Unpacking Union Density: Membership and Coverage in the Transformation of the Israeli IR System

Abstract

To understand the transformation of the industrial relations (IR) system in Israel, we propose a four-group typology according to workers' membership in unions and coverage of collective agreements. Using this typology, and relying on various data sources, we estimate that in 2000 membership was 40 to 45 percent, and coverage was about 56 percent, down from 80 to 85 percent for both measures in 1981. The data also reveal the emerging differences among the four groups, including income differentials. Moreover, comparing workers' actual membership and coverage with their preferences suggests that the system has not yet reached equilibrium. The study demonstrates that only a fourgroup typology succeeds in surfacing the complex nature of union decline. The Israeli Industrial Relations System and the Measurement of Union DensityFor observers of the industrial relations (IR) system in Israel, it is clear that the system has undergone a significant transformation. However, one is surprised by how little we know about the current state of the IR system, the pace and extent of its transformation, and whether the process has peaked or has just started.An important characteristic of an IR system is union density. Two indicators are used commonly to measure union density-union membership rates (percentage of wage and salary workers who are members of a trade union) and union coverage (percentage of wage and salary workers covered directly by collective-bargaining agreements). The rationale in favor of each

National Culture and Union Membership

“…Visser's estimates of union density, which are adjusted estimates based on government figures and union membership reports, are generally higher than estimates of union membership based on the WVS, so the estimates of union membership in this study are more conservative. Estimates of union density can vary both over time and by method of measurement (Blanchflower and Freeman, 1992;Cohen et al, 2003). However, the pattern of union membership across countries is similar, and there is a significant and positive correlation between the country union density estimates based on the WVS and those reported by Visser (Kendall τ b = .54, p < .01; Pearson bivariate r = .88, p < .01; Spearman ρ = .71, p < .01).…”

Who went where? Jewish immigration from the Former Soviet Union to Israel, the USA and Germany, 1990–2000

“…11 Since 1985, however, the Israeli economy and labour market have been undergoing a process of economic liberalization, moving gradually towards the flexible American model. In the 2000s, only about one-third of wage and salary workers remained unionized, 12 and the proportion of external and contract workersabout 5% of the labour force -had risen much higher than in European countries.…”

Labor Welfare in Israel

“…Union membership is currently estimated to include 45% of wage and salary workers with coverage under collective agreements reaching 56% of employees. As a result of growth in support for unions not affiliated with the Histadrut, only two thirds of union members are currently affiliated with the Histadrut (Cohen, Haberfeld, Mundlak, & Saporta, 2003). A third indicator of the weakening of the corporatist system is change in the system of labor market regulation by which collective bargaining has been replaced by an increased use of the state's power to directly regulate the labor market and to intervene in the bargaining process .…”