Official statistics highlight union membership trends

In April 2005, the government published its annual statistical report on trade union membership, based on Labour Force Survey data for autumn 2004. The number of union members in the UK and the rate of union membership fell slightly, compared with the previous year. This article briefly outlines the report’s main findings.

On 15 April 2005, the Department of Trade and Industry published its annual statistical report, Trade union membership 2004, which is based on Labour Force Survey data for autumn 2004. Its key findings are summarised below.

In autumn 2004 an estimated 6.78 million people in employment in the UK were members of a trade union. This was a decrease of 0.5% or approximately 36,000 people, compared with levels recorded in autumn 2003. As a result, the rate of union membership (union density) fell by 0.6% from 26.6% to 26.0% of all people in employment.

The number of actual employees who were union members fell by approximately 11,000 to 6.51 million in autumn 2004, compared to 6.52 million in 2003. Union density among employees fell by 0.5%, from 29.3% in 2003 to 28.8% in autumn 2004.

Fewer than one in five (17.2%) private sector employees were union members in autumn 2004. Private sector union density fell by 1.0%. By contrast, almost three in five (58.8%) public sector employees were union members. Public sector union density fell by 0.3% in 2004. Despite this fall in density the number of public sector union members rose by approximately 138,000 in 2004, as the size of the public sector grew. They account for 57% of all trade union members.

In terms of the gender break-down of trade union membership in the UK, the number of male employees who were union members fell by approximately 54,000 in 2004, while female employees in trade unions rose by approximately 42,000. As a result, union density for women employees has overtaken that of men for the first time (UK0504105F). Male union density fell by 0.9% to 28.5%. For women, union density decreased by a smaller 0.2% to 29.1%. The report states that union density is higher for female employees 'because a greater proportion of women work in the public sector, not because they have a greater propensity to join a union'.

By ethnicity, black or black British employees had the highest union density - 32.5% compared to 29.0% for white employees and 25.4% for mixed ethnic backgrounds. Union membership rates were lowest among Asian or Asian British employees (23.5%) and Chinese or other ethnic groups (20.9%).

A high proportion (45.7%) of union members are aged between 35 and 49, compared with 34.8% of non-members. By contrast, just 5.1% of union members were aged between 16 and 24, commpared to 19.3% of non-members.

Amongst other notable findings:

• Northern Ireland had the highest union density within the UK (39.3% of employees). In Wales it was 37.0%, and in Scotland 33.2%. Union density was lowest in England (27.5%);

• the hourly earnings of union members averaged GBP 11.38 in autumn 2004, 17.1% more than the earnings of non-union employees - a slight decline from the 17.7% union wage premium in 2003;

• almost half of UK employees (48.4%) were in a workplace where a trade union was present. This is a slight decrease on the previous year, though trade union presence has remained relatively stable at around 48% since 1999. Union presence was much lower in the private sector (34.2%) than the public sector (84.7%); and

• the number of UK employees whose pay was affected by a collective agreement was 7.23 million in autumn 2004, or 35.0% of all employees. This proportion has also remained broadly stable since 1999. But again, a much higher proportion of employees in the public sector were covered by collective agreements (71.6%) than in the private sector (20.5%).

This information is made available through the European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO), as a service to users of the EIROnline database. EIRO is a project of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. However, this information has been neither edited nor approved by the Foundation, which means that it is not responsible for its content and accuracy. This is the responsibility of the EIRO national centre that originated/provided the information. For details see the "About this record" information in this record.