The erosion of union membership in Germany: determinants, densities, decompositions

Abstract

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW.Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server:ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp06066.pdf Nontechnical SummaryTrade union membership in Germany has declined remarkably in recent decades. By the year 2004, gross union density, i. e., the ratio of the number of union members and the number of employees in the German labor market, was down to a historically low level of 27%. Some unions have responded to the decline in size by merging, but to date unions have not been able to reverse the trend. Moreover, the results of union activity apply to most of the workers irrespective of membership. Why then do people join a union at all?This study uses panel data from the German Socio-Economic Panel to provide insights into the determinants of individual union membership and corresponding changes over time. Our findings based on correlated random effects probit models for West (1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003) and for East Germany (1993Germany ( -2003 quantify the influence of socio-demographic personal characteristics, such as age or marital status; the influence of workplace characteristics,i. e., match, firm, or industry-specific effects; and the influence of attitudinal factors for the individual choice to be or not to be a union member.We then use our estimates to project net union density ( May 2006Abstract: Union density in Germany has declined remarkably during the last two decades. We estimate socio-economic and workplace-related determinants of union membership in East and West Germany using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel by means of Chamberlain-Mundlack correlated random effects probit models. Drawing on the estimates, we project net union densities (NUD) and analyze the differences between East and West Germany as well as the corresponding changes in NUD over time.Blinder-Oaxaca decompositions show that changes in the composition of the work force have only played a minor role for the deunionization trends in East and West Germany. In East-West comparison, differences in the characteristics of the work force reflect a lower quality of membership matches in East Germany right after German unification.

Interacting Labor and Product Market Regulation and the Impact of Immigration on Native Wages

“…87 Individual workers in these firms are, however, covered independently of whether they are union members or not (Fitzenberger, Kohn and Wang, 2011).…”

Trade union membership and dismissals

“…In West Germany, females are less likely to be members of a trade union and their interests are often argued to be less well represented by unions than those of their male counterparts (Beck and Fitzenberger 2004, Fitzenberger, Kohn and Wang 2010, Schnabel and Wagner 2005.…”

Anstieg der Lohnungleichheit, Rückgang der Tarifbindung und Polarisierung

“…Erst Mitte der 1990er Jahre begann die Lohnungleichheit auch im unteren Bereich der Lohnverteilung anzusteigen. Zweitens, die Mitgliedschaft in Gewerkschaften geht seit den 1980er Jahren kontinuierlich zurück und diese Entwicklung hat sich seit den 1990er Jahren beschleunigt (Fitzenberger et al 2011;Schnabel 2005 …”