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

The third paragraph attempts to answer the question, "What accounts for this upsurge in unionization among clerical workers?":

1) the increase in the number of women in the work force
2) the impact of the women’s movement
3) the structural change in the multi-occupational public-sector unions themselves

The key to question 7 lies in this portion: "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." In other words, because unionization did not increase among private-sector clerical workers, we can infer that the third reason was the primary cause. This implies that if unionization HAD increased among private-sector clerical workers, then the third reason would probably not have been the PRIMARY cause. So if reasons 1 and 2 were the main causes, we would expect "an equivalent rise in unionization of private-sector clerical workers." (C) is the best answer.



Consider the preceding sentence: "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." Why did the multi-occupational unions want to organize workers regardless of how receptive the workers were to unionization? In other words, why would the unions try to convince workers to join unions even if the workers weren't very interested in joining?

The highlighted sentence answers that very question. The unions feared that politicians and administrators might "play off" unionized against non-unionized workers (i.e. the politicians and administrators would rather let the two groups fight against each other and take advantage of their fighting rather than see the two groups consolidate into a single power). This concern would obviously go away if all workers were unionized, explaining why unions would want to unionize workers who weren't even receptive to the idea of unionization.

Furthermore, a fully unionized public work force meant more power at the bargaining table and in the legislature (i.e. influencing laws affecting workers). Again, this explains why unions would want to unionize all public workers.

So the highlighted portion seeks to explain why "unions sometimes tried to organize workers regardless of the workers’ initial interest in unionization", and choice (E) is the best answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________

These passages are from the old OGs.
I found long passages in some of the portals. These have about 450+ words. When you practise on these passages you have a false idea of the time taken for each question. For example: When I do all the 9 questions and find out the time taken, I find I have done quite well because the total time will be divided by 9 . However, the last few questions will be easier, because I would have got a good grasp of the passage by the 5th question.
However, I need to actually see how long it takes for thE first 4 questions and also the accuracy for the first 4 questions.

I was able to solve the 9 questions in these long passages and found my time per question was only 73 seconds with 7out of 9 questions correct.
But, I was taking 6 minutes for the first 4 questions and the 2 incorrect was always in the first 4. So my accuracy is only 50% .

I don't know how many of you actually understood what I am trying to tell. I suggest you read the passage and answer only the first 4 questions and see your accuracy and time taken. This would help you improve.
In the actual GMAT you get 4 passages of 250 250 250 350 words usually
with 3 3 3 4 questions respectively.

These are my 2 cents...
you may ignore if not useful..

Took 20 minutes, not too bad for a passage like this, about 1.5 minutes per question, and 3 minutes to read the passage

1 a, straightforward


2 e

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. The author states 2 reasons the efforts to unionize workers regardless of their initial interest.

3 C

Not sure why.


4 d

They organized them regardless of the worker's interest and desire

5 c

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.


6 d

analyzed and explain an increase in unionization among a certain category of workers. The message is largely concerned with why increase has taken place.

7 b

Doubtfull

8 d
(D) the union included workers from several jurisdictions. They did not try to organize small numbers of workers from an isolated locality, I assumed the jurisdiction was an issue.

9 e
First, more women have entered the work force in the past few years, and more of them plan to remain working until retirement age.
Straight from the passage.

unable to understand why is the answer A for this.

According to the passage, the public-sector workers who were most likely to belong to unions in 1977 were
(A) professionals
(B) managers
(C) clerical workers
(D) service workers
(E) blue-collar workers

"In 1977, 34 percent of government clerical
(25) 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,"


is similar to 34% of A, 46% of B,....

So, it can not be deduced whether 34% of A is > or < than 46% of B, since we do not know the sizes of A or B.

Any thoughts?

Hi,
Please help me in finding the answer for the followings:

7. The author implies that if the increase in the number of women in the work force and the impact of the women’s movement were the main causes of the rise in unionization of public-sector clerical workers, then
(A) more women would hold administrative positions in unions
(B) more women who hold political offices would have positive attitudes toward labor unions
(C) there would be an equivalent rise in unionization of private-sector clerical workers
(D) unions would have shown more interest than they have in organizing women
(E) the increase in the number of unionized public-sector clerical workers would have been greater than it has been

It is C. In the last paragraph, if you observe the sentence where the author says that a similar prediction was expected for private sector clerical workers but stated a reason for not happening so. It implies that "the author" implies 'C'.

