TODAY'S LABOR FORCE

The American labor force grew rapidly from 1970 to 2007. This period saw the entry of the post—World War II baby-boom generation into the labor force, an increase in the percentage of women working outside the home, and the addition to the labor force of workers gained through immigration. Statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that the number of workers in the American civilian noninstitutionalized labor force (workers not in the army, school, jail, or mental health facilities) almost doubled from 82.8 million men and women in 1970 to 153.1 million men and women in 2007. (See Table 1.1.) These statistics include those who are working part or full time and those who are unemployed but actively looking for jobs. Although the number of workers rose by 85%, the proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population in the labor force rose less. In 1970, 60.4% of the civilian noninstitutional population was in the labor force; by 2007, 66% of the civilian noninstitutional population was in the labor force.

GENDER, AGE, RACE, AND ETHNIC ORIGIN

Gender

In 2007 nearly three-quarters of the male population (73.2%) and three-fifths of the female population (59.3%) aged sixteen years and older participated in the labor force. (See Table 1.2.) The number of men increased from 54.6 million in 1973 to 82.1 million in 2007, a 50.4% increase. Among women in the civilian labor force, however, the increase was more dramatic. In 1973, 34.8 million women were employed or seeking employment, compared with 71 million in 2007, a 104% increase. These numbers reveal a shift in the proportions of women and men in the labor force: 78.8% of men were counted among the civilian labor force in 1973, compared with 73.2% by 2007. At the same time, the percentage of women participating in the labor force increased from 44.7% in 1973 to 59.3% in 2007. In 1973 only 34.8 million of 89.4 million people in the labor force, or 38.9%, were women. By 2007, 46.4% of the labor force was female.

Race and Ethnicity

In 2007 Hispanics had the highest labor force participation rate of all races or ethnicities. In that year, 21.6 million Hispanics were in the labor force, for a labor force participation rate of 68.8%. (See Table 1.3.) Asians had the next highest labor force participation rate in 2007; 7.1 million Asians were in the labor force in that year, for a labor force participation rate of 66.5%. (See Table 1.4.) Whites had a very slightly lower labor force participation rate. In 2007, 124.9 million whites were in the labor force, for a labor force participation rate of 66.4%. African-Americans had the lowest labor force participation rate. In 2007, 17.5 million African-Americans were in the labor force, for a labor force participation rate of 63.7%.

African-American women over twenty years of age (64%) were somewhat more likely to be in the labor force than white women (60.1%), Asian women (60.7%), or Hispanic women (58.8%) of the same age. (See Table 1.4 and Table 1.3.) A somewhat higher percentage of white men twenty years and older (76.3%) were in the labor force compared with African-American men (71.2%). Asian-American men and Hispanic men twenty years of age and over participated in the labor force at the highest rates in 2007 (78.5% and 84.7%, respectively).

While Hispanic men had the highest labor participation rates of any group in 2007, that rate varied by country of origin. Hispanic men age twenty and over from Mexico had the highest labor force participation rate, at 86.4%. (See Table 1.3.) Cuban men and Puerto Rican men also had high labor force participation rates, at 74.2% and 73.2%, respectively, but not as high as Mexican men.

Age

The BLS reported in Employment and Earnings (January 2008, http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsa2007.pdf) that Americans between the ages of twenty-five and fifty-four were the most likely age group to be working or looking for work in 2007, with 90.9% of men and 75.4% of women in that age group counted among the labor force. As people aged, their labor force participation rates dropped. Among fifty-five-to sixty-four-year-olds, only 69.6% of men and 58.3% of women were in the labor force. Among those age sixty-five and older, only 20.5% of men and 12.6% of women continued to participate in the labor force.

According to the BLS in Employment and Earnings, unemployment in 2007 was highest among the youngest workers, with those aged sixteen to nineteen experiencing an unemployment rate of 15.7%. The low unemployment rate among those aged fifty-five to sixty-four in 2007 (3.1%), compared with the national average of 4.6% for all workers aged sixteen and over, likely indicates that many of the older workers who had lost their jobs had retired and were no longer in the labor force. Historically, the exit of older workers from the workforce is the result of various reasons, ranging from disability to a genuine desire to retire. For some people, however, leaving the workforce is not a voluntary act. Elimination of middle management positions and other cost-cutting efforts can disproportionately affect older workers, who generally earn more than younger workers with less experience.

STUDENT WORKERS. In 2006 approximately 43.3% of American students ages sixteen to twenty-four were employed while enrolled in school. (See Table 1.5.) College students had a higher labor force participation rate than did high school students (55% and 31.4%, respectively). Non-Hispanic white students were more likely than any other group to work while enrolled in high school, while Hispanic students were more likely to work than any other group while enrolled in college.

EDUCATION

As educational attainment increases, so does the likelihood that a person will be part of the labor force. The unemployment rate also is lower for more educated individuals. Among people age twenty-five and over in 2007, those with a bachelor's degree or higher had the highest labor force participation (77.8%) and the lowest unemployment rate (2%). (See Table 1.6.) On the other hand, those with less than a high school diploma had a labor

force participation rate of only 46.6% and an unemployment rate of 7.1%.

The relationship between education and labor force participation held true for men as well as for women. Men age twenty-five and older with a four-year college degree had a labor force participation rate of 82.9%; men with less than a high school diploma had only a 60.2% participation rate. (See Table 1.6.) College-educated women had a labor force participation rate of 72.9%, while women with less than a high school diploma participated in the labor force at a rate of only 33.1%.

