Prior to 1975, union efforts to organize public-sector clerical workers, most of whom are women, were somewhat limited. The factors...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Prior to 1975, union efforts to organize public-sector clerical workers, most of whom are women, were somewhat limited. The factors favoring unionization drives seem to have been either the presence of large numbers of workers, as in New York City, to make it worth the effort, or the concentration of small numbers in one or two locations, such as a hospital, to make it relatively easy. Receptivity to unionization on the workers' part was also a consideration, but when there were large numbers involved or the clerical workers were the only unorganized group in a jurisdiction, the multi-occupational unions would often try to organize them regardless of the workers' initial receptivity. The strategic reasoning was based, first, on the concern that politicians and administrators might play off unionized against non-unionized workers, and, second, on the conviction that a fully unionized public work force meant power, both at the bargaining table and in the legislature. In localities where clerical workers were few in number, were scattered in several workplaces, and expressed no interest in being organized, unions more often than not ignored them in the pre-1975 period.
But since the mid-1970's, a different strategy has emerged. In 1977, 34 percent of government clerical workers were represented by a labor organization, compared with 46 percent of government professionals, 44 percent of government blue-collar workers, and 41 percent of government service workers. Since then, however, the biggest increases in public-sector unionization have been among clerical workers. Between 1977 and 1980, the number of unionized government workers in blue-collar and service occupations increased only about 1.5 percent, while in the white-collar occupations the increase was 20 percent and among clerical workers in particular, the increase was 22 percent.
What accounts for this upsurge in unionization among clerical workers? First, more women have entered the work force in the past few years, and more of them plan to remain working until retirement age. Consequently, they are probably more concerned than their predecessors were about job security and economic benefits. Also, the women's movement has succeeded in legitimizing the economic and political activism of women on their own behalf, thereby producing a more positive attitude toward unions. The absence of any comparable increase in unionization among private-sector clerical workers, however, identifies the primary catalyst—the structural change in the multi-occupational public-sector unions themselves. Over the past twenty years, the occupational distribution in these unions has been steadily shifting from predominantly blue-collar to predominantly white-collar. Because there are far more women in white-collar jobs, an increase in the proportion of female members has accompanied the occupational shift and has altered union policy-making in favor of organizing women and addressing women's issues.
According to the passage, the public-sector workers who were most likely to belong to unions in 1977 were
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Prior to 1975, union efforts to organize public-sector clerical workers, most of whom are women, were somewhat limited. | What it says: Before 1975, unions didn't try very hard to organize government office workers (mostly women). What it does: Sets up the time period and main topic - introduces a historical baseline. Source/Type: Author's factual claim about historical trend. Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous information to connect to. Visualization: Timeline with "Before 1975" showing low union activity among government clerical workers. Reading Strategy Insight: This is a classic RC opening - establishes the "before" scenario that will be contrasted with an "after." What We Know So Far: Pre-1975 unionization of public clerical workers was limited What We Don't Know Yet: Why it was limited, what changed after 1975 |
| The factors favoring unionization drives seem to have been either the presence of large numbers of workers, as in New York City, to make it worth the effort, or the concentration of small numbers in one or two locations, such as a hospital, to make it relatively easy. | What it says: Unions would try to organize clerical workers in two situations: lots of workers in one city OR few workers all in the same building. What it does: Explains the logic behind the "limited efforts" from sentence 1. Source/Type: Author's analysis of union strategy patterns. Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly explains WHY efforts were "somewhat limited" - unions were selective about when to try. Visualization: Two scenarios: NYC with 5,000 clerical workers vs. Small town hospital with 50 clerical workers in one building. Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here! The author is helping by explaining the previous sentence, not adding complexity. |
| Receptivity to unionization on the workers' part was also a consideration, but when there were large numbers involved or the clerical workers were the only unorganized group in a jurisdiction, the multi-occupational unions would often try to organize them regardless of the workers' initial receptivity. | What it says: Whether workers wanted unions mattered, but unions would sometimes ignore worker preferences if the numbers were big enough or if everyone else was already unionized. What it does: Adds a third factor (worker interest) but shows it could be overridden. Source/Type: Author's analysis of union decision-making. Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 2's explanation by adding another factor that influenced union organizing decisions. Visualization: Decision tree: Large numbers OR strategic necessity = organize anyway, even if workers initially uninterested. Reading Strategy Insight: This continues explaining the same concept - union strategy - just adding one more consideration. |
