Résumés
Abstract
In this study, we examine the predictors of unmet demand for unions in non-union workplaces, using the Australian Worker Representation and Participation Survey (AWRPS). Unmet demand is defined here, as those employees in non-union workplaces who would be likely to join a union if one were available. We argue that this is the first study in Australia to examine the predictors of unmet demand in non-union workplaces, and, that this is an important line of inquiry given a rise in non-union workplaces and never members in Australia, alongside declining union density and membership numbers. Drawing on three strands of existing literature, namely the individual propensity to unionize, the rise and characteristics of non-union workplaces and alternative forms of representation, and, managerial responsiveness to employees and unions, we develop and test four hypotheses.
Our results show, controlling for a range of personal, job and workplace characteristics, that there are two significant predictors of the willingness to join a union in non-union workplaces: perceived union instrumentality (Hypothesis 2) and perceived managerial responsiveness to employees (Hypothesis 4), whereby employees who perceive that managers lack responsiveness are more likely to want to join a union if one were available.
These results show that unions must try to enhance their instrumentality in workplaces and could be more effective in recruiting if they targeted never members. The results also show that unions need to have some gauge (measure) of how responsive managers are to employees, and that they can leverage poor responsiveness of managers for membership gain and the extension of organizing. In the final analysis, an understanding of the predictors of unmet demand for unions in non-union workplaces has implications for Australian unions’ servicing and organizing strategies, and for their future growth prospects.
Keywords:
- non-union workplace,
- unmet demand,
- willingness to join a union,
- union instrumentality,
- managerial responsiveness to employees,
- union organizing strategy
Résumé
Cet article cherche à identifier les prédicteurs de la demande non comblée pour la syndicalisation dans les milieux de travail non syndiqués, en ayant recours à l’Enquête sur la participation et la représentation des travailleurs australiens (Australian Worker Representation and Participation Survey-AWRPS). La demande non comblée correspond ici au désir des employés de milieux non syndiqués d’adhérer à un syndicat si une telle possibilité leur était offerte. Nous croyons que c’est la première étude sur ce sujet en Australie et qu’elle est d’autant d’intérêt qu’on assiste actuellement à une croissance du nombre de milieux non syndiqués ou de milieux où les syndicats sont absents, parallèlement au déclin de la densité syndicale et du nombre de personnes membres d’un syndicat. En s’appuyant sur trois axes de la littérature existante, soit la propension individuelle à joindre un syndicat, la montée et les caractéristiques des milieux non syndiqués et les formes alternatives de représentation, ainsi que les réactions des directions face aux employés et aux syndicats, nous développons et testons quatre hypothèses.
Nos résultats, après avoir contrôlé une variété de caractéristiques des individus, des emplois et des milieux de travail, font ressortir deux prédicteurs significatifs du désir d’adhérer à un syndicat en milieux non syndiqués : la perception de l’instrumentalité de la syndicalisation (Hypothèse 2) et la perception de la réaction managériale envers les employés et les syndicats (Hypothèse 4), à savoir que les employés qui perçoivent que les gestionnaires n’apportent pas de réponses satisfaisantes à leurs besoins seront plus enclins à vouloir adhérer à un syndicat lorsque cette possibilité leur est offerte.
Ces résultats suggèrent également que les syndicats devraient chercher à mieux faire valoir leur utilité dans les milieux de travail et ils pourraient devenir plus efficaces dans leur recrutement de nouveaux membres s’ils ciblaient davantage les travailleurs qui n’ont jamais été membres d’un syndicat. Ils montrent aussi que les syndicats devraient jauger (mesurer) à quel point les directions répondent aux besoins des employés, et qu’ils pourraient bâtir sur une faible réponse managériale afin d’effectuer des gains en terme de recrutement de membres et d’expansion de l’organisation syndicale. En dernière analyse, la compréhension des prédicteurs de la demande non comblée pour la syndicalisation dans les milieux de travail non syndiqués comporte des implications pour les stratégies d’organisation et d’offre de services des syndicats australiens, ainsi que pour la croissance future des organisations syndicales.