The relationship also held true for all races and ethnic groups. Among all adults age twenty-five and older with a bachelor's degree, African-Americans were the most likely to be counted among the civilian labor force (83%), followed by Hispanics (82.2%), Asians (77.5%), and non-Hispanic whites (77.4%). (See Table 1.6.) African-Americans with a college education were, however, more likely to be unemployed (3%) than Asians (2.4%), Hispanics (2.3%) or non-Hispanic whites (1.9%) with comparable education. This discrepancy hints at the subtle racial discrimination that some African-American and Hispanic people face when trying to find employment.

FAMILIES

According to the BLS in Employment Characteristics of Families in 2006 (May 9, 2007, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf), 82.4% of the nation's seventy-seven million families had at least one person working in 2006. Asian families were the most likely to include an employed member (89.9%), followed by Hispanic (87.2%), white (82.7%), and African-American families (78.1%). These data include families that may have members who are beyond the generally accepted working age.

Employment Characteristics of Families in 2006 also revealed that about 4.9 million American families (about 6.4% of all families) had at least one person who was unemployed in 2006. Overall, 69.6% of families that included an unemployed person also contained at least one working family member. White and Asian families were considerably less likely to have an unemployed person (5.6% and 5.2%, respectively) than were African-American (11.4%) or Hispanic (8%) families.

The BLS further reported that both spouses were employed in about half (51.8%) of the nation's 57.5 million married-couple families in 2006. (See Table 1.7.) That year, there were about 11.4 million married-couple families (19.8%) in which only the husband was employed outside the house, a slight decrease from the 11.6 million such families in 2005. In nearly 3.8 million married-couple families (6.5%), only the wife worked in 2006, approximately the same percentage as the previous year. More than 9.3 million married-couple families (16.2%) included no working members, although many in this group were retirees.

Family structure affected employment of family members. In 2006 the likelihood of having an employed family member was greatest for families maintained by men with no spouse present (84.9%). (See Table 1.7.) Married-couple families were almost as likely to have an employed member (83.8%). Families maintained by women were least likely to have an employed family member (76%).

Whether any family members were unemployed also varied by type of household, with married-couple households being least likely to contain an unemployed member. Of 5.3 million families maintained by men in 2006 (shown in Table 1.7), 516,000 contained an unemployed member (9.7%). (See Table 1.8.) Of 14.2 million families maintained by women, 1.4 million contained an

unemployed member (10.1%). Of 57.5 million marriedcouple families, only three million contained an unemployed member (5.2%).

About eight of ten married-couple families (82.3%) with an unemployed member also contained at least one employed family member in 2006. (See Table 1.8.) In contrast, among families experiencing unemployment in 2006, only 58.3% of families that were headed by a single man also included an employed person. Among households with unemployed members headed by single women, only 47.3% also included an employed person. Families maintained by single people experience greater hardship when unemployment hits.

Families with Children

According to the BLS in Employment Characteristics of Families in 2006, both parents were employed in 62% of married-couple families with children under eighteen years old in 2006. In 30.5% of married-couple families, the father, but not the mother, was employed; in only 4.8% of married-couple families, the mother, but not the father, was employed. The proportion of married-couple families in which the father, but not the mother, was employed was much higher among families with pre-school children (under six years of age) than it was in families whose youngest child was six to seventeen years old (38% and 24.3%, respectively).

The BLS also reports in Employment Characteristics of Families in 2006 that in 2006 higher proportions of single mothers worked than married mothers, while slightly lower proportions of single fathers worked than married fathers. In single-mother families, 72% of mothers worked, compared with 66.8% of mothers in married-couple families. In single-father families, 83.5% of fathers worked, compared with 92.5% of married fathers. In single-mother families, higher proportions of mothers without children under age six worked than did mothers of children with preschool-age children. The age of children had little effect, however, on whether or not single fathers worked.

The unemployment rate of mothers varied by age of children and marital status. In 2006 the unemployment rate of married mothers with children under eighteen years old was 3.1%, compared with an 8.5% rate for unmarried mothers. (Table 1.9.) The unemployment rate for mothers with preschool children (6%) was higher than the rate for mothers whose youngest child was of school age (4.1%).

In 2006 more than half (56.1%) of all mothers with a child under one year old were in the labor force. (See Table 1.10.) This proportion rose among mothers with children two years of age (64.5%). Most mothers of children under three years old worked in 2006, but unmarried, divorced, separated, and widowed mothers with young children were more likely to be in the labor force (65.7%) than were married mothers with children the same age (58.2%). This most likely occurs because single women had fewer financial resources that would allow them to remain out of the labor force than did married women.

Unmarried mothers of children under three years old also experienced higher rates of unemployment than their married counterparts. The unemployment rate for single mothers of children under three years old in 2006 was 13.6%, compared with 3.5% among mothers who were married and had children under age three. (See Table 1.10.) The unemployment rate among single mothers of children under one year old was 16.7%, compared with just 3.9% for married mothers with children the same age.

EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

One way to look at employment figures is by industry. All employees who work in each industry sector are counted. Industry sectors include goods-producing industries—such as natural resources and mining, construction, and manufacturing—and service-providing industries—such as trade, transportation, and utilities (including wholesale and retail trade), information services, financial services, professional and business services, education and health services, leisure and hospitality, other services, and government. People with the same occupation may work in different industries. For example, an accountant may work in a manufacturing plant, be employed in a tax-preparation office, hold a government job, or teach in a university, and therefore be part of the manufacturing industry, the financial services industry, the government, or the education and health services industry. Wages and working conditions are often tied to the industry in which one works.

