Trade union membership; the solution for job autonomy and overall life satisfaction?

Trade union membership; the solution for job

autonomy and overall life satisfaction?

Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economic and Business

January 18, 2015

MARIEKE MIER

Student number: 1798383

Eerste Hunzestraat 3c

9715BH Groningen

Tel.:+31610862345

E-mail: m.mier@student.rug.nl

2 Trade union membership; the solution for job autonomy and overall life satisfaction?

ABSTRACT

This study addresses the effects of trade union membership on life satisfaction and job autonomy. Due to the major differences in trade unions within countries and the very different results in prior research, this study contributes to the existing literature by explicitly investigating trade union effects for the Netherlands. Contrary to the expectations, the analysis of 1157 Dutch employees found that union membership had no significant impact on life satisfaction of these employees. It was found however, that a negative relationship exists between trade union membership and job autonomy and that job autonomy is lower for trade union members compared to non-members. Moreover, it was found that job autonomy does have a positive relation with life satisfaction. This article concludes by offering possible explanations for these findings and offers implications and recommendations for theory, management and future research.

Keywords: Trade union membership, life satisfaction, job autonomy

3 1. INTRODUCTION

A fifth of the employees in the Netherlands are union members, and this proportion has been gradually falling in recent years (CBS, 2014; Worker Participation, 2014). In some countries, like the United States, union membership has been undergoing a long period of decline and far fewer employees have their terms and conditions of employment determined by collective bargaining than a generation ago (Boxall & Purcell, 2011). Despite the decrease in the total of trade union members in the Netherlands, the number of female members is still increasing (CBS, 2014). Moreover, major differences exist within industries, with the government having very high participation and the hospitality industry very low participation numbers.

It can be questioned if workers have moved to a more developmental orientation to work based on self-help and personal growth or if they still need and want traditional union representation (Boxall & Purcell, 2011). Belonging to a trade union may increase job satisfaction, according to Flavin, Pacek & Radcliff (2009), which in turn could contribute to greater overall life satisfaction for union members. However, other research showed that being a member of a trade union can negatively influence job satisfaction (Bryson, Cappellari & Lucifora, 2004) and this might contribute to lower life satisfaction. As Bender and Sloane (1998:224) mention in their research "it is generally believed that the relationship between union membership and satisfaction is complex and not yet fully understood". Effects of being a member of a trade union differ by countries and through time. Research about trade union membership turns out to have very different results. In part, this lack of consensus may reflect the sensitivity of the results to particular functional forms or to the inclusion or exclusion of certain variables. It may also reflect the finding that there are a number of competing hypotheses to explain the observed relationships, which may differ in relative importance over time and across countries.

4

Next to the importance of life satisfaction, the majority of working men and women consider job characteristics such as high salary, favourable working conditions, and job autonomy as important (Adler, 1993). Job autonomy can be seen as a work-related reward similar to wages, authority, and status because it entails independence and control for the worker. Job autonomy refers to the extent to which workers are able to use their own initiative in carrying out work activities (Adler, 1993). Adler (1993) also argues that power is the ability to set and execute projects. Denial of this ability results in alienation. Thus, it can be said that autonomy is a form of work power. Research showed that job autonomy can have a positive impact on job satisfaction. But it has not been showed if the same relation exists between job autonomy and overall life satisfaction. Does more job autonomy lead to more satisfaction in life? Moreover, what consequences has being a trade union member on job autonomy? Research about labour circumstances has addressed the subject of compensating wage differentials (Lever & Marquering, 1996; Van der Meer & Wielers, 2013). This is also the case for research on unionization effects; there is much attention for wage differentials but almost none for effects on life satisfaction and direct effects within the job, like job autonomy. The main research question I pose is;

“What is the effect of trade union membership on job autonomy and life satisfaction?”

5

In the next section a theoretical background will be given based on the existing literature. The relevant concepts are further explained and after that the hypotheses are designed, as is the conceptual model. Next, the method section explains the methods used for this research and after that the results obtained out of the analysis will be discussed in the results section. Finally the research findings, implications, strengths and limitations of this research will be discussed in the discussion and conclusion section.

2.THEORETICALBACKGROUND

Trade union membership

Employee voice is the term designed to cover all types of opportunities where employees can have their say and exert some influence over workplace decisions that affect their interests (Boxall & Purcell, 2011). But according to Boxall and Purcell (2011:160) “Voice is meaningless if the message is ignored”. Therefore they prefer the term participation and define participation as “the process that allows employees to exercise some influence over their work and the conditions under which they work”. Participation in an union allows employees to exercise influence in all kinds of decisions and practices regarding their working environment. It has to be acquainted however, that this form of voice is indirect. With this sort of voice, employers, consult or negotiate with representatives elected by employees or appointed by trade unions in the workplace (Boxall & Purcell, 2011). The distinctive characteristics of this type of voice are that it is more formal, typically involves collective representation, takes place in meeting rooms away from the point of production and is underpinned by social regulation. Most countries, including the Netherlands, have employment statutes that uphold the requirements of the International Labour Organization (ILO), which sees union recognition and collective bargaining as fundamental worker rights (Boxall & Purcell, 2011).

