CAP's David Madland on How Unions Double Workers' Wealth

David Madland, senior fellow and senior adviser to the American Worker Project at the Center for American Progress (CAP), joined the America's Work Force Union Podcast to discuss a new research report on the wealth effect of union membership.

The typical union household holds approximately $460,000 in wealth compared to roughly $220,000 for non-union households. Madland explained the mechanics behind that gap, the demographic groups experiencing the largest proportional gains and a new U.S. Department of Labor financial disclosure rule that he argues targets union transparency while leaving comparable corporate accountability measures.

New CAP research drawing on five years of Census Survey of Income and Program Participation data found the typical union household holds approximately $460,000 in total wealth compared to roughly $220,000 for non-union households. The wealth effect is driven by higher negotiated wages, better health and retirement benefits that reduce debt and increase savings, along with greater job stability that protects earning potential over a full career.

• The wealth gains from union membership are not evenly distributed. Workers without a college degree see roughly two and a half times more wealth from union membership than their non-union counterparts with similar education. Further, Black union households see approximately three times the wealth of non-union Black households and Hispanic union households see approximately four times the wealth of non-union Hispanic households. Madland attributes the pattern to unions equalizing access to retirement accounts, health benefits and job stability that are otherwise less available to workers outside a union setting.
• A new Department of Labor rule will require unions with more than $40 million in annual receipts to file additional financial disclosure reports beginning in July 2027. Madland said the transparency goal is legitimate in principle, but he called the rule part of a broader double standard, noting the Trump administration has simultaneously stopped enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act against corporate bribery and significantly weakened the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Division, which polices corruption among public officials.

A New Number for an Old Argument

David Madland has spent years making the case that unions deliver tangible economic benefits to workers. His latest research, produced for the Center for American Progress (CAP), supports his case. The typical union household holds approximately $460,000 in total wealth — savings, retirement accounts, home equity, minus debts. The typical non-union household holds approximately $220,000.

Madland said wealth is arguably the best single measure of how people are actually doing financially, because it captures something income alone does not: whether a family has a cushion. Can they handle a medical emergency? Survive a layoff? Retire with dignity? Help fund a child's education? Income tells you what someone earns in a given year. Wealth tells you whether years of earning have actually translated into security.

The Mechanics Behind the Gap

Madland discussed the reasons behind the wealth gap. Unions negotiate higher wages, which gives workers more room to save. Unions negotiate better health benefits, which reduces the likelihood that a medical event sends a family into debt. Unions negotiate retirement benefits that workers in non-union jobs often do not enjoy. And unions provide a measure of job stability. Union workers are less likely to be fired arbitrarily, which protects their ability to keep earning and building wealth over a full career rather than experiencing disruptive gaps.

Madland connected this directly to a common statistic about American financial precarity: the share of the population — often cited as a third or more — who could not cover a $400 emergency expense without going into debt or borrowing from family. CAP's research found union members are significantly less likely to have zero net wealth and significantly more likely to have meaningful emergency savings. Not every union member is thriving, Madland stressed, but on average, the difference is substantial.

Who Benefits Most

The research's most notable finding may be how unevenly the wealth effect is distributed — in a direction that strengthens rather than undermines the case for unions. Workers without a college degree see roughly two and a half times more wealth from union membership than comparable non-union workers, a larger proportional effect than college-educated union members experience.

The pattern is even more pronounced along racial lines. White union households have approximately one and a half times the wealth of non-union white households. Black union households see approximately three times the wealth of non-union Black households. Hispanic union households see approximately four times the wealth of non-union Hispanic households. Every demographic group benefits from union membership. The groups that face the steepest obstacles in the broader labor market — workers without a college degree, Black workers, Hispanic workers — see the largest proportional gains.

Workers in these groups are statistically less likely to have access to employer-sponsored retirement accounts, health benefits or job stability without union representation. Unions close that gap by ensuring the same negotiated benefits and protections apply to everyone in the bargaining unit, regardless of background. The result is that union membership functions as one of the most effective mechanisms for equalizing wealth in the American labor market today, Madland said.

He also referenced earlier research, roughly a decade old, that found union members and their children experience better health outcomes — a result he attributes to both superior health insurance coverage and the reduced chronic stress that comes with greater financial and job security.

Why Don't Politicians, Who Want Wealth-Building, Support Unions?

This led to a follow-up question. If elected officials genuinely want to see workers build wealth, why do so many simultaneously work against unions? Private sector union density has fallen below 6 percent, the lowest level in roughly a century, even though roughly half of all non-union workers say they would join a union if they could. The barrier is not worker demand, Madland said, but a legal and political environment that makes organizing and first-contract bargaining extraordinarily difficult.

Corporations wield significant political influence and resources, he continued. Unions, while not without political power, operate at a different scale. Politicians who depend on corporate support have favored corporate interests over worker interests for decades, Madland added, allowing corporations to effectively write the rules of labor policy.

A New DOL Rule — and a Double Standard

The conversation turned to a new Department of Labor rule requiring unions with annual receipts exceeding $40 million to file enhanced financial disclosure reports beginning in July 2027. Madland acknowledged that financial transparency is a legitimate goal — members and the public deserve to know how union dues are spent. His objection is not to transparency, but to its selective application.

While the Department of Labor strengthens disclosure requirements for large unions, Madland said the Trump administration has simultaneously stopped enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, effectively permitting corporate bribery without consequence, and significantly weakened the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Division, which is responsible for policing corruption among public officials. He also noted that the National Labor Relations Board operated without a quorum for roughly a year, rendering it largely nonfunctional during that period, which undermines the agency responsible for preventing employer union-busting.

Madland connected this to other recent AWF guests from the Economic Policy Institute and LaborLab, which found that U.S. employers spend approximately $1.7 billion annually on union-avoidance consultants. He noted that corporate disclosure requirements around hiring anti-union consultants exist on paper, but are weakly enforced. Companies routinely file required disclosures years late or not at all. The problem lies in the disparity between the two sides, Madland concluded. Scrutiny for unions has been enhanced, but diminished for the corporations and officials whose conduct the same anti-corruption framework was designed to police.

More information on the Center for American Progress's research is available at americanprogress.org.

Go Behind the Scenes of the Labor Movement

Every victory at the bargaining table starts with workers standing together. From the shop floor to the statehouse, hear how activists are fighting for better wages, safer conditions and a stronger future. Subscribe to the America's Work Force Union Podcast to get the latest interviews with the leaders and organizers building worker power across America.