Week 14 — Workers, Not Everyone: Reading the Union Membership Figures

Assignment 13 of the term — read the Bureau of Labor Statistics' union figures for 1983 and 2025, work out what they say, and explain to someone outside sociology why a rate of workers is not a share of everyone.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based report. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. In Week 2 you learned to read any statistic four ways and to keep percentage points separate from percent, and in Week 1 you learned to compare by rate rather than count; this week you use those habits on four decades of union membership, and you add the line between a rate of workers and a share of everyone. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Sociology in Action Workshop practice the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together.

The task

You will use these figures, all from this week's chapter:

• The Bureau of Labor Statistics' Union Members release: 10.0% of wage and salary workers were union members in 2025, which was 14.7 million people. In 1983, the first year with comparable data, the rate was 20.1%, and there were 17.7 million members. The rate is a share of wage and salary workers, not of all people.
• The same release: in 2025 the public-sector union membership rate was 32.9% and the private-sector rate was 5.9%.

Work these four problems, showing your arithmetic:

1. Union members were 20.1% of U.S. wage and salary workers in 1983 and 10.0% in 2025. By how many percentage points did the rate fall?
2. There were 17.7 million union members in 1983 and 14.7 million in 2025. By how many million did the count of members fall?
3. In 2025, 14.7 million union members were 10.0% of U.S. wage and salary workers. About how many million wage and salary workers were there in 2025?
4. In 2025 the public-sector union membership rate was 32.9% and the private-sector rate was 5.9%. How many percentage points apart were the two rates?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation of what that value shows and one limit of it. For problem 1, say what the rate counts and whom it describes, and explain why the 10.0% is not a share of all people. For problem 2, explain why the count fell by much less than the rate did, and say whether the figures show a correlation, a cause, or neither. For problem 3, say who the wage and salary workers are and name two groups of people who sit outside that base, including where an independent contractor fits. For problem 4, explain what the gap between the two sector rates shows that the overall 10.0% hides, and say what the figures cannot tell you about why the rates differ.

Explain it to a non-expert

Your neighbor drives a city bus and belongs to a union. She reads a headline: "Unions are fading: only one worker in ten belongs." She asks whether that means her union is unusual and whether unions are disappearing. Write a 3–5 sentence message to your neighbor that explains in everyday words what the one-in-ten figure counts and what it does not, mentions the public-sector and private-sector rates and where her own job fits, says that the figures describe a fall without explaining it, and names one limit of the figures. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one accurate message can be defensible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a friend who hears that only 15% of the homes in an illustrative town still have a landline phone and asks whether the town's phone company is about to close. Model answer: "Not necessarily. The 15% is a share of homes that kept a landline, not a count of the company's customers, so it says nothing about how many people buy mobile or internet service from the same company. It describes how many homes kept the old service, not why the others dropped it. The limit is that one share cannot show you the whole business."

Use that pattern for your message to your neighbor, with your own explanation and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief interpretations, and your message to your neighbor before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show calculations when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one calculation or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the report for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about the Bureau of Labor Statistics' 1983 and 2025 union membership figures, including a rate of wage and salary workers versus a share of all people, a count versus a rate, percentage points versus percent, the public and private sectors, and correlation versus cause. Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The data: The Bureau of Labor Statistics' Union Members release: 10.0% of wage and salary workers were union members in 2025, which was 14.7 million people; in 1983, the first year with comparable data, the rate was 20.1% and there were 17.7 million members; the rate is a share of wage and salary workers, not of all people. In 2025 the public-sector union membership rate was 32.9% and the private-sector rate was 5.9%.
PROBLEM P1: Union members were 20.1% of U.S. wage and salary workers in 1983 and 10.0% in 2025. By how many percentage points did the rate fall?
PROBLEM P2: There were 17.7 million union members in 1983 and 14.7 million in 2025. By how many million did the count of members fall?
PROBLEM P3: In 2025, 14.7 million union members were 10.0% of U.S. wage and salary workers. About how many million wage and salary workers were there in 2025?
PROBLEM P4: In 2025 the public-sector union membership rate was 32.9% and the private-sector rate was 5.9%. How many percentage points apart were the two rates?
After the four results, I must briefly interpret each one: what that value shows and one limit of it; for P1, what the rate counts, whom it describes, and why the 10.0% is not a share of all people; for P2, why the count fell by much less than the rate did, and whether the figures show a correlation, a cause, or neither; for P3, who the wage and salary workers are and two groups of people outside that base, including where an independent contractor fits; for P4, what the gap between the two sector rates shows that the overall 10.0% hides, and what the figures cannot tell me about why the rates differ. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to my neighbor, a city bus driver in a union, who asks whether a headline saying only one worker in ten belongs to a union means her union is unusual, explaining in everyday words what the figure counts and does not, mentioning the public-sector and private-sector rates and where her job fits, saying the figures describe a fall without explaining it, and naming one limit. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations from the data (40 points), concept and interpretation reasoning (32 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (16 points), and showing work so it can be checked (12 points). For each of P1-P4, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 computation points, 4 reasoning points, 2 clarity points, or 1.5 showing-work points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my final message only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct difference or quotient = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing result or the wrong values or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1-P3 separately, an accurate account of what that value shows plus a limit or a correlation-or-cause reading tied to that figure = 2; exactly one of the two = 1; neither = 0. For P1, reading the 10.0% as a share of all people does not count. For P2, offering a cause for the fall as if the figures showed it does not count. For P4, BOTH an explanation that the overall 10.0% sits closer to the private-sector rate and describes no worker in either sector AND a final message that explains what the one-in-ten figure counts, places the neighbor's public-sector job, says the figures describe a fall without explaining it, and names a limit = 2. If full P4 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate reasoning = 0. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone new to sociology, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the final message with P4 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, checkable values and steps = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a result alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my reply. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word reply is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied all four results and their brief interpretations AND written my message to my neighbor AND revised at least one calculation or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score; it may end in .5 and must not be rounded to a whole number. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my calculations and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised data-reading report, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised data-reading report with all four answers, their brief interpretations, and your message to your neighbor — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled diagram of the union figures with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 14 skills — reading a union membership rate as a share of wage and salary workers rather than of all people, comparing a count with a rate, writing a change or a gap between two percentages in percentage points, reading the public-sector and private-sector rates beside the overall rate, and deciding whether a figure shows a correlation or a cause — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same four problems, the four brief interpretations, and the message to your neighbor. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one calculation or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised data-reading report, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The calculations, reasoning, revision, and final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment or add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com