6

collective agreements are two different things which do not always coincide, in some countries collective bargaining coverage can be higher than union density (Scheuer, 1997). Hammer and Avgar (2005: 246) formulated the purpose of unions as follows; “to further the economic interests of their members by negotiating on their behalf over terms and conditions of employment”. People join unions both to rectify dissatisfying circumstances and to increase the gains from employment.

Trade Unions in the Netherlands

Figures published by the Netherlands statistical office indicate that there were around 1.85 million trade unionists in the Netherlands in 2012 (CBS, 2014; Worker Participation, 2014). Negotiations are conducted between employers and employers’ federations on one side and trade unions or groups of unions on the other. Collective agreements are legally binding on the membership of the employers' organisations and the unions that sign them. However, employers who sign an agreement are obliged to offer the same terms to non-union members, so in practice all employees are covered, whether union members or not (Worker Participation, 2014). The only requirement placed on trade unions is that the union should have a legal personality and that its rules should give the representatives authority to bargain. Dutch employers and employers' organisation have no legal obligation to negotiate with trade unions. Collective agreements between unions and employers depend entirely on both sides' willingness to negotiate.

The main channel within organizations for employee representation in the Netherlands is through the works council. Every organisation in the Netherlands with at least 50 employees is obliged to set up a works council (OR) with a range of information and consultation rights (Worker Participation, 2014). The purpose of the works council is not simply to represent the employees. The legislation makes clear that "consultations with and representation of" the employees are "in the interests of the sound functioning of the enterprise in all its objectives" (Worker Participation, 2014).

7

shown, again solely for Anglo-Saxon countries, that wage gains under trade union members can also vary across individuals. Lower union wage gains can be associated with weaker bargaining agents, and covered workers are less likely to want to become members when the bargaining agent is weak. Weaker unions are expected to offer fewer member-contingent benefits. Moreover, workers covered by a relatively weak bargaining agent are likely to have less confidence in the long-term viability of the agent and are more likely to move to a more rewarding job (Hundley, 1993). Covered union workers provide more resources to the union than covered non-union workers (Hundley, 1993). That union coverage in the Netherlands is much higher than union membership is due to legislation. According to the “law on collective labour agreements” from 1927, collective labour agreements apply to members and non-members (Lever & Marquering, 1996). According to the “law on extension of collective labour agreements” from 1937 the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment can extend sectoral agreements to firms which are no member of the employers’ organization, in this way sectoral labour agreements are declared to be generally binding (Lever & Marquering, 1996). It can be expected therefore, that the participants in this study, while not being members, experience some kind of (unnoticed) benefits.

Life satisfaction

8

physical and mental health issues are well documented (Keane et al., 2012). Empirical studies confirm that proposition; satisfaction with one’s job is a powerful determinant of overall life satisfaction (Sousa-Poza & Sousa-Poza, 2000). To clarify, job satisfaction is a part of life satisfaction and happiness and life satisfaction are strongly related. In this research life satisfaction will be measured and therefore is the dependent variable.

Trade union membership & Life satisfaction

The utility of union jobs should exceed the utility of nonunion jobs, at least for those workers who retain their jobs in the face of a shrinking demand for union labor, and one would therefore expect union workers to be more satisfied with their jobs relative to nonunion workers (Hammer & Avgar, 2005). Surprisingly, research has shown repeatedly that it is the other way around: union workers report less overall job satisfaction than non-union workers (Artz, 2012; Bryson et al., 2010; Hammer & Avgar, 2005). This recurrent finding has always been considered counterintuitive, as unions should achieve better working conditions, leading to higher satisfaction with the job (Bryson et al., 2010).

A first explanation for this negative finding is based on the ‘sorting’ hypothesis, suggesting that the negative relation is mainly driven by poorer working conditions in unionized environments, the attributes of the workplaces in which membership is likely to prevail, or by individual characteristics of unionized employees, in that the negative association reflects the characteristics of the individuals joining the union (Bender and Sloane, 1998; Bryson, 2010). Thus it is either the discontent of union members, or the fact that individuals tend to unionize when working conditions are poor, that defines the negative union member- job satisfaction relation, and not the fact that membership reduces satisfaction in itself. Artz (2012) also suggests that working conditions are worse in union workplaces, and that if these poor conditions are not controlled for then union status is inappropriately blamed for lower job satisfaction under trade union members.

