Figure C
Colorado resembles a RTW state: Union density rates, Colorado compared to RTW and non-RTW states, 1983-2024
| Year | Non-RTW | RTW | Colorado |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1983 | 28.4% | 16.4% | 16.0% |
| 1984 | 26.8% | 14.8% | 14.6% |
| 1985 | 25.6% | 13.7% | 13.7% |
| 1986 | 24.8% | 13.4% | 14.8% |
| 1987 | 24.2% | 12.5% | 13.8% |
| 1988 | 23.6% | 12.9% | 12.4% |
| 1989 | 23.2% | 12.5% | 11.3% |
| 1990 | 22.9% | 12.0% | 12.0% |
| 1991 | 22.8% | 12.1% | 11.7% |
| 1992 | 22.3% | 11.9% | 11.9% |
| 1993 | 22.2% | 11.9% | 11.4% |
| 1994 | 22.1% | 11.7% | 13.0% |
| 1995 | 21.6% | 10.7% | 12.0% |
| 1996 | 20.9% | 10.6% | 10.8% |
| 1997 | 20.3% | 10.0% | 11.1% |
| 1998 | 19.9% | 9.9% | 10.0% |
| 1999 | 19.9% | 9.8% | 10.4% |
| 2000 | 19.2% | 9.5% | 10.1% |
| 2001 | 19.3% | 9.3% | 10.6% |
| 2002 | 19.3% | 8.9% | 9.0% |
| 2003 | 19.0% | 8.7% | 9.0% |
| 2004 | 18.5% | 8.4% | 9.3% |
| 2005 | 18.5% | 8.1% | 9.4% |
| 2006 | 17.8% | 7.9% | 8.6% |
| 2007 | 18.0% | 7.9% | 9.2% |
| 2008 | 18.7% | 8.0% | 9.2% |
| 2009 | 18.6% | 7.9% | 8.3% |
| 2010 | 17.8% | 7.9% | 8.0% |
| 2011 | 17.7% | 7.7% | 9.3% |
| 2012 | 17.0% | 7.5% | 8.8% |
| 2013 | 16.8% | 7.5% | 9.2% |
| 2014 | 16.7% | 7.3% | 10.7% |
| 2015 | 16.7% | 7.4% | 9.3% |
| 2016 | 16.4% | 6.9% | 10.8% |
| 2017 | 16.6% | 6.7% | 10.9% |
| 2018 | 16.1% | 6.8% | 12.0% |
| 2019 | 16.0% | 6.7% | 9.9% |
| 2020 | 16.7% | 7.1% | 8.2% |
| 2021 | 16.6% | 6.4% | 7.5% |
| 2022 | 16.1% | 6.3% | 7.5% |
| 2023 | 15.7% | 6.5% | 8.6% |
| 2024 | 15.8% | 6.2% | 8.0% |
Note: Lines are weighted averages of two groups of states: those without right-to-work laws (excluding Colorado) and those with right-to-work laws. Right-to-work status determined as of January 2025. Union density is defined as the share of workers in the state who are represented by a union, including union members and other workers who are covered by a union contract, based on the variable “union” from EPI extracts of CPS-ORG microdata. Shaded areas represent recessions.
Source: EPI analysis of Economic Policy Institute. 2024. Current Population Survey Extracts, Version 1.0.60, https://microdata.epi.org.
This chart appears in:
- Michigan RTW 2023
- Why ‘right-to-work’ was always wrong for Michigan: Restoring workers’ rights is key to reversing growing income inequality in Michigan
- Data show anti-union ‘right-to-work’ laws damage state economies: As Michigan’s repeal takes effect, New Hampshire should continue to reject ‘right-to-work’ legislation
- It’s time for Colorado to remove barriers to unionization: Outdated “second election” rule is rooted in anti-worker, white supremacist history