The authors examine the influence of individual and collective voice mechanisms on employee access to and use of six work–life flexibility practices. Their multilevel analyses are based on an original survey of 897 workers nested in departments across eight unionized establishments in the United States. Collective voice measures include the effectiveness of union pay benefits and union schedule support at the individual and union (group) levels. The authors' analyses indicate that when unions are perceived to effectively support workers' schedule needs, individual access to flextime, gradual return to work, and a compressed workweek is higher. By contrast, when unions are perceived to effectively negotiate higher wages and benefits and enforce the collective agreement, individual access to flextime and a compressed workweek is lower. Collective voice measures are also significantly related to the use of a number of work–life flexibility practices. These findings suggest that union behavior can have a significant and varied influence on access to and use of work–life flexibility practices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BuchananJohnThornthwaiteLouise. 2001. Paid work and parenting: Charting a new course for Australian families. Working Paper 70. Sydney:Workplace Research Center (formerly Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research & Teaching [ACIRRT]).
2.
BuddJohn W.MumfordKaren. 2004. Trade unions and family-friendly policies in Britain. Industrial and Labor Relations Review57(2): 204–22.
3.
[BLS] Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Current Population Survey: Worker characteristics, various tables. Accessed at http://www.bls.gov/cps/. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Labor.
4.
[BLS] Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Union Members, 2011. Accessed at http://www.bls.gov/ (March 24, 2012). Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Labor.
5.
DeitchCynthia H.HuffmanMatt L., 2001. Family-responsive benefits and the two-tiered labor market. In HertzRosannaMarshallNancy L. (Eds.), Working Families: The Transformation of the American Home, pp. 103–30. Berkeley:University of California Press.
6.
EatonSusan C.2003. If you can use them: Flexibility policies, organizational commitment, and perceived performance. Industrial Relations42(2): 145–67.
7.
EbyLilian T.CasperWendy J.LockwoodAngieBordeauxChrisBrinleyAndi. 2005. Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior66(1): 124–97.
8.
FreemanRichard B.1976. Individual mobility and union voice in the labor market. American Economic Review66(2): 361–68.
9.
FreemanRichard B.1978. Job satisfaction as an economic variable. American Economic Review68(2): 135–41.
10.
FreemanRichard B.1980. The exit-voice tradeoff in the labor market: Unionism, job tenure, quits, and separations. Quarterly Journal of Economics94(4): 643–73.
11.
FreemanRichard B.MedoffJames L., 1979. The two faces of unionism. Public Interest57(Fall): 69–93.
12.
FreemanRichard B.MedoffJames L., 1983. The impact of collective bargaining: Can the new facts be explained by monopoly unionism? In ReidJoseph D. (Ed.), New Approaches to Labor Unions: Supplement to Research in Labor Economics, pp. 293–332. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.
13.
FreemanRichard B.MedoffJames L., 1984. What Do Unions Do?New York: Basic Books.
14.
GerstelNaomiClawsonDan. 2001. Unions' responses to family concerns. Social Problems48: 277–98.
15.
GlassJenniferFujimotoTetsushi. 1995. Employer characteristics and the provision of family responsive policies. Work and Occupations22(4): 380–411.
16.
GoldenLonnie. 2001. Flexible work schedules: What are we trading off to get them?Monthly Labor Review124(3): 50–67.
17.
GoldenLonnie. 2009. Flexible daily work schedules in U.S. jobs: Formal introductions needed?Industrial Relations48(1): 27–54.
18.
GoodsteinJerry D.1994. Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer involvement in work-family issues. Academy of Management Journal37(2): 350–82.
19.
GoodsteinJerry D.1995. Employer involvement in eldercare: An organizational adaptation perspective. Academy of Management Journal38(6): 1657–71.
20.
GrundyLeaBellLissaFiresteinNetsy. 2000. Labor's role in addressing the child care crisis. Working Paper Series. New York:Foundation for Child Development.
21.
GuthrieDougRothLouise Marie. 1999. The state, courts, and maternity policies in U.S. organizations: Specifying institutional mechanisms. American Sociological Review64(1): 41–63.
22.
IngramPaulSimonsTal. 1995. Institutional and resource dependence determinants of responsiveness to work-family issues. Academy of Management Journal38(5): 1466–82.
23.
KellyErin L.DobbinFrank. 1999. Civil rights law at work: Sex discrimination and the rise of maternity leave policies. American Journal of Sociology105(2): 455–92.
24.
KellyErin L.KalevAlexandra. 2006. Managing flexible work arrangements in US organizations: Formalized discretion or “a right to ask.”Socio-Economic Review4(3): 379–416.
25.
KellyErin L.KossekEllen E.HammerLeslie B.DurhamMaryBrayJeremyChermackKellyMurphyLauren A.KaskubarDan. 2008. Getting there from here: Research on the effects of work-family initiatives on work-family conflict and business outcomes. Academy of Management Annals2(1): 305–49.
26.
KossekEllen E.2005. Workplace policies and practices to support work and families. In BianchiSuzanne M.CasperLynn M.KingRosalind B. (Eds.), Work, Family, Health, and Well-Being, pp. 95–116. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
KossekEllen E.DistelbergBrian. 2009. Work and family employment policy for a transformed work force: Current trends and themes. In CrouterAnn C.BoothAlan (Eds.), Work–Life Policies that Make a Real Difference for Individuals, Families, and Organizations, pp. 3–49. Washington, DC:Urban Institute Press.
28.
KossekEllen E.MichelJesse S., 2010. Flexible work schedules. In ZedeckSheldon (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 1, pp. 535–72. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
29.
KossekEllen E.BergPeterPiszczekMatt. 2011. Work–life effectiveness efforts by the line: Linkages to group job context and individual effectivness. Paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meetings. San Antonio, Texas.
30.
KossekEllen E.LautschBrenda A.EatonSusan C., 2006. Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work-family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior68(2): 347–67.
31.
KossekEllen E.LewisSuzanHammerLeslie B., 2010. Work–life initiatives and organizational change: Overcoming mixed messages to move from the margin to the mainstream. Human Relations63(1): 3–19.
32.
MillikenFrances J.MartinsLuis L.MorganHal. 1998. Explaining organizational responsiveness to work-family issues: The role of human resource executives as issue interpreters. Academy of Management Journal41(5): 580–92.
33.
OstermanPaul. 1994. How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it?Industrial and Labor Relations Review47(2): 173–88.
34.
OstermanPaul. 1995. Work/family programs and the employment relationship. Administrative Science Quarterly40(4): 681–700.
35.
PowellGary N.MainieroLisa A., 1999. Managerial decision making regarding alternative work arrangements. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology72(1): 41–56.
36.
PurcellJohnHutchinsonSue. 2007. Front-line managers as agents in the HRM performance causal chain: Theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resouce Management Journal17(1): 3–20.