According to figures released by the BLS in The Employment Situation: February 2008 (March 7, 2008, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf), there were an estimated 138 million Americans working in private, nonfarm industries, including nearly 21.8 million workers in the goods-producing sector, in February 2008. Approximately 13.7 million of those in the goods-producing industry worked in manufacturing. Nearly two-thirds of manufacturing workers (8.7 million; 63.4%) produced durable

goods; the rest (8.7 million, or 36.6%) produced nondurable goods.

BLS data also shows that in February 2008 approximately 116.1 million people were employed in service-providing industries, with about 93.7 million of them employed in the private sector. These figures included 15.4 million people who worked in retail trade; 4.5 million people who worked in transportation and warehousing; 556,500 people who worked in utilities; 3 million people who worked in information services; 8.2 million people who worked in

the financial sector; 18.1 million people who worked in professional and business services; 18.7 million people in education and health services; 13.7 million people in leisure and hospitality; and 5.5 million people in other services. In addition, 22.4 million people worked for the federal, state, or local government in the public sector.

EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATION

On the other hand, workers may be counted by occupational group. For example, whether nurses work in schools, large manufacturing plants, or in doctors' offices, they need the same training and perform similar work, even though they work in different industries. The BLS breaks down occupations into several broad categories. Management, professional, and related occupations include such jobs as teachers, physicians, managers, and lawyers. Service occupations include jobs such as nurse's aides, police and firefighters, cafeteria workers, and hairdressers. Sales and office occupations include jobs such as retail clerks and secretaries. Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations include jobs such as fishermen, foresters, construction workers, and appliance repair people. Production, transportation, and material moving occupations include jobs such as production workers and truck drivers.

A greater proportion of workers were employed in managerial or professional jobs (35.5%) than in service

occupations (16.5%), sales and office occupations (24.8%), natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations (10.8%), or production, transportation, and material moving occupations (12.4%). (See Table 1.11.) According to BLS figures, the percent of American workers employed in management and professional occupations as well as service occupations is steadily increasing, while the percent of American workers employed in production occupations is decreasing.

Women and men were highly concentrated in certain occupations. Women were more likely to work in professional and related occupations, service occupations, and office and administrative support occupations than were men. In 2007, 25.1% of women and only 16.9% of men worked in professional and business occupations, 20.4% of women and 13.2% of men worked in service occupations, and 21.6% of women and only 6.2% of men worked in office and administrative support occupations. (See Table 1.11.) On the other hand, men were much more likely than women to work in natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations (19.3% of men and 1% of women) and in production, transportation, and material moving occupations (17.9% of men and 6.2% of women).

According to the BLS, African-Americans and Hispanics were less likely than whites and Asians to work in the fairly high-paid managerial and professional specialties; nearly half of Asians (48.1%) and over a third of whites (36.1%) worked in these occupations, compared with only 27.1% of African-Americans and 17.8% of Hispanics. (See Table 1.11.) On the other hand, African-Americans and Hispanics were disproportionately concentrated in the relatively low-paid service occupations. Only 15.5% of whites and 16% of Asians worked in these occupations, compared with 23.3% of African-Americans and 24.1% of Hispanics. In addition, a disproportionate number of Hispanic workers (19.4%) worked in natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations compared with whites (11.6%), African-Americans (7%), and Asians (4.4%).

The BLS also reported in Employment and Earnings that in 2007 the vast majority of the American workforce were wage or salary earners in nonagricultural industries (134.3 million). Another 9.6 million Americans were self-employed, and 112,000 Americans were unpaid family workers. Only 2.1 million people were employed in agriculture, approximately 58% of them as wage and salary workers and 40.8% of them as self-employed workers. Most people worked full time; 119.7 million people, or 82.9%, did so.

CONTINGENT WORKERS AND ALTERNATIVE WORK ARRANGEMENTS

According to the BLS, even though most formal studies have found no change in workers' overall job tenure, the effects of media reports and personal experience of corporate

downsizing, production streamlining, and the increasing use of temporary workers can cause workers to question employers' commitment to long-term, stable employment relationships. There is also a growing unease that employers, in their attempts to reduce costs, have increased their use of “employment intermediaries,” such as temporary help services and contract companies, and are relying more on alternative staffing arrangements, such as on-call workers and independent contractors (also called freelancers).

Workers may take employment in a nonstandard arrangement, such as working for a temporary agency, for a number of reasons, including inability to find a permanent job, a desire to work fewer hours when they have a young child at home, or a desire to experience varied jobs and job sectors. In addition, nonstandard work arrangements such as consulting or contracting can provide a more flexible workday and more lucrative remuneration.

Contingent Worker Characteristics

The BLS defines contingent work as any job situation in which an individual does not have an explicit or implicit contract for long-term employment. This includes

independent contractors, on-call workers, and those working for temporary help services. In the report Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangements, February 2005 (July 27, 2005, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/conemp.pdf), the BLS estimated that contingent workers accounted for between 1.8% and 4.1% of total employment in the United States. In February 2005, 22.6%–27.2% of all contingent workers in the United States were employed in professional and related occupations. Other high rates of contingency were in the education and health services industries (21.8%–27.1%), sales and office occupations (20.6%–24.3%), office and administrative support occupations (14.8%–19.4%), and service occupations (15.7%–17.6).