9

bargaining power, so this might mean that reported dissatisfaction is strategic and not necessarily indicative of members’ true attitudes.

Bender and Sloane (1998) argued that a possible reason for lower satisfaction among employees lies in the employer consequences part. An increase in pay due to collective bargaining may force employers to take countervailing actions, such as reducing employment or imposing stricter work standards, a harsher regime follows as employers attempt to remain competitive. Hammer and Avgar (2005) give an extra explanation for the expected negative effect of job satisfaction, namely that union leaders “manufacture” discontent by raising members’ expectations about job outcomes beyond what is realistic. Dissatisfaction comes from the knowledge that there is always something lacking in the job that the union will strive to attain in bargaining.

In contrast to the negative relations found between union membership and job satisfaction, Keane, Pacek and Radcliff (2012) found a positive effect of individual union membership on individual well-being. Given that unionism often leads to more bargaining power and improved working conditions, one would expect it to lead to greater, rather than less, job satisfaction (Powdthavee, 2011). Unionized workers should suffer less from wage inequality and employer arbitrariness in the allocation of work, and benefit more from fair work rules and procedures (Keane et al., 2012). Goerke & Pannenberg (2012) argued that there are different reasons for an employee to become a trade-union member; smaller risk of wage losses, a reduced probability of job loss, or better financial protection in the case of a dismissal. In the US, for example, union members obtain a higher wage than non-members (Goerke & Pannenberg, 2012).

10

cognitive changes that encourage workplace participation, which may in turn foster more self-direction. It follows that we should again see a positive relationship between membership and well-being.

Unions may also contribute to well-being through their effect on another variant of connectedness (Radcliff, 2005). Research in social psychology has demonstrated that individuals are afforded some protection against the consequences of stress, and especially job related stress, through social support networks. Work, even enjoyable work, can be a major source of stress. Evidence suggests that buffering is most effective when the source of support is from the same domain as the source of stress. Work related stress, then, is best buffered by having sources of emotional support at work (Radcliff, 2005). Common sense would suggest that unions may facilitate such support, in that they help build not only connections, but also a sense of solidarity among coworkers. By nurturing solidarity, unions may provide an ideal context in which to find the type of social support that helps insulate against work-related stress. It is possible, thus, that unions have positive consequences for subjective well-being. Since trade unions are often associated with higher job stability and can obtain higher wages this is expected to have an positive influence on life satisfaction and therefore the following hypothesis is hypothesized;

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relation between trade union membership and life satisfaction of workers.

Job autonomy

11

one’s job as attaining or allowing the attainment of one’s important job values, providing these values are congruent with or help to fulfill one’s basic needs. These needs are of two separable but independent types: bodily or physical needs and psychological needs, especially the need for growth. Growth is made possible mainly by the nature of work itself ”.

Trade union membership and job autonomy

Kirmeyer and Shirom (1986) give several reasons for believing that job autonomy, both perceived and actual discretion in making decisions, is lower for employees who work under union contracts than for those who do not. Both management practices and union priorities may be accountable. Managerial policies and practices may diminish the perceived job autonomy of employees in unions, because management may formalize policies and practices to ensure uniform treatment of employees across jobs, often a key issue in collective bargaining (Kirmeyer & Shirom, 1986). Hammer and Avgar (2005) have shown that union workers are at least as satisfied with wages, benefits, and job security as are nonunion workers, but are less satisfied with supervision, job content (the nature of the tasks they are given to do, the skills required, and the freedom to make decisions about their job), the resources available to do their job, and opportunities for promotion. This means that according to their research job autonomy will be lower for employees that are union members. Keane et al., (2012) found that given the contractual rules obtained by collective bargaining, workers have even more rules that must be adhered to in the workplace, and as a consequence union membership may reduce autonomy. Since work is more formalized and there is a high emphasis of ‘working according the rules’ it is expected that trade union members experience a decreased level of job autonomy in their jobs. Therefore the second hypothesis is stated as follows;

Hypothesis 2: There is a negative relation between trade union membership and job autonomy.

Job autonomy and life satisfaction

12

been considered to have an important role to play in improving workplace provision for employees; they should train representatives to promote the benefits of flexible working options (Gregory & Milner, 2009). It has been found that job autonomy leads to job satisfaction (Langfred, 2013). Research suggests that satisfied employees are time-effective at work, likely to minimize their sick leave and have lower turnover intentions (Fox & Spector, 2003).