| The strategic reasoning was based, first, on the concern that politicians and administrators might play off unionized against non-unionized workers, and, second, on the conviction that a fully unionized public work force meant power, both at the bargaining table and in the legislature. | What it says: Unions had two reasons for this strategy: prevent divide-and-conquer tactics, and create maximum bargaining power. What it does: Explains the WHY behind the union behavior described in sentence 3. Source/Type: Author's explanation of union strategic thinking. Connection to Previous Sentences: This restates and clarifies the reasoning hinted at in sentence 3 - the author is helping us understand union motivations. Visualization: Two-part strategy: (1) Prevent management from saying "Look, they don't need unions" (2) Create unified 100% union workforce for maximum leverage. Reading Strategy Insight: This is elaboration, not new complexity - we're still learning about pre-1975 union strategy. |
| In localities where clerical workers were few in number, were scattered in several workplaces, and expressed no interest in being organized, unions more often than not ignored them in the pre-1975 period. | What it says: When there were few clerical workers spread across many locations who didn't want unions, unions usually ignored them. What it does: Describes the flip side - when unions DIDN'T try to organize. Source/Type: Author's factual claim about union behavior. Connection to Previous Sentences: This is a perfect restatement! It's the opposite of sentence 2's conditions - few workers, scattered locations, uninterested = no union effort. Visualization: Small town with 5 clerical workers each in 8 different government offices, all saying "We don't want unions" = unions skip this town. Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident - this completes the picture of pre-1975 strategy by showing both sides of the same decision-making process. What We Know So Far: Complete picture of pre-1975 union strategy for organizing clerical workers What We Don't Know Yet: What changed after 1975 |
| But since the mid-1970's, a different strategy has emerged. | What it says: Starting around 1975, unions changed their approach. What it does: Signals the major transition in the passage - from "before" to "after." Source/Type: Author's transitional claim. Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts with everything we've learned so far - the word "But" signals we're moving from the old strategy to the new one. Visualization: Timeline showing clear break at 1975 - old strategy vs. new strategy. Reading Strategy Insight: Classic RC transition - we've finished learning about the "before" and now we'll learn about the "after." |
| In 1977, 34 percent of government clerical workers were represented by a labor organization, compared with 46 percent of government professionals, 44 percent of government blue-collar workers, and 41 percent of government service workers. | What it says: In 1977, clerical workers had the lowest unionization rate among all government worker types. What it does: Provides baseline data showing clerical workers still lagged behind other groups. Source/Type: Statistical data/facts. Connection to Previous Sentences: This gives us the starting point for measuring the "different strategy" mentioned in sentence 6. Visualization: Bar chart showing 1977 unionization rates: Professionals 46%, Blue-collar 44%, Service 41%, Clerical 34%. Reading Strategy Insight: This establishes the "before" numbers so we can measure the change that's coming. |
| Since then, however, the biggest increases in public-sector unionization have been among clerical workers. | What it says: After 1977, clerical workers had the largest growth in union membership. What it does: Reveals the key change - clerical workers went from last place to fastest growing. Source/Type: Author's factual claim about trends. Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts dramatically with sentence 7 - clerical workers went from lowest to fastest growing. Visualization: Same bar chart but with arrows showing biggest upward growth on the clerical worker bar. Reading Strategy Insight: This is the key finding - clerical workers experienced a major turnaround. |
| Between 1977 and 1980, the number of unionized government workers in blue-collar and service occupations increased only about 1.5 percent, while in the white-collar occupations the increase was 20 percent and among clerical workers in particular, the increase was 22 percent. | What it says: From 1977-1980: Blue-collar and service workers grew 1.5%, white-collar grew 20%, clerical workers grew 22%. What it does: Provides specific numbers proving the claim in sentence 8. Source/Type: Statistical evidence. Connection to Previous Sentences: This gives us the concrete proof of sentence 8's claim - clerical workers really did have the biggest increases. Visualization: Growth rates 1977-1980: Blue-collar/Service +1.5%, White-collar +20%, Clerical +22%. Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved - this is just evidence supporting what we already learned, not new complexity. |
| What accounts for this upsurge in unionization among clerical workers? | What it says: Why did clerical worker unionization increase so much? What it does: Poses the analytical question the rest of the passage will answer. Source/Type: Author's rhetorical question. Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly asks about the phenomenon established in sentences 8-9. Visualization: Question mark over the dramatic growth in clerical unionization. Reading Strategy Insight: Classic RC structure - establish the phenomenon, then ask why it happened. We know what's coming next: explanations. What We Know So Far: Clerical unionization was low pre-1975, changed strategies mid-1970s, and grew dramatically 1977-1980 What We Don't Know Yet: The reasons for this dramatic change |