The BLS also reported in Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangements that laborers who were between the ages of twenty and thirty-four years were more than twice as likely to be contingent workers as workers who were younger or older. The trend was evident for both male and female contingent workers. Contingent workers were also more likely to be employed full-time than part-time.

Alternative Work Arrangements

Employees in alternative work arrangements are individuals whose place, time, and quantity of work are potentially unpredictable or individuals whose employment is arranged through an employment intermediary. Examples include independent contractors, on-call workers, workers paid by temporary help firms, and workers whose services are provided through contract firms.

Some of the alternative arrangements have been in existence for decades; there is, however, a lack of data analyzing the number of workers in these arrangements. The ranks of independent contractors include construction workers and farmhands, whose working situations did not change much in the twentieth century. Similarly, on-call workers such as substitute teachers, registered nurses, and performance artists did not see much change in the manner of obtaining work. Temporary help agencies, though, can only trace their widespread existence in the United States to shortly after World War II, and there is evidence that providing employees to fulfill the administrative or business needs of other companies is a spreading phenomenon.

According to the BLS in Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangements, 14.8 million people, or 10.7% of the total workforce of 139 million, could be categorized in four alternative arrangement categories. Independent contractors made up 10.3 million people (7.4% of the total workforce) in February 2005, followed by on-call workers (2.5 million, or 1.8%), temporary help agency workers (1.2 million, or 0.9%), and contract company employees (813,000, or 0.6%).

Workers with alternative arrangements were less likely than workers with traditional arrangements to be enrolled in school in February 2005, the BLS noted in the same report. About one-quarter (26.6%) of independent contractors aged sixteen to twenty-four with alternative work arrangements, 41.4% of on-call workers with alternative work arrangements in that age group, 4.7% of temporary agency workers, and 13% of contract company workers were enrolled in school in February 2005, compared with 44.1% of sixteen- to twenty-four-year-old workers with traditional arrangements.

THE WORKING POOR

In 2005 approximately 7.7 million people who were in the labor force for twenty-seven weeks or more, or 5.4% of the total labor force, lived below the official poverty level, according to data presented by the BLS in A Profile of the Working Poor, 2005 (September 2007, http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2005.pdf). These people are called the “working poor” because, despite working for at least twenty-seven weeks, their incomes still fell below the official poverty threshold. The poverty rate among families that had at least one member in the labor force for more than half the year was higher, at 6.4%.

The BLS also notes in A Profile of the Working Poor, 2005 that the poverty rate among those working or looking for work for at least twenty-seven weeks during 2005 was 5.4%. Among individuals who spent fifty to fifty-two weeks in the labor force in that year, the poverty rate was slightly lower, at 4.9%. Among people in the labor force for the full year who usually worked full-time, the poverty rate was 3.5%; among those who usually worked part-time, the poverty rate was 11.4%.

Gender, Race, and Age

Of the 142.8 million people aged sixteen and over who were in the labor force at least twenty-seven weeks during 2005, more women (4 million) than men (3.8 million) were poor. (See Table 1.12.) Because fewer women than men participated in the labor force in 2005 (65.5 million women, compared with 77.3 million men), there was an even greater discrepancy between the percentage of working women living in poverty (6.1%) and the percentage of working men whose earnings fell below the poverty threshold (4.8%).

Seven out of ten (70.7%) of the 7.5 million working poor in 2005 were white workers, yet African-American and Hispanic workers continued to experience poverty rates that were more than twice the rates of whites. (See Table 1.12.) More than one in ten working Hispanics (10.5%) as well as more than one in ten working African-Americans (10.5%) were living in poverty. Only 4.7% of whites and 4.7% of Asians were making wages below the poverty level. The poverty rate among working African-American women was much higher than among working African-American men (13% and 7.7%, respectively), just as the poverty rate was higher among working white women than it was among working white men (5% and 4.4%, respectively). Hispanic men and women had about equal poverty rates, while working Asian women actually had a lower poverty rate than working Asian men (4.4% and 5%, respectively).

Education and Poverty Rate

Among all the people in the labor force at least twenty-seven weeks during 2005, those with less than a high school diploma had a much higher poverty rate (14.1%) than did high school graduates (6.6%). (See Table 1.13.) Workers who had attained at least an associate's degree (4.7%) or who had graduated from college (1.7%) reported the lowest poverty rates. Poverty rates for African-American and Hispanic workers were 1.5 to two times higher than for white workers at many corresponding education levels. Poverty rates for Asian workers were also greater than for white workers, although the differences were less than for African-American or Hispanic workers. For example, the poverty rate of white high school graduates was 5.5% in 2005; in comparison, the poverty rates of African-American graduates (12.7%), Hispanic graduates (9.4%), and Asian graduates (7.3%) were all significantly higher.

Poverty disproportionately affected working women at all education levels. Men without a high school diploma had a poverty rate of 12.6%, while women had a poverty rate of 16.8%. (See Table 1.13.) Male high school graduates had a poverty rate of 5.6%, while female graduates had a rate of 8%. Men with an associate's degree had a poverty rate of 3.7%, while women with comparable education had a rate of 5.6%. Only among college graduates did the rate even out; it was 1.6% among men with bachelor's degrees and 1.7% among women. Poverty rates among working African-American women were particularly high, affecting

29.4% of those without a high school diploma, 17% of women with a high school diploma, 10.8% of those with an associate's degree, and 2.4% of those with a bachelor's degree.