Next to the nature of the job itself, extrinsic motivators, job security and finding a job interesting, people like jobs in which they enjoy a good degree of autonomy in how they do the work (Boxall & Purcell, 2011). Strain and dissatisfaction is greatest in jobs with high work demands but low opportunities for employees to exercise control, that is, low levels of decision authority and discretion (Boxall & Purcell, 2011). Better-quality jobs therefore have a fair level of work demand while using the individual’s capacity for decision making and learning as much as possible. Challenging work with a high level of autonomy makes workers happy (Van der Meer & Wielers, 2013). Hackman and Oldham (1980) argued that a job increases motivation and thereby satisfaction when a job requires skill variety, offers task identity, autonomy and gives immediate feedback to the worker. What stands out is the positive effect of autonomy on satisfaction.

In addition, it was found that autonomy, or the perception of autonomy, can contribute to overall physical and emotional well-being. Alienating work imposes psychological costs on people that contribute to depression, job dissatisfaction and a general decline in life satisfaction (Keane et al., 2012). Similarly, scholars generally agree that autonomy on the job is vital for well-being. Van der Meer and Wielers (2013) find that autonomy does increase happiness, employees who have more autonomy in their job reported higher levels of happiness. Therefore it is likely that employees who have more job autonomy also report to be more satisfied with life. The following hypothesis is hypothesized;

13

14 3.METHOD

Participants & Procedure

For the purpose of this study data obtained from the European Social Survey (ESS) was used. This is an academically driven multi-country survey covering over 20 countries and funded jointly by the ‘European Commission's 5th Framework Programme’, the ‘European Science Foundation’ and academic funding bodies in each participating country. It aims are firstly, “to monitor and interpret changing public attitudes and values within Europe and to investigate how they interact with Europe's changing institutions”, and secondly, “to advance and consolidate improved methods of cross-national survey measurement in Europe and beyond” (ESS, 2014). The ESS, currently in its sixth round, consists of a core module, and a set of rotating modules. Whereas the core module remains stable the rotating modules change over time. The first round of this research (ESS1-2002 ed. 6.3), which was used for this particular study, was fielded in 2002/2003, and includes, amongst others, questions on immigration, citizenship and socio-political issues. The survey is designed and carried out to exceptionally high standards, it involves strict random probability sampling, a minimum target response rate of 70% and rigorous translation protocols.

For the purpose of this study, the effects of trade union membership in the Netherlands, only the country file specific to the Netherlands was used. The total of Dutch cases was 2364. After selecting every respondent within the age of 20 till 65 and only the respondents who were currently employed the total number of 1157 valid cases remained. Of these 1157 respondents, 571 were men and 586 were women. The mean age was 40,65 years with a standard deviation of 10,37 years.

15

Measures

The survey contains a number of questions that are specifically used for answering the research question. In this research ‘trade union membership’ is the independent variable, ‘life satisfaction’ is the dependent variable, and ‘job autonomy’ is treated once as independent variable and once as dependent variable.

Trade union membership

Participants are asked to tell what organizations apply to them now or in the last 12 months, with a trade union being option 3, and fill this in on the answering card (E). Participants had to indicate whether they are were a member (E3a, 1), participated (E3a, 2), donated money (E3a,3), did voluntary work (E3a, 4) or none apply (E3a, 0). First, the dummy ‘membership’ was created, where 0 being non-members and 1 being members of a trade union. Second, the answers were recoded into 2 different dummy items ‘passive’ and ‘active’ where for the first dummy variable 0 being non-members and active members and 1 being passive members and for the second dummy variable 0 being non-members and passive members and 1 being active members. Whenever participants filled in ‘participated’, ‘donated money’ or ‘did voluntary work’ they were qualified as an active member. The divide in non-member versus member and active versus passive was designed to check whether or not any differences exist between the different categories of members later on in this research.

Life satisfaction

16

Job autonomy

The ESS contains 5 items measuring job autonomy. The first one reads (E30): ‘How much allows the management at your work you to be flexible in your working hours?’. The second one reads (E31): ‘How much allows the management at your work you to decide how your own daily work is organized?’. The third one reads (E32): ‘How much allows the management at your work you to influence your environment?’. The fourth one reads (E33): ‘How much allows the management at your work you to influence decisions about the general direction of your work?’. The last one reads (E34): ‘How much allows the management at your work you to change your work tasks if you wish to?’. All questions are rated on an 11 point scale from zero (I have no influence) to ten (I have complete control). To see whether or not these items can be combined into a single measure of job autonomy, a reliability analysis was conducted. The Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .834 which is also high and above the minimum required level of .70.

