The analysis revealed that the official measures of trade union coverage based upon the LFS were 40% lower than those based on other sources.
The problem stems from a difference south korea rcs data in the wording of the question used in the LFS compared to the other surveys. Whilst the LFS asks whether the pay and conditions of the respondents are ‘directly affected’ by agreements between employers and trade unions, other surveys simply ask whether unions and staff associations are ‘recognised’ by management for the purposes of negotiation.
The wording of the LFS question therefore not only asks respondents to consider the involvement of trade unions and staff associations in negotiations over pay and conditions, but it also implicitly asks respondents for an assessment of their effectiveness.
Within the LFS, union presence is established by asking respondents if they are a member of a union or, if not, whether they are employed at a workplace where others are. If the answer to either of those questions is yes, that respondent is regarded as being employed at a workplace where trade unions are present.
Analysis revealed that around 15% of LFS respondents fail to provide the responses necessary to derive union presence. This is perhaps not surprising.