The State of Labor and Employment in Massachusetts

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 3.6 million jobs in Massachusetts in May 2017.⁹ This represents a 9% increase in employment over 10 years, with the total number of jobs growing slightly faster than overall population growth in the Com- monwealth.¹⁰

This growth in employment over the past ten years has unfolded unevenly across the state. The statewide gain in employment has been primarily concentrated in and around the Boston metro area. Western Mass and rural areas have seen losses in employment.¹¹

Figure 1: Percentage Change in Employment in Massachusetts by Town, 2007 to 2016

Employment growth has also been concentrated in a handful of industries, as shown in Table 1. Major growth has taken place in education and in service industries such as healthcare, hospitality, professional, and business services. Meanwhile, we have seen a precipitous drop in manufacturing, which was traditionally a highly unionized sector.

Source: BLS, CES survey, State and Area Employment.

Next, we examine unionization in Massachusetts. Our analyses are based on Current Population Survey (CPS) data, see appendix for details.

Table 4 reports that over the last ten years, the number of union members has grown slightly in Massachusetts. However, because employment has grown, the rate of union membership — called union density^a— declined by just over 1% be- tween 2007 and 2016. We note that the years 2008 to 2014 had slightly higher density than 2007, which suggests that the trend has not been linear. In 2016, Massachusetts ranked 14th nationwide in union density, with a density of just over 12%.

Source: Barry T. Hirsch and David A. Macpherson, CPS data

However, these statistics tell a different story when broken down by public and private sector, as shown in Tables 5 and 6. Massachusetts has particularly high union density in the public sector, with over 50% organized. Again, the total number of members increased over the last 10 years, but union density dropped by approxi- mately 3%. Still, in 2016, Massachusetts had the 7th highest public sector union density in the nation. New York maintained the #1 spot in both years, dropping from 70% to 67%. In 2016, South Carolina had the lowest public sector union den- sity, at just under 6% union membership.¹²

^a Union density represents the proportion of all wage and salary workers who are union members in a region, industry, or other category.

Source: Barry T. Hirsch and David A. Macpherson, CPS data

In the private sector, Massachusetts union members make up just over 6% of work- ers, representing a 10-year decline in both total number of members and union density. By 2016, Massachusetts has more public sector union members than pri- vate sector union members. Massachusetts’ union density in the private sector is on par with the national average of approximately 6% union density.

Source: Barry T. Hirsch and David A. Macpherson, CPS data

As we can see from Figure 2, private sector unionization in Massachusetts is very near the national average. Unionization in the public sector in the Commonwealth is over 20% higher than in the nation as a whole.

The next figures report union density by education level, race/ethnicity, birth place, and sex for Massachusetts and the United States.

Figure 3 presents union rates at three education levels: high school of less, some college, and college degree or more. Massachusetts has higher union rates at each level of education, compared to the national averages. We note that Massachusetts has particularly high rates of members with lower levels of education— high school or less.

In both Massachusetts and nationally, U.S. born workers have higher unionization rates than workers born outside of the U.S. Approximately 8.6% of foreign-born workers in Massachusetts are union members, compared to 13.5% of U.S. born workers in the state.

Finally, Figure 7 shows union density by age. While Massachusetts has higher union density than the national average for all age groups, the difference for younger workers is very small. Statistics such as this show that unions across the country are struggling to reach young workers, a trend that, if not addressed, suggests increasing challenges for organized labor in the future.

Union organizing in Massachusetts primarily takes place through three types of procedures: private sector elections run by the federal National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), public sector elections and majority authorizations run by the state Department of Labor Relations (DLR), and private sector elections or majority authorizations administered by unions and employers, commonly referred to as non-board elections. Additionally, labor relations in air and rail transportation are regulated by the National Mediation Board. Union organizing administered by the NLRB and DLR are public records, while non-board elections are privately administered and are not reported to government agencies, making them more difficult to track and analyze.

Based on the information available from the NLRB and DLR, over 30,000 non- union workers voted to join unions in Massachusetts between 2007 and mid-2017. These successful union elections have offset much of the decline in union density. They have not, however, provided enough new members to increase union density in the state.

Looking first at NLRB elections in Table 7, out of almost 500 NLRB-administered certification elections in Massachusetts from 2007 to mid-2017, we have identified 343 elections won by unions. Unions have a high win rate in NLRB elections for non-union workers, winning 70% on average over the ten years.