Control variables

The items that were controlled for in all analyses conducted were; the respondent’s gender (F2), respondent’s education (F6), respondent’s subjective income (F31):’ Which of the descriptions on this card comes closest to how you feel about your household’s income nowadays?’ rated on an 4 point scale from one (Finding it very difficult on present income) to four (Living comfortably on present income), respondent’s subjective health (C7): ’How is your health in general?’ rated on an 5 point scale from one (very bad) to five (very good), respondent’s age (F3) and whether or not the respondent is living with a partner (F4). Research has found that these variables can have an significant effect on life satisfaction (Van der Meer & Wielers, 2013).

Data analysis

17

4.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

18

Comparing groups

An independent samples t-test examines whether there is a significant difference on a quantitative or numerical variable between two groups or categories of respondents. In this study participants can be, not a member, an active member or a passive member. For both life satisfaction and job autonomy multiple independent t-tests are done to see whether or not differences exist between members versus non-members and active members versus passive members. The independent variable in this tests is the sort of trade union member.

Life satisfaction

In the first tests the dependent variable is life satisfaction. First, a test to see whether or not differences exist between non-members and members was conducted. Table 2 shows that the average life satisfaction for non-members is 7.81 (SD= 1.27) and for members is 7.75 (SD= 1.26). However, the test revealed that the difference in life satisfaction between the groups is not significant (t=.800, p>.05). The second tests, to see whether or not differences in average life satisfaction exist between active and passive members, revealed a statistically significant difference for active members (t= -2.234, p<.05). Active members (M= 8.16, SD= .93), reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with life than passive members did (M= 7.68, SD= 1.29).

Job autonomy

19 Table 2 Outcomes of the comparison of the different groups

20

Regression Results

Regression analyses were done to determine the nature of the relationships predicted. In the following tables ‘model 1’ represents the analysis without control variables and ‘model 2’ represents the analysis with the control variables. Hypothesis 1 predicted that there exists an positive relation between trade union membership and life satisfaction of workers. The results on Hypothesis 1 (Table 3) show a non-significant negative interaction (B= -.092, p>.05) implying that the relationship between trade union membership and life satisfaction does not exist. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is rejected.

TABLE 3 Regression of life satisfaction (hypothesis 1)

Model 1 Model 2 B SE B SE 7.812 .045 4.101 .290 Trade Union Membership -.065 .081 -.092 .074 Controls Gender .128 .067 Age -.004 .003 Subjective Health .446** .050 Subjective income .408** .047 Partner .715** .077 Education .009 .017 Adj. R² .000 .203 F .640 42.957 R²change .001 .208

21

The independent t-test, to investigate whether or not differences exist between the groups in life satisfaction, showed that a statistically significant difference exists between active and passive members. Active members reported higher levels of life satisfaction than passive members. Therefore, an extra regression analysis is done to include active/passive membership. This analysis (Table 4, model 1) shows significant results (B= .352, p<.05). However, when the control variables are inserted into the analysis (Table 4, model 2), the results are not significant (B= .289, p>.05).

TABLE 4 Regression of life satisfaction

Model 1 Model 2 B SE B SE Passive member Active member 7.808 -0.127 .352* .045 .085 .175 4.144 -.151 .289 .290 .077 .158 Controls Gender .134* .067 Age -.004 .003 Subjective Health .443** .050 Subjective income .404 .047 Partner .722** .077 Education .007 .017 Adj. R² .004 .058 F 3.608 8,853 R²change .006 .066

22

Hypothesis 2 predicted that there exists a negative relation between trade union membership and job autonomy. The results on Hypothesis 2 (Table 5) show a significant negative effect (B= -.402, p<.05) implying that a negative relationship between trade union membership and job autonomy indeed exists. Both model 1 and model 2 show this significant negative effect; the control variables do not mediate the effect. The effect of trade union membership is independent of the control variables. Hypothesis 2 is accepted. This is in line with the independent t-test which showed that a statistically significant difference exists between members and non-members in job autonomy; members of a trade union reported to experience lower levels of job autonomy than non-members.

TABLE 5 Regression of job autonomy (hypothesis 2)

Model 1 Model 2 B SE B SE 6.164 .076 2.414 .534 Trade Union Membership -.327* .136 -.402** .136 Controls Gender -.054 .123 Age .011 .006 Subjective Health .311** .091 Subjective income .455** .088 Partner .189 .141 Education .109** .032 Adj. R² .004 .057 F 5.775 10.812 R²change .005 .063

23

For the difference in active versus passive trade union membership and job autonomy a significant effect for passive members was found in the independent t-test. Passive members reported to experience lower levels of job autonomy. The regression of passive and active membership on job autonomy (Table 6) shows that there indeed exists a negative significant relationship with job autonomy and passive membership.