I understood why C is viable, but i'm confused between options A and D

A seems correct as the passage says that women's number has increased in white collar jobs.

In D, if the movement etc is useful then obviously the unions would have shown more interest in organizing women (1st line of 1st para and last line of last paragraph)

Please explain why these are incorrect.

Thanks!

Can somebody explain the following questions:
2. The author cites union efforts to achieve a fully unionized work force (line 13-19) 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
3. The author’s claim that, since the mid-1970’s, a new strategy has emerged in the unionization of public-sector clerical workers (line 23) would be strengthened if the author
(A) described more fully the attitudes of clerical workers toward labor unions
(B) compared the organizing strategies employed by private-sector unions with those of public-sector unions
(C) explained why politicians and administrators sometimes oppose unionization of clerical workers
(D) indicated that the number of unionized public-sector clerical workers was increasing even before the mid-1970’s
(E) showed that the factors that favored unionization drives among these workers prior to 1975 have decreased in importance

karan1337,

Question #7 asks what would happen if "the increase in the number of women in the work force and the impact of the women’s movement WERE THE MAIN CAUSES of the rise in unionization of public-sector clerical workers"

Well, the last paragraph is where the author talks about the reasons for the rise in unionization. Those reasons are "more women in the work force", "success in legitimizing women political activisim", etc...

Now if there is
1) an increase in # of women in the work force
2) impact of women's movement..

Then what?

Well that last paragraph goes on to say:
"the absence of any comparable increase in unionization among private-sector clerical workers" -- that means the fact that there was NO increase in unionization in the private sector whereas there WAS an increase in unionization in the PUBLIC sector is because...what?

It's because of some "structural" change. The PUBLIC sector had this structural change but the PRIVATE sector did not.

What kind of "structural" change? A structural change in the multi-occupational public-sector unions themselves. What does that mean? Multi-occupational?

Well the following sentences talks about the occupational distribution between white collar and blue collar jobs. Women mostly are in white collared jobs. Over the past 20 years, the distribution has moved towards white collared jobs, subsequently there has been more females in the job market. More females means we have the increase in female workers we just talked about. How did that come about? Through a structural change toward more white-collared jobs from blue-collared jobs. That structural shift in distribution from blue-collared jobs to white-collared jobs explains why women in labor force increased and why unionization efforts increased in the public sector.

Question #7 is an inference question. The "catalyst" for a rise in public-sector unionization is a structural shift that meant more women in the labor force percentage-wise. The "absence" of unionization in the private sector means the private sector must LACK this structural shift. The private sector must LACK an increase in women labor force participation.

But if the private sector DID have that structural "catalyst" and did have higher women labor force participation, this would result in higher unionization.

Essentially, the passage used "critical reasoning" (specifically "negation") to reason that the structural change was a key factor in affecting unionization.

Critical Reasoning Negation Concept
Original: Structural shift --> Unionization (public)
Negation: No structural shift --> No Unionization (private)

If the private sector DID have a structural shift, we would see the outcome of "unionization".

The problem with (A)
(A) more women would hold administrative positions in unions
(A) is too specific. We know that more women are involved under the hypothetical situation brought up in #7. If there is a higher # of women in the work force, then....what?
This is an inference question so whatever that inferred statement is -- among the answer choices -- it must be supported by information in the passage. Where in the passage does it support the fact that women would hold, specifically, more ADMINISTRATIVE positions? No such information in the passage supports this specific claim.

The problem with (D)
(D) unions would have shown more interest than they have in organizing women
Where in the passage does it support the claim that unions would show MORE interest? Heck, we don't even have anywhere in the passage that talks about unions showing interest in organizing women...let alone showing that the interest level would increase. Sure, women are becoming part of these unions and there's more of them, but the passage does not talk about the perspective of the union as a whole and for that entire union, whether or not they would INCREASE their interest in organizing women. Unions do not organize women. Women are the ones that join these unions and participate in them.

can anybody elaborate on Q7,, i think the answer might be E but as no OA given not sure whether the answer is correct.

My reasoning is that in the first para the author says the no to 1975 the no. of unionised clerical workers were less and in the para concerning the women the unionisation has increased(wrt no. of clerical workers) thereby increasing the no. of Public sector workers.

this line--> 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 suggest that he is talking only about the increase in "public sector clerical workers".

please let me know if the answer and reason is something else.

