Prior to 1975, union efforts to organize public-sector clerical worker

Hi RajatGMAT777,

Please refer the following links:
For Question 3:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/prior-to-1975-union-efforts-to-organize-public-sector-clerical-worker-103048.html#p2184762

For Question 9 :
https://gmatclub.com/forum/prior-to-1975-union-efforts-to-organize-public-sector-clerical-worker-103048-20.html#p2441937

Let me know if you still have doubts.
Thanks.

4. According to the passage, in the period prior to 1975, each of the following considerations helped determine whether a union would attempt to organize a certain group of clerical workers EXCEPT
Scope: 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.

(A) the number of clerical workers in that group --> Yes, "presence of large numbers of workers"
(B) the number of women among the clerical workers in that group ==> not mentioned specifically "women" in the above scope
(C) whether the clerical workers in that area were concentrated in one workplace or scattered over several workplaces => Yes, "concentration of small numbers"
(D) the degree to which the clerical workers in that group were interested in unionization --> Yes, "Receptivity to unionization on the workers’ part"
(E) whether all the other workers in the same jurisdiction as that group of clerical workers were unionized --> Yes, "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"

IMO: B

5. The author states that which of the following is a consequence of the women’s movement of recent years?

(A) An increase in the number of women entering the workforce → this is the cause, not the consequence.
(B) A structural change in multi-occupational public-sector unions → wrong, “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.”

(C) A more positive attitude on the part of women toward unions → “thereby producing a more positive attitude toward unions”
(D) An increase in the proportion of clerical workers that are women → not mentioned
(E) An increase in the number of women in administrative positions → not mentioned

In Q1 - the no. of Government Professionals in labour unions can be still lower if the total no. of government Professionals were lower
46*100 = 46 were represented by labour reunions - Professionals
1000*34% - 340 clerical workers are represented by labour unions.

Can you please answer where I am going wrong ?

Also, Clerical workers cannot be the answer because it is just mentioned the % increase was the highest. We dnt know the existing number before the increase.
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

It’s important to pay close attention to the wording of this particular question. Your logic would hold true if the question asked, “workers represented by unions were most likely to belong to which of the following public-sector professions in 1977?”

But that’s not what the question asks. It asks which public-sector workers were most likely to belong to unions. In other words, if we were to randomly select a single professional, manager, clerical worker, service worker, and blue-collar worker, which of those five workers would be most likely to belong to a union?

With that in mind, there’s a 46% chance that the professional would belong to a union and only a 34% chance that the clerical worker would belong to a union. So, professionals, in 1977, were more likely to belong to a union than clerical workers. So, we can eliminate (C), and (A) is correct.

I hope that helps!

Hi Experts,
VeritasKarishma ​GMATNinja
In Q2, I was confused btw c and e.
Reason for choosing C -
Flow of the passage: One of the factors is large no of workers. The strategy reasoning is given to explain why unions would often try to organize regardless of the workers’ initial receptivity "when there were large numbers involved"
So the author is explaining the strategy reasoning for a particular situation "when there were large numbers involved",
Why union prefers large no. of workers? Unions want to unionize all public workers bcz of certain benefits (bargaining table and in the legislature)
Why E is preferred over C?


In Q4 - Why E is incorrect?
(E) whether all the other workers in the same jurisdiction as that group of clerical workers were unionized -
Meaning - Similar to clerical workers who were unionized, whether other workers were unionized or not in the same jurisdiction. So this statement focus on whether other workers were unionized or not. However acc. to passage "the clerical workers were the only unorganized group in a jurisdiction" - Clerical workers were unorganized or not? So meaning-wise E presents distorted/opposite information

2. The author cites union efforts to achieve a fully unionized work force (line 13-19) [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 order to account for why

(A) politicians might try to oppose public-sector union organizing
(B) public-sector unions have recently focused on organizing women
(C) early organizing efforts often focused on areas where there were large numbers of workers
(D) union efforts with regard to public-sector clerical workers increased dramatically after 1975
(E) unions sometimes tried to organize workers regardless of the workers’ initial interest in unionization

Receptivity to unionization on the workers’ part was also a consideration, but when there were large numbers involved ... unions would often try to organize them regardless of the workers’ initial receptivity. The strategic reasoning was based, first, on the concern that politicians ...

Receptivity was a consideration but when large numbers were involved, workers' receptivity was sidelined. Why? The strategic reasoning was based, first, on the concern that ...
So the reason tells us why the workers receptivity was sidelined in case of large numbers.