Mots-clés:
- milieu non syndiqué,
- demande non comblée,
- intérêt envers la syndicalisation,
- attitude patronale,
- stratégie syndicale
Resumen
En este estudio, se examina los predictores de la demanda de sindicalización insatisfecha en los lugares de trabajo no sindicalizados, utilizando la Encuesta Australiana sobre la representación y la participación de los trabajadores (Australian Worker Representation and Participation Survey - AWRPS). La demanda insatisfecha es definida aquí como aquellos empleados de lugares de trabajo no sindicalizados que hubieran querido adherir a un sindicato si este estuviera disponible. Se argumenta que este es el primer estudio en Australia que examina los predictores de la demanda insatisfecha en los lugares de trabajo no sindicalizados y que constituye una línea importante de investigación dado el aumento de lugares de trabajo no sindicalizados y de trabajadores jamás sindicalizados en Australia, junto con la disminución de la densidad sindical y de la cantidad de miembros. Nos basamos en tres ejes de la literatura existente, es decir la propensión individual a sindicalizarse, el alza y las características de los lugares de trabajo no sindicalizados y las formas alternativas de representación, e igualmente, la respuesta patronal a los empleados y sindicatos, para formular y evaluar cuatro hipótesis.
Nuestros resultados, después de haber controlado diversas características de los individuos, de los empleos y de los lugares de trabajo, ponen en evidencia dos predictores significativos del deseo de adherir a un sindicato en los lugares de trabajo no sindicalizados : la percepción de la instrumentalidad de la sindicalización (hipótesis 2) y la percepción de la reacción patronal respecto a los empleados y sindicatos (hipótesis 4), por lo cual, los empleados que perciben que los directivos patronales no aportan respuestas satisfactorias a sus necesidades serán más propensos a querer adherir a un sindicato si la posibilidad se ofrece.
Estos resultados sugieren que los sindicatos deberían intentar de mejorar su instrumentalidad en los lugares de trabajo y que podrían ser más eficaces en el reclutamiento de nuevos miembros si se focalizan sobre todo en los trabajadores que jamás han sido miembros de un sindicato. Se muestra también que los sindicatos deberían poder estimar (medir) hasta qué punto los directivos patronales responden a las necesidades de los empleados, y que ellos podrían tomar ventaja de la respuesta patronal deficiente para mejorar el reclutamiento de miembros y reforzar la expansión de la organización sindical. Por último, la comprensión de los predictores de la demanda de sindicalización insatisfecha en los lugares de trabajo no sindicalizados conlleva implicaciones en cuanto a las estrategias de organización y de oferta de servicios de parte de los sindicatos australianos, y en lo que se refiere al crecimiento futuro de las organizaciones sindicales.
Palabras claves:
- lugares no sindicalizados,
- demanda insatisfecha,
- deseo de sindicalizarse,
- instrumentalidad sindical,
- respuesta patronal a los empleados,
- estrategia de organización sindical
Parties annexes
References
- Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2016) “Trade Union Membership in their Main Job“, Characteristics of Employment, 6333.0, Australia, August 2016, released 02/05/17, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6333.0.
- Adams, Roy J. (1974) “Solidarity, Self-interest and the Unionization Differential between Europe and North America”, Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 29 (3), p. 497-512.
- Azjen, Icek (1991) “The Theory of Planned Behaviour”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), p. 179-211.
- Badigannavar, Vidu and John Kelly (2005) “Why Are Some Union Organizing Campaigns More Successful Than Others?”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 43 (3), p. 515-535.
- Belfield, Clive R. and John S. Heywood (2004) “Do HRM Practices Influence the Desire for Unionization? Evidence across Workers, Workplaces and Co-Workers for Great Britain”, Journal of Labor Research, 25 (2), p. 279-299.
- Blanden, Jo and Stephen Machin (2003) “Cross-Generation Correlations of Union Status for Young People in Britain”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41 (3), p. 391-415.
- Boxall, Peter and John Purcell (2016) Strategy and Human Resource Management. 4th edition. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Brown Johnson, Nancy and Paul Jarley (2004) “Justice and Union Participation: An Extension and Test of Mobilization Theory”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42 (3), p. 543-562.
- Bryson, Alex (2003) “Employee Desire for Unionisation in Britain and Its Implications for Union Organising”, Research Discussion Paper 12. London: Policy Studies Institute.
- Bryson, Alex (2004) “Managerial Responsiveness to Union and Non-union Worker Voice in Britain”, Industrial Relations, 43 (1), p. 213-241.
- Bryson, Alex and Rafael Gomez (2005) “Why Have Workers Stopped Joining Unions? The Rise in Never-Membership in Britain”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 43 (1), p. 67-92.
- Bryson, Alex, Paul Willman, Rafael Gomez and Tobias Kretschmer (2013) “The Comparative Advantage of Non-union Voice in Britain, 1980-2004”, Industrial Relations, 52 (1), p. 194-220.
