Determinants Of Union Membership Research Articles

Political attitudes, participation and union membership in the UK

AbstractUnionisation continues to decline in the UK. This paper examines the changes over time in the relationship between politics and union membership, and it is based on European Social Survey data from 2002 to 2018. Political attitudes have been analysed by considering the interest in politics and ideological orientation according to self‐placement on the left–right scale, and behaviour looking at political participation. Political orientation (being left‐wing) and political participation are determinants of union membership. However, in the UK, a centrist political orientation prevails, and political participation is low. The relationship between political attitudes, behaviour and unionisation over time has been stable.

To Be or Not to Be Unionized?

This research aims at analyzing the association between two core variables of the employee-organization relationship (i.e., organizational identification and perceived organizational support) and union membership. Our study shows that perceived organizational support was negatively related to union membership but only for low identifiers. In line with prior research, highly identified employees proved less sensitive to a poor-quality exchange relationship with the organization. These findings suggest that union membership would be one possible response to a lack of support from an organization to which employees do not necessarily identify. However, future research should examine the relative weight of these variables compared to other known determinants of union membership.

Union density and determinants of union membership in 18 EU countries: evidence from micro data, 2002/031

ABSTRACTUsing representative individual‐level data from the first round of the European Social Survey fielded in 2002/03, this article provides an empirical analysis of unionisation in 18 countries of the EU. We show that union density varies considerably in Europe, ranging from 84 per cent in Denmark to 11 per cent in Portugal. Estimating identical models for each country, we find that individuals’ probability of union membership is significantly affected by their personal characteristics, their attitudes and the characteristics of their workplace, whereas social factors seem to play a minor role. The presence of a union at the workplace and employees’ attitudes concerning strong unions are the two variables most strongly associated with unionisation.

Determinants of Union Membership in 18 EU Countries: Evidence from Micro Data, 2002/03

Using representative individual-level data from the first round of the European Social Survey fielded in 2002/03, this paper provides an empirical analysis of unionization in 18 countries of the European Union. We show that union density varies considerably in Europe, ranging from 84 per cent in Denmark to 11 per cent in Portugal. Estimating identical models for each country, we find that individuals’ probability of union membership is significantly affected by their personal characteristics, their attitudes and the characteristics of their workplace, whereas social factors seem to play a minor role. The presence of a union at the workplace and employees’ attitudes concerning strong unions are the two variables with the most wide-spread effects on unionization.

Trade Unions and Small Firms: Is it Size that Counts?

The question under investigation in this paper is whether size is a determinant of union membership. The determinants of union membership in small (20–99 employees), medium (100–499 employees) and large (500+ employees) firms are explored through bi-variate and multi-variate analyses of the 1995Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey data. An interesting finding is that size is not significant. This result runs counter to the common understanding that low unionisation in small firms is the result of the firm being small. The implications of our findings are discussed.

Determinants of Union Membership: A Review

The recent drastic decline in trade union membership levels in most Western countries has led to renewed interest in the factors which influence the decision of employees to join unions. This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the three main approaches: structural determinism, individual‐level analysis, and conceptual models of trade union joining behaviour. Structural determinism is discussed in the context of the Bainian model and its various extensions. In contrast, the diverse findings in the field of individual‐union joining behaviour is assessed by drawing on a comprehensive table comprising all variables examined in this area. The first two sections focus exclusively on trade union joining behaviour as the independent variable whereas the third part of the paper uses an individuals' voting behaviour in the USA. This focus was necessary due to the lack of causal models using union joining behaviour as their dependent variable. The author selects two of the most advanced models for a detailed analysis, and relates the findings to the preceding sections.It is the objective of the paper to critically evaluate the three approaches and their contributions towards understanding this complex field of research.

The determinants of Australian trade union membership

AbstractThis paper investigates the determinants of trade union membership in Australia using the Engle and Granger (1987) theory of co‐integrated economic variables. Applying the theory of co‐integration yields a model of union membership which can be interpreted as distinguishing between long‐run and ‘business cycle’ determinants of union membership. The principal long‐run determinant of union membership is found to be the level of employment disaggregated by industry classification. Business cycle variables—the real wage and the change in unemployment—are also shown to influence movements in union density. These findings are consistent with recent studies which have attributed the decline in union membership in Australia since the early 1980s to the changing composition of employment and movements in the rate of unemployment.

The determinants of voting by workers in NLRB representation elections

The National Labor Relations Board reports that over 400,000 workers vote each year on whether they want to be represented by unions [National Labor Relations Board, 1974-1978]. Thousands more who are seeking work make the same choice when they decide whether to take a job with an employer who has a union shop. Why do some workers choose to be represented by unions while others do not? The answer to this question would help explain why, after 40 years of growth, American labor union membership stagnated in the 1970's with the percent of labor force organized falling to its lowest level since the late 1930's [U.S. Department of Labor, 1980]. Workers make their choice concerning unionism in two major ways. First, they may take jobs where union membership is a condition of employment once they have completed their probationary period. More than fourfifths of all unionized employers have such a requirement (union shop clause) in their labor contracts [U.S. Department of Labor, 1979]. In this instance, a worker's decision in regard to joining a union is complicated by the necessity of becoming a union member if he or she chooses to take the job. The second important way workers choose unionism is through National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) representation elections. Here workers do not have to choose unionism to obtain a job since only those who are already employed may vote in these elections. Of the numerous studies of the determinants of union membership, only two examine the membership decision apart from the job choice

The Effect of Unions on Earnings and Earnings on Unions: A Mixed Logit Approach

A LARGE NUMBER OF STUDIES have attempted to quantify the impact of unions on the wages or earnings of workers. See, for example, Lewis [9] or Ashenfelter and Johnson [1] for critical summaries of many of these studies. Several different research methodologies have been employed to ascertain the extent to which unions have raised relative wages. Empirically, time series and cross-sectional data at the firm, industry and economy-wide level have been examined. Theoretically, most of the analyses have been partial equilibrium in nature, although the recent papers by Johnson and Mieszkowski [7] and Diewert [4] investigate the impact of unionism in a general equilibrium setting. Virtually all of these studies have found a positive, significant effect of unions on wages, although there is considerable variation in the estimated size of the effect. Common to all of these studies is the assumption that unionism exerts a unilateral and exogenous effect on wages. Unfortunately, the interesting issue of the determinants of union membership has been relatively unresearched, and by and large the matter of membership remains unrelated to the effects of unionism on wages. This is at least potentially a serious matter since it seems clear that there may be an effect of wages on unionism as well as an effect of unionism on wages. This may occur because relative wages affect the attractiveness of various industries to a potential union organizer, or because they may affect the probability of a worker voting for a union in a representation election. That relative wages may affect the probability or extent of unionization has been previously noted-see, for example, Reder [12] and Wachter [20]. From a statistical point of view, this would imply that union membership, or extent of unionization, would more properly be viewed as jointly or simultaneously determined with wages, rather than being treated as exogenous. Nevertheless, most studies of the effects of unions on wages or earnings have treated unionization as exogenous. A notable exception in this regard is the recent work of Ashenfelter and Johnson [1], which examined at the industry level the effect of unionization on wages and the effect of wages on unionization. In this paper we perform a similar analysis, except using individual observations. The two endogenous variables