So the reason is cited for why unions sometimes tried to organize workers regardless of the workers’ initial interest in unionization.
Answer (E)

Sneha2021 - It is not the reason given for why the unions focussed only when large numbers were involved and not when small numbers were involved. It is the reason why unions organised workers even though workers were not receptive to unionisation.

GMATNinja egmat VeritasKarishma MartyTargetTestPrep mikemcgarry
Could you please help explain question 4?
I wonder why choice E is incorrect.

So question 4 is one of those annoying 'except' questions:

"According to the passage, in the period prior to 1975, each of the following considerations helped determine whether a union would attempt to organize a certain group of clerical workers EXCEPT"

Take a second and specify to yourself, in your own words, what that question is asking. What do we need the answer to *accomplish?* What will the wrong answers *be?*

So the question makes clear there are going to several things that caused a union to try organize a group of clerical workers. The wrong answers are going to be those reasons. The right is NOT going to one of those listed reasons. So we need to go to the passage and find:

"What things caused unions to try to organize clerical workers before 1975?"

Try to answer yourself: where can this be found in the passage?

It will be the first paragraph. Those reasons are here:



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.

Now, on your own, eliminate answer choices that match those, and choose the one that ISN'T one of those. Specify which SENTENCE in the passage matches which ANSWER to justify eliminating it.

(A) the number of clerical workers in that group
(B) the number of women among the clerical workers in that group
(C) whether the clerical workers in that area were concentrated in one workplace or scattered over several workplaces
(D) the degree to which the clerical workers in that group were interested in unionization
(E) whether all the other workers in the same jurisdiction as that group of clerical workers were unionized


Matching colors:

(A) the number of clerical workers in that group
(B) the number of women among the clerical workers in that group
(C) whether the clerical workers in that area were concentrated in one workplace or scattered over several workplaces
(D) the degree to which the clerical workers in that group were interested in unionization
(E) whether all the other workers in the same jurisdiction as that group of clerical workers were unionized


B is not a consideration. We're told that many clerical workers were women--but the number of women is not described as something relevant to unions attempts to organize.

read the question carefully,
it says workers who are most likely to belong to unions which is same as the %of groups that belongs to unions.

In Q1, Are public-sector workers and government workers the same?

Posted from my mobile device

The answer C in Q7 doesn't make sense. Reason 3 tells us that there was no structural change in private-sector and that resulted in no increase in unionization in private-sector.

Now the question asks what happens if the reason 1 and 2 are the primary reasons for public-sector instead of reason 3? Even if reason 3 becomes the secondary reason, this reason is still valid. Unless there is structural change in private-sector, nothing will happen to it. At least, it wouldn't be "equivalent rise" because it lacks structural change.

Dear Experts,

In Q1, Are public-sector workers and government workers the same thing?

Hey,

In my account in RC I can't see options to choose A,B,C,D,E and the timer. It works fine in SC, CR and quant. Could you please look into it as it is pretty annoying?

I;ve looked at a lot of RCs and I can see the same problem

Hello Piotrek

Please check again and let me know if the issue remains.

GMATNinja egmat CrackverbalGMAT

Question 5

5. The author states that which of the following is a consequence of the women’s movement of recent years?

(B) A structural change in multi-occupational public-sector unions

Is a structural change in multi-occupational PSU not the consequence of the women's movement?

How to eliminate option B?

Thanks in advance

Question 5

In the third paragraph, the author seeks to account for the increased unionization of clerical workers since the mid-70's. They come up with the following potential explanations:

• More women have entered the workforce and plan to work until retirement.
• The women's movement produced "a more positive attitude towards unions."
• A structural change in "multi-occupational, public-sector unions themselves" (i.e. from blue-collar to white-collar) has led to increased organizing of women.

Notice that the shift in multi-occupational, public-sector unions is mentioned as an explanation for increased unionization of clerical workers, not a consequence of the women's movement. In fact, the women's movement is mentioned as yet another explanation for the increased unionization of clerical workers.

Put another way: the women's movement is never directly related to the shift in multi-occupational, public-sector unions. Rather, both of these phenomena are themselves mentioned to explain the increased unionization of clerical workers.

Since the author doesn't argue that the women's movement is causing the shift in multi-occupational, public-sector unions, we can eliminate (B).

I hope that helps!