- Buttigieg, Donna, Stephen Deery and Rick Iverson (2007) “An Event History Analysis of Union Joining and Leaving”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (3), p. 829-839.
- Campolieti, Michele, Rafael Gomez and Morley Gunderson (2013) “Does Non-union Employee Representation Act as a Complement or Substitute to Union Voice? Evidence from Canada and the United States”, Industrial Relations, 52 (1), p. 378-396.
- Charlwood, Andy (2002) “Why Do Non-Union Employees Want to Unionize? Evidence from Britain”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 40 (3), p. 463-491.
- Charlwood, Andy (2006) “What Determined Employer Voice Choice in Britain in the 20th Century? A Critique of the ‘Sound of Silence’ Model”, Socio-Economic Review, 4 (2), p. 301-309.
- Cooper, Rae, Bradon Ellem, Cathy Briggs and Diane van den Broek (2009) “Anti-Unionism, Employer Strategy and the Australian State: 1996-2005”, Labour Studies Journal, 34 (3), p. 339-362.
- Couldry, Nick (2010) Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics after Neoliberalism. London: SAGE Publications.
- Cregan, Christina (2005) “Can Organizing Work? An Inductive Analysis of Individual Attitudes toward Union Membership”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 58 (2), p. 282-304.
- Cregan, Christina and Michelle Brown (2010) “The Influence of Union Membership on Workers’ Willingness to Participate in Joint Consultation”, Human Relations, 63 (3), p. 331-348.
- Cullinane, Niall and Tony Dundon (2014) “Unitarism and Employer Resistance to Trade Unionism”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25 (18), p. 2573-2590.
- D’Art, Daryl and Thomas Turner (2008) “Workers and the Demand for Trade Unions in Europe: Still a Relevant Social Force?”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 29 (2), p. 165-191.
- Deery, Stephen and Helen De Cieri (1991) “Determinants of Trade Union Membership in Australia”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 29 (1), p. 59-73.
- Diamond, Wayne and Richard B. Freeman (2002) “What Workers Want from Workplace Organizations: A Report to the TUC’s Promoting Trade Unionism Task Group”. London: Trades Union Congress (TUC).
- Farber, Henry S. (1989) “Trends in Worker Demand for Union Representation”. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 79 (2), p. 166-171.
- Farber, Henry S. and Daniel H. Saks (1980) “Why Employees Want Unions: The Role of Relative Wages and Job Characteristics”, Journal of Political Economy, 88, p. 349-369.
- Fenwick, Rudy and Jon Olson (1986) “Support for Worker Participation: Attitudes Among Union and Non-Union Workers”, American Sociological Review, 51, p. 505-522.
- Fiorito, Jack and Charles Greer (1982) “Determinants of U.S. Unionism: Past Research and Future Needs”, Industrial Relations, 21 (1), p. 1-32.
- Forsyth, Anthony (2016) “Industrial Legislation in Australia in 2015“, Journal of Industrial Relations, 58 (3), p. 372-387.
- Frangi, Lorenzo and Marc-Antonin Hennebert (2015) “Expressing Confidence in Unions in Quebec and the other Canadian Provinces: Similarities and Contrasts in Findings”, Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 70 (1), p. 131-156.
- Freeman, Richard B., Peter Boxall and Peter Haynes (2007) What Workers’ Say: Employee Voice in the Anglo-American Workplace, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
- Freeman, Richard B. and Joel Rogers (1999) What Workers Want? Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
- Friedman, Barry A., Steven E. Abraham and Randall K. Thomas (2006) “Factors Related to Employees’ Desire to Join and Leave Unions”, Industrial Relations, 45 (1), p. 102-110.
- Gahan, Peter (2012) “Voice within Voice: Members’ Voice Responses to Dissatisfaction with their Union”, Industrial Relations, 51 (1), p. 29-56.
- Gall, Gregor (2005) “Organizing the Non-Union Workers as Trade Unionists in the ‘New Economy’ in Britain”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 26 (1), p. 41-63.
- Gordon, Michael E. and Larry N. Long (1981) “Demographic and Attitudinal Correlates of Union Joining”, Industrial Relations, 20 (3), p. 306-311.
- Haynes, Peter, Peter Boxall and Keith Macky (2003) “New Zealanders’ Influence at Work–Report to the Minister of Labour on the New Zealand Worker Representation and Participation Survey”. May. Mimeo. Auckland: University of Auckland.
- Haynes, Peter, Peter Holland, Amanda Pyman and Julian Teicher (2008) “Free-Riding in Australia”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 29 (1), p. 7-34.