Occupations

During 2005, people working in managerial and professional specialty occupations had the lowest probability of being poor; only 1.8% of working managers and professionals had incomes below the poverty line. (See Table 1.14.) In contrast, the average poverty rate for workers in service occupations was quite high, at 10.8%. The BLS in A Profile of the Working Poor, 2005 reports that those working in the farming/fishing/forestry sector also had a high poverty rate, at 13.7%. In addition, construction workers had a higher probability than average (8.1%) of making wages below the poverty line, perhaps in part because of the seasonal nature of much construction work. In general, African-Americans and those of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity were more likely than whites to earn annual wages below the poverty level, regardless of occupation.

In all occupational groups except office and administrative support, women were more likely than men were to be poor. In 2003 men experienced a higher poverty rate in only one occupational group, office and administrative support, with a rate of 4% compared with 3.5% for women, according to A Profile of the Working Poor, 2005. In all other occupations, men fared better than women did. The poverty rate for women employed in sales and related occupations (9.2%) was more than two times that of their male counterparts (3.7%).

Poverty Trends by Family Structure

In 2005, of the 4.1 million working families who lived below the poverty level, 1.9 million of them were headed by single women, illustrating the disproportionate poverty suffered by families headed by single mothers. (See Table 1.15.) The poverty rate for families was 6.4%. The poverty rate for families with just one member in the labor force (12.7%) was more than seven times more than that of families with two or more members in the work-

force (1.6%). Families maintained by women with one member in the labor force (with a poverty rate of 22.4%) were significantly more likely to be poor than similar families maintained by men (11.7%). Married-couple families with two or more members in the labor force had the lowest poverty rate (1.2%).

EMPLOYEE TENURE

Information on tenure (how long a person has worked for his or her current employer) is often used to gauge employment security. A trend of increasing tenure in the economy can be interpreted as a sign of improving job security, with the opposite being an indicator of deteriorating security.

However, job security trends are not necessarily that simple. During recessions or other periods of declining job security, the proportion of median-tenure and long-tenure workers could rise because workers with less seniority are more likely to lose their jobs than are workers with longer tenure. During periods of economic growth, the proportion of median-tenure and long-tenure workers could fall, because more job opportunities are available for new job entrants, and experienced workers have more opportunities to change employers and take better jobs. However, tenure can also rise under improving economic conditions, as fewer layoffs occur and good job matches develop between workers and employers.

As shown in Table 1.16, median tenure (the point at which half the workers had more tenure and half had less) in January 2006 was four years, the same as in January 2004 but higher than figures obtained in 2002, 2000, 1998, or 1996. Between 1996 and 2006 the median tenure with current employer for male workers held fairly steady, at four years in 1996 and 4.1 years in 2006. Job tenure for male workers age twenty-five and over, though, actually declined during the decade, from 5.3 years in 1996 to 5 years in 2006. Overall median tenure with current employer among women rose somewhat between 1996 and 2006, from 3.5 in 1996 to 3.9 in 2006. This can be explained by fewer women taking time out of the labor force to care for small children. However, the median employee tenure was still half a year longer among men than among women.

In addition to tracking trends in median tenure, the BLS, in Employee Tenure in 2006 (September 8, 2006, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/tenure.pdf), charts trends in the proportion of workers with relatively long tenures of ten years or more. Among workers age twenty-five and over, the percent of workers with these long tenures dropped slightly from 30.5% in February 1996 to 30% in 2006. The percent of women with tenures of ten years or more with current employer, however, actually rose during that decade, from 27.6% in 1996 to 28.8% in 2006. The proportion of men who had worked for their current employer ten years or longer fell from 33.1% in 1996 to 31.1% in 2006.

In January 2006, about one-quarter (24.4%) of workers aged sixteen and over had worked for their current employer for twelve months or less, the BLS notes in Employee Tenure in 2006. These included workers who had recently entered the workforce, as well as workers who had changed employers in the previous year. Another 29.1% of the workforce had worked for their current employer for one to five years. One-fifth (20.9%) had worked for their current employer for five to nine years, 9.5% had worked for ten to fourteen years, 6.7% had worked for fifteen to nineteen years, and almost one in ten (9.4%) had worked for their current employer for twenty years or more.

Industry

Employee Tenure in 2006 also reports that in January 2006 workers in utilities had the highest median tenure (10.4 years) of the major industries identified by the BLS. (See Table 1.17.) Government employees tended to have above average median employee tenures; the median tenure for federal government employees was 9.9 years, for local government employees it was 6.6 years, and for state government employees it was 6.3 years. Employee tenure was fairly short in leisure and hospitality, with a median tenure of only 1.9 years.

Number of Jobs Held

The more jobs a person holds in their working years, the shorter their employee tenures. From 1978 to 2004 Americans held an average of 10.5 different jobs when they were between the ages of eighteen and forty. Men had held 10.7 jobs on average, and women had held 10.3 jobs. People with associate's or bachelor's degrees had a higher average number of jobs, at 10.9 and 10.7, respectively, perhaps because students tend to hold part-time jobs during the school year or summers that may change frequently. (See Table 1.18.)

Among non-Hispanic whites, average number of jobs held did not vary between men and women—each had an average of 10.6 jobs. (See Table 1.18.) However, African-American and Hispanic men and women differed markedly in average number of jobs held. African-American men held an average of 10.8 jobs between the ages of eighteen and forty, while African-American women of the same age held an average of only 9.3 jobs. Hispanic men held an average of 11.2 jobs between the ages of eighteen and forty, while Hispanic women held an average of only 8.7.