TABLE 6 Regression of Job autonomy

Model 1 Model 2 B SE B SE Passive member Active member 6.172 -.403** -.044 .076 .144 .294 2.423 -.460** -.269 .534 .142 .290 Controls Gender -.053 .123 Age .011 .006 Subjective Health .310** .091 Subjective income .455** .088 Partner .192 .141 Education .108** .032 Adj R² .005 .057 F 3.967 9.692 R²change .007 .064

24

Hypothesis 3 predicted that there exists a positive relation between job autonomy and life satisfaction of workers. The results on Hypothesis 3 (Table 7) show a significant positive effect (B= .037, p<.05) implying that the relationship between job autonomy and life satisfaction does indeed exist. It can be concluded that Hypothesis 3 is also accepted. Moreover, the differences in model 1 and model 2 (Table 7) show that job autonomy is influenced by the control variables.

TABLE 7 Regression of life satisfaction (hypothesis 3)

Model 1 Model 2 B SE B SE 7.259 .112 3.949 .293 Job Autonomy .088** .017 .037* .016 Controls Gender .133* .067 Age -.005 .003 Subjective Health .432** .050 Subjective income .417** .048 Partner .708** .077 Education .002 .017 Adj R² .021 .212 F 25.214 44.742 R²change .022 .217

25

Since I found a positive relationship between job autonomy and life satisfaction, a negative relationship between trade union membership and job autonomy but no relationship between trade union membership and life satisfaction a final regression (Table 8) is done to see whether or not an indirect effect between trade union membership and life satisfaction exists (mediation).

TABLE 8 Regression of life satisfaction (indirect effect)

Model 1 Model 2 B SE B SE 7.269 .117 3.949 .293 Job Autonomy Trade Union Membership .087** -.024 .017 .081 .036* -.060 .016 .074 Controls Gender .130* .067 Age -.004 .003 Subjective Health .432** .050 Subjective income .419** .048 Partner .710** .077 Education .002 .017 Adj. R² .020 .212 F 12.642 39.221 R²change .022 .217

** Significant at the 0.01 level. * Significant at the 0.05 level.

The results show a significant positive relation for job autonomy but the effect for trade union membership does not reach a significant result.

Sobel test

Finally, to check for the mediating effect of job autonomy, a Sobel test is done. The B coefficient and standard error for the ‘a’ (trade union membership - job autonomy) and the ‘b’ (job autonomy – life satisfaction) paths are entered into a Sobel test calculator (Quantpsy, 2014). The results of this test are shown in Table 9; no (partial) mediation was found in the model (z = 1. 82, p = 0.069).

TABLE 9 Sobel test outcomes

Z SE

-1.82134431 0.0081665

26

5.

D

&

C

The present study aimed to address the gap in knowledge about the effects of trade union membership on job autonomy and life satisfaction in the Netherlands. Using data from the ESS, the hypotheses were tested. Below, the findings and implications of this study will be mentioned. Furthermore, several strengths and limitations of this study will be highlighted and directions for further research will be aligned. This chapter ends with a brief conclusion.

Findings & Theoretical Implications

Using theory and research, it was hypothesized that there is a positive relation between trade union membership and life satisfaction of workers (Hypothesis 1). As opposed to this expectation, Hypothesis 1 was rejected; there is no relationship between trade union membership and life satisfaction. As mentioned earlier, findings about the effects of trade union membership are mixed, both positive and negative effects can be pointed out. From this research we can conclude that trade unions do not directly affect the life satisfaction of its members. It is likely that effects are limited to job satisfaction (Keane et al., 2012). However, when an analysis was done to explicitly check for the differences between active and passive members regarding life satisfaction, a significant effect for active membership was found. Active members reported higher levels of life satisfaction than passive members. This points to the argument that active members are better able to see the advantages of trade union membership since they are more actively involved. This effect was mediated by the control variables. Future research should keep this difference in active and passive membership regarding life satisfaction in mind.

in-27

depth knowledge about the trade union procedures, rules and consequences for their work itself, resulting in a better fit with the aspired goals of the union.

Furthermore, it was hypothesized that job autonomy of workers has a positive relation with reported life satisfaction of workers (Hypothesis 3). The results showed that a positive relation between job autonomy and life satisfaction of workers indeed exists. This confirms the idea that autonomy in a job, or the perception of autonomy, contributes to overall well-being. This contribution is strong enough to not only result in job satisfaction but also in higher life satisfaction. Since a negative relationship between trade union membership and job autonomy, and a positive relationship between job autonomy and life satisfaction was found, a last analysis was done to check for the mediating effect of job autonomy. This effect was not found, the relationship between trade union membership and life satisfaction did not reach a significant effect.