- Holland, Peter, Brian K. Cooper, Amanda Pyman and Julian Teicher (2012) “Trust in Management: The Role of Employee Voice Arrangements and Perceived Managerial Opposition to Unions”, Human Resource Management Journal, 22 (4), p. 377-391.
- Kim, Yoon-Ho, Dong-One Kim and Mohammad Ali (2015) “The Effects of Mutual Trustworthiness between Labour and Management in Adopting High Performance Work Systems”, Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 70 (1), p. 36-61.
- Kochan, Tom A. 1979. “How American Employees View Labor Unions”, Monthly Labor Review, 104 (4), p. 23-31.
- Kohler, Holm-Detlev and José Pablo Calleja Jimenez (2015) “ ‘They don’t represent us!’ Opportunities for a Social Movement Unionism Strategy in Spain“, Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 70 (2), p. 240-261.
- Kretsos, Lefteris and Markos Vogiatzoglou (2015) “Lost in the Ocean of Deregulation? The Greek Labour Movement in a Time of Crisis”, Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 70 (2), p. 218-239.
- Leigh, Duane E. (1986) “Union Preferences, Job Satisfaction, and the Union-Voice Hypothesis”, Industrial Relations, 25 (1), p. 65-71.
- Lévesque, Christian and Gregor Murray (2006) “How Do Unions Renew? Paths to Union Renewal”, Labor Studies Journal, 31 (3), p. 1-13.
- Millward, Neil, Mark Stevens, David Smart and William Hawes (1992) Workplace Industrial Relations in Transition. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
- Muir, Kathie (2008) Worth Fighting for. Sydney: UNSW Press.
- Pekarek, Andreas and Peter Gahan (2016) “Unions and Collective Bargaining in Australia in 2015”, Journal of Industrial Relations, 58 (3), p. 356-371.
- Podsakoff, Philip, Scott MacKenzie and Nathan Podsakoff (2012) “Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, 65, p. 539-569.
- Pyman, Amanda, Brian K. Cooper, Julian Teicher and Peter Holland (2006) “A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Employee Voice Arrangements in Australia”, Industrial Relations Journal, 37 (5), p. 543-559.
- Pyman, Amanda, Julian Teicher, Brian K. Cooper and Peter Holland (2009) “Unmet Demand for Union Membership in Australia”, Journal of Industrial Relations, 51 (1), p. 5-24.
- Pyman, Amanda, Peter Holland, Julian Teicher and Brian K. Cooper (2010) “Industrial Relations Climate, Employee Voice and Managerial Attitudes to Unions: An Australian Study”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 48 (2), p. 460-480.
- Riley, Nicola-Maria (1997) “Determinants of Union Membership: A Review”, Labour, 11 (2), p. 265-301.
- Rose, Joseph B. and Gary N. Chaison (1996) “Linking Union Density and Union Effectiveness: The North American Experience”, Industrial Relations, 35 (1), p. 78-105.
- Saari, Lise and Timothy A. Judge (2004) “Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction”, Human Resource Management, 43 (4), p. 395-407.
- Silverblatt, Ronnie and Robert I. Amann (1991) “Race, Ethnicity, Union Attitudes and Voting Predilections”, Industrial Relations, 30 (2), p. 271-285.
- Spector, Paul (1997) Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Cause and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Stewart, Andrew (2006) “Work Choices in Overview: Big Bang or Slow Burn?”, The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 16 (2), p. 5-60.
- Tabachnick, Barbara G. and Linda S. Fidell (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th edition, Sydney: Allen Unwin.
- Teicher, Julian, Peter Holland and Richard Gough (2013) Workplace Relations in Australia. Australia: Cambridge University Press.
- Teicher, Julian, Peter Holland, Amanda Pyman and Brian K. Cooper (2007) “Australian Workers: Finding their Voice?” in Peter Boxall, Richard B. Freeman and Peter Haynes (eds.) Voice and Voicelessness in the Anglo-American World: Continuity and Transformation in Employee Representation, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, p. 125-144.
- Toubol, Jonas and Carsten Stroby Jensen (2014) “Why do People Join Trade Unions? The Impact of Workplace Union Density on Recruitment”, Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 20 (1), p. 135-154.
- Uhe, Milan and Stephen J. Perkins (2007) The Future of Collective Voice: Event Report, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), Reference 4145, March, London: UK.
- Willman, Paul, Alex Bryson and Rafael Gomez (2006) “The Sound of Silence: Which Employers Choose No Employee Voice and Why?”, Socio-Economic Review, 4, p. 283-329.