UNION MEMBERSHIP

In 2007, 12.1% of American workers were union members. (See Table 1.19.) This figure represented a

dramatic decline from 1973, when nearly one-quarter (24%) of wage and salary workers in the United States belonged to a union. According to Barry T. Hirsch and David A. Macpherson in the Union Membership and Coverage Database (“Union Membership, Coverage, Density, and Employment among All Wage and Salary Workers, 1973–2007,” February 8, 2008, http://wwww.unionstats.com/), union membership declined rapidly during the 1980s to 16.1% by 1990, and the downward trend has continued into the twenty-first century, hitting a low of 12% in 2006.

It should be noted that a worker might be represented by a union in contract negotiations but not be a dues-paying member. In a “right-to-work” state a worker is allowed to join a unionized company and not be forced to join the union. By law, the nonunion worker, working in a unionized company, must benefit from any union contract. Unions represented 13.3% of wage and salary employees in 2007; that is, 13.3% of workers held jobs that were covered by a union contract whether or not they were affiliated with the union personally. (See Table 1.19.) Studies, such as that by Solomon W. Polachek of the State University of New York at Binghamton (“What Can We Learn about the Decline in U.S. Union Membership from International Data?” September 2002, http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/0A720CA0-1033-4ACC-917D-746553305EBF/0/Polachek_final_paper.pdf), have explored why union membership has dwindled. It has been established that the recession of the early 1980s, the movement of jobs overseas, the decline in traditionally unionized heavy industry, as well as the expansion of traditionally nonunionized sectors of the economy (such as management and business services and other service occupations) contributed to a general decline in union membership that has been documented in data comparable from year to year since 1983. Auburn University's Anju Mehta, in “Is Outsourcing the End of Unionism? Exploring the Impact of Outsourcing on Labor Unions in the U.S.” (July 2007, http://www.globalwork.in/GDW07/pdf/25-317-324.pdf), notes that in a strategy that was counter to past contract negotiations, many unions in the 1980s agreed to “give backs” (surrendering existing benefits) and lower salaries in exchange for job guarantees. Nonetheless, movement of jobs from the United States to other countries continued, which resulted in fewer jobs for American workers and more plant closings, and prompted more aggressive recruitments of members by unions during the 1990s.

As of 2008, leading labor unions in the United States included:

• AFL-CIO —Formed in 1955 by the merger of the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the AFL-CIO, according to its Web site (http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/), by 2008 represented about 10.5 million American workers in fifty-six affiliated unions, ranging from the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) to the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (BAC) and the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC).
• American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) —Boasting membership of 1.4 million in 2008 (http://www.afscme.org/about/aboutindex.cfm), the nation's largest union of public service employees was founded during the Great Depression of the 1930s to protect the rights of state and local government employees.
• American Federation of Teachers (AFT) —Representing the economic, social, and professional interests of classroom teachers since 1916, the AFT included more than three thousand local affiliates and over 1.4 million members in 2008 (http://www.aft.org/about/index.htm).

• Communications Workers of America —Growing out of the telephone industry in the early part of the

  TABLE 1.18
  Number of jobs held by individuals from age 18 to age 40, by demographic characteristics, 1978–2004