This high win rate in NLRB elections in Massachusetts is not the whole story. While the NLRB was established as part of the New Deal as a major improvement in the nation’s labor relations system, a series of amendments and policy changes have strongly tilted the NLRB towards employers, such as allowing offensive action by employers during union organizing.¹³ Because of these changes, many union organizing campaigns are never brought to an election because of the lopsided balance of power between workers and the employer in the NLRB election system. Thus, these union wins likely represent specific types of campaigns. In addition, these numbers do not reflect non-board elections.

Source: National Labor Relations Board

Public sector workers remain highly unionized in Massachusetts, at 51% union density in 2016. However, there has been a slight decline in union membership and organizing activity over the past 10 years (2007 to mid-2017), with the state’s public sector union density dropping from 55% in 2007 to 51% in 2016.

Approximately 8,700 non-union government employees joined union over the past ten years. 2012 saw a spike in activity due to SEIU’s successful organizing drive among childcare providers, a bargaining unit of 3,500, by far the largest group of workers to organize during this period. Since that year, new organizing among public sector workers has significantly declined, with only 141 non-union workers organizing in 2016.

85% of these newly organized workers have joined unions through card check, rather than elections. The option for workers to join unions through a written majority authorization process has provided an efficient organizing tool for unions and workers.

Workers and their unions in Massachusetts have continued to launch creative campaigns to protect and expand workers’ rights and standards of living in the Commonwealth. We highlight five of these campaigns below.

The Victory on Question 2

In 2016, Massachusetts voters were faced with an important choice at the ballot box in Question 2, the “Authorization of Additional Charter Schools and Charter School Expansion Initiative.” If enacted, this initiative would have allowed the state to create up to 12 new charter schools a year, shifting vital funding from traditional public schools. The Save Our Schools Coalition estimated that if Question 2 were passed, charter schools in the state would triple in 10 years, draining over $1 billion in funds from Massachusetts’ public schools.¹⁴

Supporters of the initiative, including Walmart heirs and other ultra-rich supporters of privatization,¹⁵ spent $25 million to pass Question 2, fully expecting another victory in their long list of charter school victories. But Massachusetts parents, teachers, school support staff, unions, and most Democratic officials fought back with a powerful under-dog campaign to educate voters about this seemingly benevolent ballot question.

Ultimately voters were not persuaded by the billionaires’ campaign and Question 2 failed by a 20 point margin: 38% yes to 62% no. Through the hard work of the Massachusetts Teachers Association/NEA, the American Federation of Teachers, Jobs with Justice, AFL-CIO and the rest of the Save Our School Coalitions, families in Massachusetts can continue to rely on a strong public education system.

New Organizing

Harvard University – Harvard Graduate Students Union United Auto Workers

In October 2016, 3,500 graduate student workers at Harvard University in Cam- bridge, MA voted in the largest NLRB election in Massachusetts in 10 years. The organizing rights of graduate students at private universities had been recently affirmed by the NLRB in an organizing drive at Columbia University. Harvard student workers chose to organize with the United Auto Workers union (UAW), which represents graduate workers at public universities across the US. Spreading their campaign to private universities has meant taking on some of the wealthiest, most powerful institutions in the country.

At Harvard, the UAW signed up thousands of workers for the union, with central campaign themes around organizing to protect students’ wages, working conditions, health insurance, and work-load. Student workers had recently faced unilateral changes to health benefits by the administration, and sought union representation to ensure that such decisions could not be made in the future without their input. Despite appeals from students, politicians and community leaders, Harvard would not commit to non-interference in the election, or to a voluntary recognition process.

In their election on November 16 and 17, 2016, Harvard students did not receive a majority of votes. A number of challenged ballots and other irregularities have led the union to file charges with the NLRB. As of mid-2017, Harvard student workers and their union expect to secure a new election.¹⁶ While it did not result in an immediate victory, the commitment by the Massachusetts labor movement to under- take this large scale campaign in a key industry in Massachusetts is fundamental to building a stronger labor movement in the state.

Partners HealthCare – 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East

Over 900 workers at two major Massachusetts hospitals have voted to join 1199SEIU in 2017: 500 workers at Faulkner Hospital in Boston and over 400 workers at Cooley- Dickinson hospital in Northampton.