| First, more women have entered the work force in the past few years, and more of them plan to remain working until retirement age. | What it says: More women are working and planning long-term careers. What it does: Provides the first explanation for increased clerical unionization. Source/Type: Author's causal analysis. Connection to Previous Sentences: This begins answering the question posed in sentence 10. Visualization: Chart showing increasing women's workforce participation and career commitment over time. Reading Strategy Insight: We're now in the "explanation" section - the author will give us reasons for the trend we've already established. |
| Consequently, they are probably more concerned than their predecessors were about job security and economic benefits. | What it says: Because women plan longer careers, they care more about job protection and benefits than previous generations of women workers. What it does: Connects the workforce change to union-relevant concerns. Source/Type: Author's logical inference. Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains HOW sentence 11's trend leads to more unionization - longer careers = more interest in union benefits. Visualization: Timeline comparing women's career concerns: Past (short-term focus) vs. Present (long-term focus on security/benefits). Reading Strategy Insight: This completes the logical chain from sentence 11 - not new complexity, just filling in the reasoning. |
| Also, the women's movement has succeeded in legitimizing the economic and political activism of women on their own behalf, thereby producing a more positive attitude toward unions. | What it says: The women's movement made it socially acceptable for women to fight for economic and political rights, making unions more appealing. What it does: Provides a second explanation for increased female/clerical unionization. Source/Type: Author's causal analysis. Connection to Previous Sentences: This adds to the explanation started in sentences 11-12, giving a second reason for increased union interest among women. Visualization: Before and after: Women's movement changes attitudes from "unions aren't for us" to "unions help us fight for our rights." Reading Strategy Insight: We're still in explanation mode - this is reason #2 for the trend we established earlier. |
| The absence of any comparable increase in unionization among private-sector clerical workers, however, identifies the primary catalyst—the structural change in the multi-occupational public-sector unions themselves. | What it says: Since private-sector clerical workers didn't see similar increases, the main cause must be changes within public-sector unions themselves. What it does: Uses comparison to identify what the author sees as the most important explanation. Source/Type: Author's analytical conclusion. Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts with sentences 11-13 - those factors would affect ALL women workers, but only public-sector saw the increase. Visualization: Comparison chart: Public-sector clerical unionization UP sharply vs. Private-sector clerical unionization NO change. Reading Strategy Insight: This is sophisticated reasoning - using what didn't happen to identify the real cause of what did happen. |
| Over the past twenty years, the occupational distribution in these unions has been steadily shifting from predominantly blue-collar to predominantly white-collar. | What it says: Public-sector unions changed from mostly blue-collar members to mostly white-collar members over 20 years. What it does: Describes the specific structural change mentioned in sentence 14. Source/Type: Author's factual claim about union composition. Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains what "structural change" means from sentence 14 - the membership composition shifted. Visualization: Pie charts showing union membership: 20 years ago (mostly blue-collar) vs. now (mostly white-collar). Reading Strategy Insight: This clarifies the previous sentence - not adding complexity, just defining terms. |
| Because there are far more women in white-collar jobs, an increase in the proportion of female members has accompanied the occupational shift and has altered union policy-making in favor of organizing women and addressing women's issues. | What it says: Since white-collar jobs have more women, unions now have more female members, which changed union priorities to focus more on women and women's concerns. What it does: Completes the causal chain from structural change to increased focus on organizing women. Source/Type: Author's final causal analysis. Connection to Previous Sentences: This completes the explanation started in sentences 14-15: blue-collar to white-collar shift → more women members → unions prioritize women's organizing. Visualization: Flow chart: More white-collar members → More women members → Union priorities shift to women's issues → More effort to organize clerical workers. Reading Strategy Insight: This ties everything together - we now understand the complete cause-and-effect chain explaining the trend established at the beginning. What We Know Now: Complete explanation for why clerical unionization increased dramatically after 1975 - primarily due to internal union changes that made women's concerns a priority. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain why unionization among public-sector clerical workers increased dramatically after 1975, when it had been limited before that time.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their explanation by contrasting two time periods and then analyzing the causes of change:
- First, the author describes how unions approached organizing clerical workers before 1975, showing that efforts were limited and strategic - unions only tried when there were large numbers of workers or when workers were concentrated in one location.