Practical Implications

The finding that there is no relationship between trade union membership and life satisfaction does not mean that trade union membership is not important for an employee, manager or chief executive officer (CEO). A negative relationship between trade union membership an job autonomy was found. Therefore, employees should consider both the advantages and disadvantages of becoming a trade union member. It is likely that by becoming a trade union member they obtain a better bargaining position and higher wages. It is up to the employee to decide whether or not these benefits outweigh the costs of lower job autonomy. For managers and CEO’s the relationship with trade unions is even more complex. Due to collective bargaining with the trade unions they can be pressured to pay higher wages, resulting in higher costs for the organization. Again, it can be questioned if the benefits, like the well-being of their employees, clarity of procedures and better results outweigh the possible negative consequences for the employer. Another dilemma for employers is that there often is a trade-off between pay and jobs. Higher labour costs, unless these can be passed on to the customer, make it more attractive to move work overseas or invest in labour saving technologies and work methods that increase productivity (Boxall & Purcell, 2011).

28

that trade union membership not only has negative effects for employers. Managers and CEO’s should therefore be aware of both the positive and negative effects of trade union membership.

Strengths, Limitations & Future Research Directions

The major strength of this research lies in the methodological part. Most research is done within one single research industry, like telecommunications or the technological sector (Batt et al., 2002). In this research the participants are randomly selected within a country and therefore multiple industries are covered. This is why findings of this research are representable and highly generalizable for the Netherlands. Moreover, the minimum response rate of 70% and the strict translation and carryout procedures indicate high credibility of the questionnaires. Despite that this research is highly generalizable for the Netherlands, the research findings may be different for other countries. Unions in developed economies have a primary aim of maintaining and improving the terms and conditions of employment of their members (Benson & Brown, 2010). To achieve this aim, unions have mobilized their resources at the local, national and, in some cases, the international level. As mentioned earlier, most research about trade unions has been conducted in Anglo-Saxon countries, and this research shows differencing results even with the same sort of policies. Therefore, it is expected that, due to the fact that every country has its own trade union methods, laws and politics, and labor union presence in the labor market differs, results differ per country. Next to this, researchers should be aware of cultural differences. Work ethics are different and not in every country the same value is attached to satisfaction in a job, job autonomy and the requirements for satisfaction in life (Grun et al., 2010).

29

determining job satisfaction. Therefore, it is likely that for job autonomy and life satisfaction past union experience also is influential. Future research should be aware of this finding and consider to control for past trade union experience.

During the execution of the analyses, the importance of the used control variables on the dependent variables has been showed. It was found that age, gender, and subjective income are the control variables that are having a significant relationship with trade union membership. Subjective income, subjective health and having a partner are the control variables that are having a significant (positive) relationship with life satisfaction and level of education, subjective health and subjective income are the control variables that are having a significant (positive) relationship with job autonomy. These control variables are important to keep in mind when studying variables in this research field in the future. Moreover, regarding unionism, one could hypothesize that union members become “accustomed to” improvements in pay and work conditions. After a period of satisfaction, the psychological effects of union membership adapt to a basis level and changes in interests, values, and goals set in (Powdthavee, 2011). An extra possible control for future research would therefore be ‘the number of years that individuals have been a union member’.

Another significant limitation of the present study could be the assumption of causality. The present study assumes that being a trade union member (the independent variable) affects job autonomy (the dependent variable). However, the opposite may be true. Employees who perceive their job autonomy to be low then become a member of a trade union. Although alternative arguments based on reverse causality are less likely from a theoretical standpoint, the fact remains that reverse causality can be present. Future research should keep this in mind and ways to exclude this possibility should be investigated.

30

rules and gaining above average pay rises through collective bargaining, have been eroded by intense international product-market competition (Boxall & Purcell, 2011). The union role turns into one of discussion with management about the operation of the firm in general and the management of people in particular. With the changing roles of the union, unions are left with the choice of either being marginalised and continuing to lose members, or of seeking new forms of action based on cooperation and joint problem solving (Boxall & Purcell, 2011).

Conclusion

31

6. R

Adler, M. 1993. Gender differences in job autonomy: the consequences of occupational segregation and authority position. The sociological quarterly, 34(3): 449-465.

Artz, B. 2010. The Impact of Union Experience on Job Satisfaction. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 49(3): 387- 405.

Artz, B. 2012. Does the impact of union experience on job satisfaction differ by gender? ILR Review, 65(2): 225-243.

Barth, E., Raum, O. & Naylor, R. 2000. Union Wage Effects: Does Membership Matter? Manchester School, 68(3): 259-275.