Both hospitals are owned by Partners HealthCare, a hospital chain that is the largest employer in Massachusetts, with over 67,000 employees in 2016.¹⁷ 1199SEIU had launched a vigorous ballot initiative campaign to hold the healthcare industry accountable for high prices in Massachusetts, ultimately leading to a compromise with state officials that will increase funding for struggling hospitals and create a long-term study of disparities in healthcare pricing.¹⁸ The union also secured an agreement with Partners for “free and fair” union elections at its facilities.¹⁹ Such agreements have been shown to temper anti-union campaigns by employers and increase the chances for successful organizing efforts among non-union workers.²⁰

Continued organizing in the healthcare industry, one of the fastest growing and most stable work forces in the state, is an important goal for organized labor in Massachusetts.

Wage Theft

Organized labor has successfully used legislation to advance workers’ rights and standards of living in cities, counties and states across the nation. These included minimum wage increases, healthcare benefits including access to care and paid sick days, and a variety of local development projects including neutrality and card- check agreements for local unions.²¹

In Massachusetts, workers in industries such as food service and construction have long faced wage theft from employers. Wage theft occurs when workers are not paid for all the hours they work, paid late or sometimes not at all.²² Community Labor United, a state-wide leader in the campaign to stop wage theft, estimated that workers in Massachusetts lose $700 million a year to wage theft.²³

In Northampton, restaurant workers have organized with the Pioneer Valley Workers Center (PVWC) to fight wage theft. The PVWC, in partnership with the UMASS Labor Center, surveyed restaurant workers in Northampton to determine the extent of wage theft in the local restaurant industry. In their report, “Feeding Northampton: Challenges and Opportunities for Workers in the Northampton Restaurant Industry,” 22% of surveyed workers reported that they had worked off the clock without pay, and 65% reported that they never received overtime pay, regardless of how many hours they worked over 8 in a day or 40 in a week.²⁴ In a city with 100 restaurants and over 1,500 workers,²⁵ wage theft on this scale is a problem that impacts the whole community.

In response, workers, the PVWC, and local politicians launched an effort to pass a local Wage Theft Prevention Ordinance through Northampton’s City Council. Such an ordinance would require that businesses seeking to do business with the city, or those that require licensing from the city to do business, should only be permitted to do so if they follow labor laws such as wage and hour regulations. In March 2017, the Northampton City Council unanimously passed an ordinance supporting these goals, and Northampton Mayor David Narkewicz issued executive orders that re- quire compliance with labor law for employers who do business with the city.²⁶

Activists across the state, led by Community Labor United, have been organizing to win legislation against wage theft.²⁷ As of mid-2017, state legislators are currently debating such a bill that would provide the Attorney General with greater powers to bring wage theft violators to court and stop them from doing business until they pay workers they money they are owed.²⁸

Diversity at Work

Women and people of color continue to face a significant pay gap as compared to men and white women. A key factor in this pay gap is access to jobs. Whole industries, such as construction, have traditionally closed their doors to women and racial or ethnic minorities. Despite years of efforts to end discrimination in hiring, in Massachusetts only 3% of construction workers are women, and 20% are people of color.

Construction jobs are a vital economic driver, providing living wage jobs for workers without a college education. These careers are particularly valuable because they involve significant training and provide a level of security that comes with possessing valuable skills. Construction is stable and based in our communities. Shrinking the pay gap requires making these jobs available to women and people of color.

Labor unions in Massachusetts, such as the New England Regional Council of Carpenters, are changing construction through intentionally recruiting, mentoring and training a diverse union workforce. As of 2015, women made up over 6% of construction apprentices, a small percentage, but an improvement from 4% in 2012.²⁹ They are working with responsible contractors and owners of construction projects to transform the industry and create a new perception about who can do construction work.

These efforts are beginning to show in major construction projects around the state. Working with unions, both MGM Springfield and Wynn Boston casinos have achieved hiring goals for women and people of color in Spring 2017. At the new MGM Springfield casino, an $800 million construction project in Western Massachusetts’ largest city, women worked over 10% of construction hours through March 2017, surpassing the Gaming Commission’s statewide goal of 6.9% women hours. ³⁰ People of color worked over 24% of construction hours, well over the goal of 15.3%.³¹ At Wynn Boston Harbor contractors have achieved 6.9% women hours and 25.3% minority, also reaching statewide goals.³²