  	Percent distribution by number of jobs held
  Characteristic	Total	0 or 1 job	2 to 4 jobs	5 to 7 jobs	8 to 10 jobs	11 to 14 jobs	15 or more jobs	Mean number of jobs held
  a Includes persons with a high school diploma or equivalent.
  b Includes persons with a bachelor's, master's, professional, and doctoral degrees.
  c Data not shown where cell size is less than 50.
  Notes: This table excludes individuals who turned age 18 before Jan. 1, 1978, or who had not yet turned age 41 when interviewed in 2004/05. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 consists of men and women who were born in the years 1957–64 and were ages 14 to 22 when first interviewed in 1979. These individuals were ages 39 to 48 in 2004–05. Educational attainment is defined as of the 2004 survey. Race and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity groups are mutually exclusive but not exhaustive. Other race groups, which are included in the overall totals, are not shown separately because their representation in the survey sample is not sufficiently large to provide statistically reliable estimates.
  SOURCE: “Number of Jobs Held by Individuals from Age 18 to Age 40 in 1978 to 2004 by Education Attainment, Sex, Race, Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity, and Age,” in National Longitudinal Surveys, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Undated, http://www.bls.gov/nls/y79r21jobsbyedu.pdf (accessed February 3, 2008)
  Total	100.0	1.4	13.4	20.2	23.1	20.8	21.2	10.5
  Less than a high school diploma	100.0	4.3	16.8	17.5	18.5	18.1	24.8	10.6
  High school graduates, no collegea	100.0	1.3	16.0	22.2	20.9	19.6	20.0	10.2
  Some college or associate degree	100.0	1.0	11.9	20.1	23.9	21.0	22.1	10.9
  Bachelor's degree and higherb	100.0	0.9	9.0	18.1	27.9	23.4	20.7	10.7
  Men	100.0	1.0	14.2	19.8	22.1	20.2	22.7	10.7
  Less than a high school diploma	100.0	0.7	13.8	17.1	17.9	18.2	32.3	12.0
  High school graduates, no collegea	100.0	1.5	16.3	20.3	20.9	18.2	22.8	10.5
  Some college or associate degree	100.0	0.4	13.2	22.6	19.2	19.4	25.3	11.1
  Bachelor's degree and higherb	100.0	0.7	11.6	18.2	28.3	25.3	15.8	10.4
  Women	100.0	1.9	12.6	20.5	24.1	21.3	19.6	10.3
  Less than a high school diploma	100.0	9.3	21.0	18.1	19.2	18.0	14.4	8.6
  High school graduates, no collegea	100.0	1.0	15.8	24.3	20.8	21.3	16.9	9.8
  Some college or associate degree	100.0	1.5	10.9	18.2	27.6	22.3	19.5	10.7
  Bachelor's degree and higherb	100.0	1.0	6.4	18.0	27.5	21.5	25.7	11.2
  White non-Hispanic	100.0	1.2	13.5	19.7	23.3	20.9	21.6	10.6
  Less than a high school diploma	100.0	4.0	13.6	17.6	18.5	17.8	28.5	11.3
  High school graduates, no collegea	100.0	1.1	17.1	22.1	20.6	19.4	19.7	10.1
  Some college or associate degree	100.0	0.4	12.4	19.1	23.2	21.0	23.8	11.1
  Bachelor's degree and higherb	100.0	1.0	9.1	17.4	28.5	23.7	20.3	10.7
  White non-Hispanic men	100.0	0.9	15.0	20.2	22.0	19.7	22.1	10.6
  Less than a high school diploma	100.0	0.0	12.4	16.9	17.7	15.0	38.1	12.8
  High school graduates, no collegea	100.0	1.6	18.4	21.1	20.4	17.4	21.2	10.2
  Some college or associate degree	100.0	0.0	14.3	24.1	17.2	17.8	26.6	11.1
  Bachelor's degree and higherb	100.0	0.8	11.5	17.6	29.1	26.0	14.9	10.1
  White non-Hispanic women	100.0	1.5	11.9	19.1	24.5	22.1	21.0	10.6
  Less than a high school diploma	100.0	9.2	15.3	18.6	19.4	21.6	15.8	9.3
  High school graduates, no collegea	100.0	0.5	15.7	23.2	20.8	21.7	18.1	10.1
  Some college or associate degree	100.0	0.8	10.9	15.1	28.1	23.6	21.5	11.2
  Bachelor's degree and higherb	100.0	1.1	6.6	17.2	27.8	21.4	25.8	11.2
  Black non-Hispanic	100.0	2.3	13.0	21.2	22.8	21.0	19.6	10.1
  Less than a high school diploma	100.0	3.5	24.5	17.1	18.7	18.3	17.9	9.2
  High school graduates, no collegea	100.0	2.0	12.1	20.7	22.5	22.2	20.5	10.3
  Some college or associate degree	100.0	3.0	9.9	23.4	25.9	21.0	16.7	10.0
  Bachelor's degree and higherb	100.0	0.0	9.2	23.4	21.9	20.4	25.1	10.5
  Black non-Hispanic men	100.0	1.5	11.6	17.0	23.8	22.9	23.2	10.8
  Less than a high school diploma	100.0	2.8	19.4	16.5	17.4	24.7	19.1	10.0
  High school graduates, no collegea	100.0	1.0	9.1	15.6	24.7	21.7	28.0	11.4
  Some college or associate degree	100.0	2.3	9.1	18.5	28.2	24.3	17.6	10.6
  Bachelor's degree and higherb	100.0	—	14.8	21.1	21.2	22.9	19.9	9.9
  Black non-Hispanic women	100.0	3.1	14.6	25.8	21.8	18.9	15.8	9.3
  Less than a high school diploma	100.0	4.6	32.5	18.0	20.8	8.2	15.9	7.9
  High school graduates, no collegea	100.0	3.4	16.3	27.9	19.5	22.9	10.1	8.8
  Some college or associate degree	100.0	3.6	10.5	26.7	24.4	18.7	16.1	9.7
  Bachelor's degree and higherb	100.0	—	4.8	25.2	22.4	18.5	29.0	11.1
  Hispanic or Latino	100.0	2.1	15.0	24.0	20.2	19.0	19.7	10.0
  Less than a high school diploma	100.0	3.6	21.9	15.8	19.4	20.5	18.7	9.8
  High school graduates, no collegea	100.0	2.2	13.7	28.6	17.5	16.3	21.7	10.0
  Some college or associate degree	100.0	1.5	13.3	22.8	25.0	20.2	17.2	10.1
  Bachelor's degree and higherb	100.0	—	8.5	26.7	20.7	23.5	20.6	10.4
  Hispanic or Latino men	100.0	1.2	11.5	20.7	21.1	19.3	26.2	11.2
  Less than a high school diploma	100.0	0.8	12.3	14.8	20.5	24.2	27.4	11.9
  High school graduates, no collegea	100.0	2.5	10.4	24.2	19.2	16.8	26.9	10.8
  Some college or associate degree	100.0	0.0	12.7	19.5	22.5	19.6	25.7	11.5
  Bachelor's degree and higherb	100.0	c	c	c	c	c	c	c
  Hispanic or Latino women	100.0	3.1	18.8	27.6	19.3	18.7	12.5	8.7
  Less than a high school diploma	100.0	7.3	34.9	17.2	17.9	15.6	6.9	7.0
  High school graduates, no collegea	100.0	1.8	17.2	33.2	15.7	15.7	16.3	10.0
  Some college or associate degree	100.0	3.1	13.9	26.0	27.4	20.8	8.8	10.1
  Bachelor's degree and higherb	100.0	c	c	c	c	c	c	c

  twentieth century, the CWA is the nation's largest communications and media union with, according to its Web site (http://www.cwa-union.org/about/profile.html), more than seven hundred thousand members in such sectors as telecommunications, broadcasting, cable TV, journalism, publishing, and electronics.

