The power of labor unions in the United States has been declining for years.
The decline of manufacturing and rise in service industry jobs has chipped away at traditionally union-friendly industries; meanwhile, the GOP has been chipping away at union power through “right to work” legislation and other means. Today, only about one in 10 American workers are members of a union, and that ratio is even worse among private-sector employees. Anti-labor activists scored their latest major victory in 2018 in the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, in which the court’s Republican-appointed majority of justices ruled that public-sector employees do not have to pay dues to the unions that collectively bargain on their behalf.
Still, if you judge union power by political donations, labor seems to be doing fine. Union money is dwarfed by contributions made by corporations—which generally skew Republican, while contributions from unions almost entirely go to Democrats—but labor is still a significant player. Unions gave around $190 million in the 2020 cycle, according to OpenSecrets, a drop from the roughly $220 million they gave in 2016, but more than the $135 million they spent in 2012.
So how do unions, unquestionably in decline, have so much money to burn?
Here are a few reasons:
Citizens United freed political actors of all kinds to spend wildly
The landmark 2010 Supreme Court ruling removed limits on outside expenditures, allowing corporations, individuals and groups to spend more freely to support or oppose candidates. Among the many effects of Citizens United v. FEC was an upsurge in “soft money” donations from unions, i.e., money given to outside groups like super PACs. In 2010, unions contributed just $12 million in soft money, but that amount rose to $81 million in 2014, $152 million in 2016, and at least $120 million in 2020. Anyone seeking to influence elections has taken advantage of loosened regulations, and that includes unions.
Unions have deliberately focused on political spending at the expense of organizing
One of the liveliest debates in labor circles is how much time unions should spend organizing—recruiting new members and unionizing new companies—versus other activities that might benefit their members. The argument against organizing for private-sector unions was laid out in a famous Richard Yeselson essay called “Fortress Unionism,” in which he wrote that unions should strengthen and defend the industries in which they are strong, make alliances with other progressive organizations and wait until there is widespread demand for unions that makes signing up new members easy; right now, the argument goes, it’s too costly for struggling unions to organize workers.
In 2019, an AFL-CIO budget leaked to labor reporter Hamilton Nolan showed the union giant devoted less than 10% of its budget to organizing compared to 35% set aside for other political activities. This strategy, Nolan argued, was a failure: If unions spent more time organizing, it would bring new people into the labor movement and introduce them to progressive politics, expanding both the power of the Democratic Party and of unions in particular.
Though there are examples of unions waging successful organizing campaigns (the highest-profile of which is probably the recent unionizing of left-leaning digital media companies), the country’s unions seem reluctant to take Nolan’s advice; if they did, there would be less money flowing from them to Democratic organizations.
Janus hasn’t really hurt unions’ pocketbooks… yet
Though the Janus decision was undeniably a setback for public-sector unions, they were able to respond nimbly, partly because they anticipated an unfavorable result from the Supreme Court. Unions persuaded dues-paying non-members (freed from their obligation to pay up by Janus) to become full members, and also raised fees. State legislatures controlled by Democrats also moved to lessen the decision’s impact by making it easier for public unions to recruit members from new employees.
However, public-sector unions have seen membership rates drop and had to deal with lawsuits from workers who don't want to pay dues.
Paradoxically, Janus may also have reminded unions of the necessity of Democrats winning elections: If Republicans control the courts and the federal government, they may make organizing even more difficult. Unions have been on the edge of a cliff for years; their spending in support of Democrats may be one of the last things keeping them from falling off.