In addition, in the summer of 2017, UMASS announced that it had achieved 11.9% hours worked by women on its new $62 million Isenberg Business Innovation Hub, and 8% of hours on its $27 million Chiller Plant Upgrade. The Policy Group on Tradeswomen’s Issues, a coalition of labor, community, contractors and government regulators that has been instrumental in securing diversity targets on construction projects in MA, estimates that women construction workers have logged over 5,000 hours on these two UMASS projects, earning over $250,000.33

¹ Western, Bruce and Rosenfeld, Jake. 2011. “Unions, Norms, and the Rise of American Wage In- equality.” American Sociological Review, Vol 76, Issue 4, pp. 513 – 537. 2011. http://faculty.uml.edu/mduffy/wls240/documents/selectionsfromUnions_Norms_and_Wage_Inequality.pdf

² US Census. 2017. “Community Facts, 2016 Population Estimate.” Accessed online, https://fact- finder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml, July 2017.

³ Barry T. Hirsch and David A. Macpherson, “Union Membership and Coverage Database from the Current Population Survey.” Accessed online at http://unionstats.gsu.edu/, July 12, 2017.

⁴ Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Labor and Workforce Development. 2017. “Labor Force Statistics and Unemployment Rates for each City or Town by Area.” Accessed online at http://lmi2.detma.org/lmi/LAUS_town_index.asp, July, 2017.

⁵ Barry T. Hirsch and David A. Macpherson, “Union Membership and Coverage Database from the Current Population Survey.” Accessed online at http://unionstats.gsu.edu/, July 12, 2017.

⁶ Commonwealth of Massachusetts, General Laws. 2016. “Part I, Title XXI, Chapter 151, Section 1.” Accessed online at https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter151/Section1, July 2017.

⁷ US Census. 2015. “American Community Survey, 5 Year Estimates, 2011-2015. Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months.” Accessed online at https://factfinder.census.gov/, July 2017.

⁸ US Census. 2015. “American Community Survey, 5 Year Estimates, 2011-2015. Selected Economic Characteristics.” Accessed online at https://factfinder.census.gov/, July 2017.

⁹ Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Labor and Workforce Development. 2017. “Current Employment Statistics survey, Employment and Job Statistics.” Accessed online at . http://www.mass.gov/lwd/economic-data/employment-jobs/, August 8, 2018.

¹⁰ “May 2016 State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington DC, accessed online on July 23, 2017. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ma.htm

¹¹ Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Labor and Workforce Development. 2017. “Current Employment Statistics survey, Employment and Job Statistics.” Accessed online at . http://www.mass.gov/lwd/economic-data/employment-jobs/, August 8, 2018.

¹² Barry T. Hirsch and David A. Macpherson, “Union Membership and Coverage Database from the Current Population Survey.” Accessed online at http://unionstats.gsu.edu/, July 12, 2017.

¹³  Lichtenstein, Nelson. 2002. State of the Union: A Century of American Labor. Princeton, NJ. Princeton University Press. pp.114-122.

¹⁴  Metzger, Andy. 2016. “Sen. Rodrigues backs ballot question adding more charter schools to state.” Taunton Daily Gazette. July 14, 2016. http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/20160714/sen-rodrigues- backs-ballot-question-adding-more-charter-schools-to-state

¹⁵ Grossman, Nancy. 2016. “No On Question 2: A Municipal Treasurer On Why The Charter School Math Comes Up Short.” WBUR. October 28, 2016. http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2016/10/28/no- on-question-2-charter-schools-massachusetts-nancy-grossman

¹⁶  United Auto Workers. 2017. http://harvardgradunion.org/we-won-a-new-election/

¹⁷ McFadden, Sean. 2016. “Massachusetts’ Largest Employers.” Boston Business Journal. July 8, 2016. https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/subscriber-only/2016/07/08/massachusetts-largest-employers. html

¹⁸ Schoenberg, Shira. 2016. “Gov. Charlie Baker signs hospital pricing compromise into law.” MassLive.com. May 31, 2016. http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/05/gov_charlie_baker_signs_hospit.html

¹⁹  Dayal McClusey, Priyanka. 2017. “SEIU strikes deal with Partners for workers at Northampton hos- pital.” Boston Globe. May 16, 2017. https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/05/16/seiu-strikes- deal-with-partners-for-workers-northampton-hospital/NNv997TQyvguqBKNhh9dnI/story.html

²⁰ Eaton, Adrienne and Kriesky, Jill. 2001. “Union Organizing Under Neutrality and Card Check Agreements.” ILR Review. Volume 55, Number 1. October 2001. pp.42-59.