Batt, R., Colvin, A. & Keefe, J. 2002. Employee Voice, Human Resource Practices, and Quit Rates: Evidence from the Telecommunications Industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55(4):573 - 583.

Bender, K. & Sloane, P. 1998. Job Satisfaction, Trade Unions, and Exit-Voice Revisited. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 51(2): 222.

Benson, J. & Brown, M. 2010. Employee voice: does union membership matter?. Human Resource Management Journal, 20(1): 80-99.

Boxall, P. & Purcell, J. 2011. Strategy and Human Resource Management (3rd edition). Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire.

Bryson, A., Cappellari, L., & Lucifora, C. 2004. Does union membership really reduce job satisfaction? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42(3):439-459.

32

Bryson, A., Cappellari, L. & Lucifora, C. 2010. Why So Unhappy? The Effects of

Unionization on Job Satisfaction. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(3): 357-380.

Currivan, D. & Iverson, R. 2003. Union Participation, Job Satisfaction, and Employee

Turnover: An Event-History Analysis of the Exit-Voice Hypothesis. Industrial Relations, 42(1): 101-105.

Fenwick, R. & Olson, J. 1986. Support for Worker Participation: Attitudes Among Union and Non-Union Workers. American Sociological Review, 51(4).

Flavin, P., Pacek, A.C. & Radcliff, B. 2010. Labor Unions and life satisfaction: evidence from new data. Social Indicators Research, 98(3): 435-449.

Fox, S. & Spector, P.E. 2003. Reducing subjectivity in the assessment of the job environment: Development of the factual autonomy scale, FAS. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 24: 4l7-432.

Freeman, R. & Medoff, J. 1984. Trade Unions and Productivity: Some New Evidence on an Old Issue. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 473(1): 149-164.

Goerke, L. & Pannenberg, M., 2012. Risk aversion and Trade-Union Membership. Journal of Economics, 114 (2): 275-295.

Gregory, A. & Milner, S., 2009. Trade Unions and Work-life Balance: Changing Times in France and the UK? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(1):122-146.

Grun, C., Hauser, W. & Rhein, T. 2010. Is Any Job Better than No Job? Life Satisfaction and Re-employment. Journal of Labor Research, 31(3): 285-306.

33

Hammer, T. & Avgar, A. 2005. The impact of unions on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover. Journal of Labor Research, 26(2): 241-266.

Hundley, G. 1993. Collective Bargaining Coverage of Union Members and Non-members in the Public Sector. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 32(1): 72-93.

Ilies, R., Wilson, K.S. & Wagner, D.T. 2009. The spill over of daily job satisfaction onto employees’ family lives: the facilitating role of work- family integration. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (1): 87-102.

Keane, L., Pacek, A. & Radcliff, B. 2012. Organized Labor, Democracy, and Life

Satisfaction: A Cross-National Analysis. Labor Studies Journal, 37(3): 253-270.

Kirmeyer, S.L. & Shirom, A. 1986. Perceived job autonomy in the manufacturing sector: effects of unions, gender and substantive complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 29(4): 832-840.

Langfred, C.W. 2013. To be or not to be autonomous: Exploring why employees want more autonomy. North American Journal of Psychology, 15(2): 355-366.

Lever, M. & Marquering, W. 1996. Union coverage and sectoral wages: Evidence from the Netherlands. Empirical Economics, 21(4): 483-499.

Linz, S.J., & Semykina, A. 2012. What makes workers happy? Anticipated rewards and job satisfaction. Industrial Relations, 51 (4)

Ones, D. & Steel, P. 2002. Personality and happiness: A national-level analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3): 767-781.

34

Radcliff, B. 2005. Class Organization and Subjective Well-Being: A Cross-National Analysis. Social Forces, 84(1): 513-530.

Scheuer, S. 1997. Collective Bargaining Coverage under Trade Unionism: A Sociological Investigation. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 35(1): 65-86.

Sousa-Poza, A. & Sousa-Poza, A. 2000. Well-being at work: a cross-national analysis of the levels and determinants of job satisfaction. The Journal of Socio - Economics, 29(6): 517-538.

Van der Meer, P. & Wielers, R. 2013. What makes workers happy? Applied Economics, 45(3): 357-368.

Dataset:

European Social Survey. 2002. ESS-1 2002, Documentation Report, Edition 6.3, Bergen, European Social Survey Data Archive, Norwegian Social Science Data Services.

Websites:

CBS, the Netherlands statistical office. 2014. http://www.cbs.nl. Last accessed: 10-01-2015.

ESS, European Social Survey. 2014. http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org. Last accessed: 12-01-2015.

Worker Participation. 2014. http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial- Relations/Countries/Netherlands/Trade-Unions. Last accessed: 26-11-2014.