- Next, the author presents data showing that after the mid-1970s, clerical workers went from having the lowest unionization rates to experiencing the fastest growth in union membership among all government worker types.
- Then, the author considers several possible explanations for this change, including more women entering the workforce with long-term career plans and the women's movement making unions more socially acceptable.
- Finally, the author argues that the primary cause was internal changes within public-sector unions themselves - as union membership shifted from mostly blue-collar to mostly white-collar workers, unions gained more female members and changed their priorities to focus on organizing women and addressing women's issues.
Main Point:
The dramatic increase in unionization among public-sector clerical workers after 1975 was primarily caused by changes within the unions themselves - as unions gained more white-collar and female members, they shifted their priorities to actively organize women workers, rather than just external factors like women's changing work patterns.
3. Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify which type of public-sector worker had the highest unionization rate in 1977. This is a straightforward factual question that requires us to locate and compare specific statistics from the passage.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
Our passage analysis identified that sentence 7 provides the exact data we need: "In 1977, 34 percent of government clerical workers were represented by a labor organization, compared with 46 percent of government professionals, 44 percent of government blue-collar workers, and 41 percent of government service workers."
This sentence appears in the second paragraph as part of establishing the baseline data before discussing the dramatic changes that occurred after 1977. The author uses this 1977 snapshot to show the starting point for measuring the subsequent growth in clerical worker unionization.
Prethinking:
Looking at the 1977 unionization rates:
• Professionals: 46%
• Blue-collar workers: 44%
• Service workers: 41%
• Clerical workers: 34%
Professionals had the highest unionization rate at 46%, making them the most likely to belong to unions in 1977. This data point serves the author's larger argument by showing that clerical workers started from the lowest position but later experienced the most dramatic growth.
Why It's Right:
- The passage explicitly states that in 1977, "46 percent of government professionals" were represented by labor organizations
- This 46% rate is the highest among all the worker categories mentioned
- The question asks specifically about 1977, and professionals had the clear numerical advantage at that time
Key Evidence: "In 1977, 34 percent of government clerical workers were represented by a labor organization, compared with 46 percent of government professionals, 44 percent of government blue-collar workers, and 41 percent of government service workers."
Why It's Wrong:
- Managers are not mentioned anywhere in the passage as a category of public-sector workers
- The passage only discusses four specific categories: professionals, clerical workers, blue-collar workers, and service workers
- No statistical data is provided for managers' unionization rates
Why It's Wrong:
- Clerical workers had the lowest unionization rate in 1977 at only 34%
- While clerical workers experienced rapid growth after 1977, the question asks specifically about 1977 itself
- The passage emphasizes that 1977 represents the starting point before clerical workers' dramatic increases
Why It's Wrong:
- Service workers had 41% unionization in 1977, which ranks third among the four categories
- This rate was higher than clerical workers (34%) but lower than both professionals (46%) and blue-collar workers (44%)
- Service workers experienced minimal growth after 1977, increasing only 1.5% through 1980
Why It's Wrong:
- Blue-collar workers had 44% unionization in 1977, ranking second among all categories
- While this is higher than service workers (41%) and clerical workers (34%), it's still below professionals (46%)
- Like service workers, blue-collar workers showed minimal growth after 1977