• The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)—With 640,000 active and over 500,000 retired members in more than 800 local unions in 2008 (http://www.uaw.org/about/uawmembership.html), the UAW protects the rights of automobile and aeronautics

  TABLE 1.18
  Number of jobs held by individuals from age 18 to age 40, by demographic characteristics, 1978–2004

  	Percent distribution by number of jobs held
  Characteristic	Total	0 or 1 job	2 to 4 jobs	5 to 7 jobs	8 to 10 jobs	11 to 14 jobs	15 or more jobs	Mean number of jobs held
  a Includes persons with a high school diploma or equivalent.
  b Includes persons with a bachelor's, master's, professional, and doctoral degrees.
  c Data not shown where cell size is less than 50.
  Notes: This table excludes individuals who turned age 18 before Jan. 1, 1978, or who had not yet turned age 41 when interviewed in 2004/05. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 consists of men and women who were born in the years 1957–64 and were ages 14 to 22 when first interviewed in 1979. These individuals were ages 39 to 48 in 2004–05. Educational attainment is defined as of the 2004 survey. Race and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity groups are mutually exclusive but not exhaustive. Other race groups, which are included in the overall totals, are not shown separately because their representation in the survey sample is not sufficiently large to provide statistically reliable estimates.
  SOURCE: “Number of Jobs Held by Individuals from Age 18 to Age 40 in 1978 to 2004 by Education Attainment, Sex, Race, Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity, and Age,” in National Longitudinal Surveys, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Undated, http://www.bls.gov/nls/y79r21jobsbyedu.pdf (accessed February 3, 2008)
  Hispanic or Latino women	100.0	3.1	18.8	27.6	19.3	18.7	12.5	8.7
  Less than a high school diploma	100.0	7.3	34.9	17.2	17.9	15.6	6.9	7.0
  High school graduates, no collegea	100.0	1.8	17.2	33.2	15.7	15.7	16.3	10.0
  Some college or associate degree	100.0	3.1	13.9	26.0	27.4	20.8	8.8	10.1
  Bachelor's degree and higherb	100.0	c	c	c	c	c	c	c

  workers, and since 1935 has won such landmark concessions as employer-paid health care and cost-of-living allowances.

• United Mine Workers of America —The United Mine Workers, an AFL-CIO affiliated union, has won several hard-fought battles to ensure fair compensation, health care, and safety standards in the mining industry since the union's inception in 1890 (http://www.umwa.org/who/).

Industry and Occupation

According to the BLS in Union Members in 2007 (January 25, 2008, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf), in 2007 public sector workers had a much higher rate of union membership than did private sector employees (35.9% and 7.5%, respectively). Among the private nonagricultural industries, transportation and utilities had the highest unionization rate (22.1%) in 2007; 28.4% of workers in the utilities sub-sector belonged to unions and 20.9% of workers in the transportation and warehousing sub-sector belonged to unions. Although about an average number of workers in information services were unionized in 2007, almost one in five (19.7%) telecommunications workers were.

People in certain occupations were more likely to be unionized than others. In 2007, as noted by the BLS in Union Members in 2007, professionals had a high unionization rate of 18.2%, fueled largely by the very high unionization rate among people working in education, training, and library services (37.2%). People in protective service occupations, which include many government workers (such as police, prison guards, and firefighters), also had a high percentage of union members, at 35.2%.

Characteristics of Union Members

A greater proportion of African-Americans were union members in 2007 than any other group. Among working African-Americans, 14.3% were union members in 2007, compared with 11.8% of whites, 10.9% of Asians, and 9.8% of Hispanics. (See Table 1.19.) Among whites, African-Americans, and to a lesser degree Hispanics, union membership was lower for women than for men. Although 15.8% of employed African-American men were union members in 2007, only 13% of African-American women were. White men had higher union membership (12.8%) than white women (10.8%); Hispanic men (9.9%) had higher union membership than Hispanic women (9.6%). Conversely, among Asians, women had the higher rate of union membership, at 11.6%, compared with a rate of 10.2% for Asian men.

Earnings

In 2007 union members garnered a median weekly salary ($863) that was $200 higher than the median weekly salary of those not represented by unions ($663). (See Table 1.20.) Unionized women earned a median weekly paycheck of $790, compared with $592 for women not belonging to or represented by a union, a difference of $198 per week. Men who belonged to a union had median weekly earnings of $913, compared with $738 for nonunion men, a difference of $175 per week. The disparity in earnings was greatest for Hispanic workers in 2007. The median weekly earnings of unionized Hispanic workers was $736, compared with just $487 for nonunionized Hispanic employees, a difference of $249 per week. These differences are in part due to a union's ability to win higher wages for its members, and in part due to the fact that unionized employees are often working in relatively higher-paid industries than nonunionized employees.

According to the BLS in Union Members in 2007, in nearly all occupations, with the exception of people in management, professional, and related occupations, people represented by unions earned more than those who were not in 2007. The better wages among unionized employees also held true in all private sector industries except in financial activities and professional and technical services, where nonunionized employees earned slightly more than unionized ones. In the public sector, nonunionized federal employees made slightly more than unionized federal employees, although at the state and local levels, unionized employees had the wage advantage