1. According to the passage, the public-sector workers who were most likely to belong to unions in 1977 were:
"compared with 46 percent of government professionals"

2.The author cites union efforts to achieve a fully unionized work force (line 13-19) in order to account for why:
"a fully unionized public work force meant power, no interest in being organized, unions more often than not ignored them"

3. The author’s claim that, since the mid-1970’s, a new strategy has emerged in the unionization of public-sector clerical workers (line 23) would be strengthened if the author:
(E) showed that the factors that favored unionization drives among these workers prior to 1975 have decreased in importance.
" Prior 1975, unions were concerned about power, while the mid-1975 clerical workers increased significantly in unions." Choice E said that the reasons clerical workers attended to unions are different from prior 1975, the purposes of union are different as well, It strengthens the new strategy."

4. Can some one explain and show me where the answer placed in the passage ?

5.The author states that which of the following is a consequence of the women’s movement of recent years?
(C) A more positive attitude on the part of women toward unions
"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."

6. The main concern of the passage is to
(A) advocate particular strategies " Not advocate any strategies"
(B) explain differences in the unionized proportions " Paragraph 3"
(C) evaluate the effectiveness of certain kinds of labor unions " Paragraph 3"
(D) analyzed and explain an increase in unionization among a certain category of workers. ( cover all 3 passages)
(E) describe and distinguish strategies appropriate to organizing different categories of workers ( Not distinguish strategies)

[I understood why C is viable, but i'm confused between options A and D

A seems correct as the passage says that women's number has increased in white collar jobs.

In D, if the movement etc is useful then obviously the unions would have shown more interest in organizing women (1st line of 1st para and last line of last paragraph)

Please explain why these are incorrect.

Thanks!]

"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" - A seems more apt, as the paragraph concedes that the structural change has happened in the public sector and distinguishes it from the private sector. Since there are increasing number of women in the work force who are interested in union, and there is increasing focus on women's issues - likely that women hold more administrative positions

Here the trap answer is just C. As you can notice from my excerpt of the passage, clerical worker had an increase after 1977; which mean that some other category was biggest. 46 % were professionals. A is the answer.



From red and bold part of the excerpt you infer that for unions were unconvenient in localities to organize the workers in their different categories. A is the answer. Be careful when you read in the stimulus of the question "the author suggest" which means in somehow "what do you infer from the author words"........

Hope this helps
_________________

Hi..dude can you explain the questions 3,7, and 8? I don't know why this passage is causing so many problems for me. I've never seen questions that demand this deep and detailed thinking.
Also, please share how you read passages. DM me

GMATNinja , GMATNinjaTwo

Please explain why the answer for Q3 is E.

I was stuck between A & E. Despite the first passage saying workers before 1970 were not enthusiastic about unions picked A. But now I am trying to understand how to actually arrive at option E.

Hi PearlRay,

8. The author suggests that it would be disadvantageous to a union if

(A) many workers in the locality were not unionized - Correct

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



Hi lazybee,

In the first paragraph, two major factors(presence of large numbers of workers and the concentration of small numbers in one or two locations) and one minor factor(Receptivity to unionization on the workers’ part) are mentioned as factors favoring unionization. The beginning of the second paragraph mentions "since the mid-1970’s, a different strategy has emerged" and this would be strengthened if the factors in pre-1975 era are no longer as important.
_________________

Great explanation as usual, Skywalker18!

For whatever it's worth, the 10th Edition OG only has 6 questions for this passage, so I wouldn't worry too much about #7-9.
_________________

Yes. More the number of questions, better the accuracy and lesser average time presents a rosy picture which in the actual test might not turn out that rosy.
Now on, I shall evaluate time on first 4 questions only.

9. The author implies that, in comparison with working women today, women working in the years prior to the mid-1970’s showed a greater tendency to

(A) prefer smaller workplaces
(B) express a positive attitude toward labor unions
(C) maximize job security and economic benefits
(D) side with administrators in labor disputes
(E) quit working prior of retirement age

E is stated as one of the reasons for unions in passage 3 but how was it compared with women working in the years prior to the mid-1970’s tendency

Thanks a zillion in advance@GMATNinja@Skywalker18