—62

(20 Selected Plans).

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

Spring 1961.

Health and Insurance Plans Under Collective Bargaining: Life Insurance and

Accidental Death and Dismemberment, Early Summer I960.

Health and Insurance Plans Under Collective Bargaining: Major Medical Expense

Benefits, Fall I960.

Pension Plans Under Collective Bargaining: Normal Retirement, Early and

Disability Retirement, Fall 1959.

Health and Insurance Plans Under Collective Bargaining: Surgical and Medical

Benefits, Late Summer 1959.

Health and Insurance Plans Under Collective Bargaining: Hospital Benefits,

Early 1959.

Pension Plans Under Collective Bargaining: Part I. Vesting Provisions and

Requirements for Early Retirement. Part II. Involuntary Retirement Provisions,

Late 1958.

Health and Insurance Plans Under Collective Bargaining: Accident and Sickness

Benefits, Fall 1958.

Agreement Provisions

Paid Leave Provisions in Major Contracts, 1961.

Antidiscrimination Provisions in Major Contracts, 1961.

Subcontracting Clauses in Major Collective Bargaining Agreements, August 1961.

Paid Sick Leave Provisions in Major Union Contracts, 1959.

Rest Periods, Washup, Work Clothing, and Military Leave Provisions in

Major Union Contracts, April 1961.

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

Collective Bargaining Clauses: Company Pay for Time Spent on Union Business,

October 1959.

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

Contracts, 1958.

Union Activities

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

Union Constitution Provisions: Trusteeship, November 1959.

Union Constitution Provisions: Election and Tenure of National and International

Union Officers, 1958.

30 cents

50 cents

25 cents

20 cents

40 cents

30 cents

30 cents

25 cents

25 cents

30 cents

20 cents

30 cents

30 cents

30 cents

20 cents

35 cents

30 cents

50 cents

30 cents

30 cents

Work Stoppages

Analysis of Work Stoppages , I960. 30 cents

The Dimensions of Major Work Stoppages, 1947—59. 30 cents

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis