The purpose of this article is to explore empirically some similarities and differences among six forms of union participation: union commitment, participation in decision making, participation in union activities, attitudinal militancy, serving in elected offices and the propensity to strike. The study examines five models of union participation: the social background model, the work dissatisfaction model, the economic model, the structural model, and the socialization model. The research sample consisted of 603 employees from white collar occupations, members of local unions in Israel. The findings demonstrate that the forms of union participation are independent constructs. They also show that different theoretical explanations apply to different forms of participation. The conclusions indicate that a fundamental direction for future research should be to develop and test hypotheses that refer to specific forms of union participation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alutto, J. A. & Belasco, J. A. (1974). Determinants of attitudinal militancy among nurses and teachers. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 27: 216-227.
2.
Anderson, J. C. (1978). A comparative analysis of local union democracy. Industrial Relations, 17: 278-295.
3.
Anderson, J. C. (1979). Local union participation: A re-examination. Industrial Relations, 18: 18-31.
4.
Arthur, J. B. & Dworkin, J. B. (1991). Current topics in industrial and labor relations research and practice. Journal of Management, 17: 515-551.
5.
Bacharach, S., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1990). Professionals and workplace control: Organizational and demographic models of teacher militancy. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 43: 570-586.
6.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66: 32-40.
7.
Black, A. W. (1983). Some factors influencing attitudes toward militancy membership, solidarity and sanctions in a teachers’ union. Human Relations, 36: 973-986.
8.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
9.
Child, J.Loveridge, R., & Warner, M. (1973). Towards an organizational study of trade unions. Sociology, 7: 71-91.
10.
Chinoy. E. (1950). Local union leadership. In A. W. Gouldner (Ed.), Studies in leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
11.
Cohen. A. & Jacobsen. C. (1987). The Power of Social Collectivities: a follow-up study. The British Journal of Sociology38: 101-105.
12.
Cohen. J. & Cohen. P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed.Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
Friedman, L. & Harvey, R. J. (1986). Factors of union commitment: The case for a lower dimensionality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 371-376.
14.
Fullagar. C. & Barling. J. (1989). A longitudinal test of the antecedents and consequences of union loyalty. Journal of Applied Psychology74: 213-227.
15.
Fullagar. C., McCoy, D. & Shull. C. (1992). The socialization of union loyalty. Jounral of’ Organizational Behavior13: 13-26.
16.
Gallagher. D. G. & Strauss, G. (1991). Union membership attitudes and participation. Pp. 139-174 in G. Strauss,G. D. Gallagher, & J. Fiorito (Eds.). The state of the unions. Industrial Relations Research Association Series, Wisconsin.
17.
Glick, W., Mirvis. P., & Harder, D. (1977). Union satisfaction and participation. Industrial Relations, 16: 145-151.
18.
Gordon, M. E., Beauvais. L. L., & Ladd, T. R. (1984). The job satisfaction and union commitment of unionized engineers. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 37: 359-370.
19.
Gordon, M. E. & Ladd. T. R. (1990). Dual Allegiance: Renewal, recommendation. and recantation. Personnel Psychology, 4337-69.
20.
Gordon, M. E., Philpot. W. J.Burt, E. R., Thompson. A. C. & Spiller, E. W. (1980). Commitment to the union: Development of a measure and an examination of its correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65: 479-499.
21.
Hackman. J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60: 159-170.
22.
Heshizer, B. P., Martin, H. J., & Wiener. Y. (1990). Normative commitment and instrumental attachment as intervening variables in the prediction of union participation. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco, California.
23.
Hoyman. M. M. & Stallworth, L. (1987). Participation in local unions: A comparison of black and white members. Industrial and Labor Relation Review40: 323-335.
24.
Huszczo, G. E. (1983). Attitudinal and behavioral variables related to participation in union activities. Journal of Labor Research, 4: 289-297.
25.
Klandermans, B. (1984a). Mobilization and participation: Social psychological expansion of resource and mobilization theory. American Sociological Review49: 583-600.
26.
Klandermans, B. (1984b). Mobilization in trade union action: A value-expectancy approach. Journal of Occupational Psychology57: 107-120.
27.
Klandermans, B. (1986). Psychology and trade union participation: Joining, acting, quitting. Journal of Occupatinal Psychology, 59: 189-204.
28.
Klandermans, B. (1989). Union commitment: Replications and tests in the Dutch context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 869-875.
29.
Kochan T. A. (1979). How American workers view labor unions. Monthly Labor Review102: 23-31.
30.
Kuruvilla. S.Gallagher D. G.Fiorito, J., & Wakabayashi, M. (1990). Union participation in Japan: Do western theories apply?Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 43: 374-389.
31.
Ladd, T. R., Gordon, E. M., Beauvais, L. L., & Morgan. L. R. (1982). Union commitment: Replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 640-644.
32.
Lockwood. D. (1966). Sources of variation in working-class images of society. Sociological Review14: 249-267.
33.
Magenau, J. M., Martin, J. E., & Peterson, M. M. (1988). Dual and unilateral commitment among stewards and rank-and-file union members. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 359-376.
34.
Martin. J. E. (1986). Predictors of individual propensity to strike. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 39: 214-221.
35.
Mathieu, J. E. & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents. correlates and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 171-194.
36.
McShane, S. L. (1986a). The multidimensionality of union participation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59: 177-187.
37.
McShane, S. L. (1986b). A path analysis of participation in union administration. Industrial Relations, 25: 72-80.
38.
Mellor, S. (1990). The relationship between membership decline and union commitment: A field study of local unions in crisis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 258-267.
39.
Meyer, P. J. & Allen. J. N. (1984). Testing the side bet theory of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 372-378.
40.
Morrow, P. C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8: 486-500.
41.
Nicholson, P. C. (1976). The role of shop steward. Industrial Relations Journal, 7: 15-26.
42.
Nicholson, N., Ursell. G., & Blyton, P. (1981). The dynamic of white collar unionism: A study of white collar participation. London: Academic Press.
43.
O’Reilly, C. A., Bloom, J. R., & Parlette, G. N. (1977) Professional workers and union activity: The impact of individual and contextual factors on the decision to strike. Paper presented at the 85th meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, California.
44.
O’Reilly, C. A. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification and internalization on prosocial behavior. Jounnal of Applied Psychology, 71: 492-499.
45.
Perline, M. & Lorenz. V. R. (1970). Factors affecting member participation in trade union activities. American Journal of Economies and Sociology29: 425-437.
46.
Premack, S. L. J. R., Hunter, J. E. (1988). Individual unionization decisions. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 223-234.
47.
Ramaswamy, E. A. (1977). The participatory dimension of trade union democracy: A comparative sociological view. Sociology11: 465-480.
48.
Rizzo, J.House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15: 150-163.
49.
Schutt, R. K. (1982). Models of militancy: Support for strikes and work actions among public employees, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 35: 406-422.
50.
Shalev, M. (1992). Labour and political economy in Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.
Shirom, A. (1977). Union militancy: Structural and personal determinants. Industrial Relations, 16: 152-162.
52.
Snarr. D. N. (1975). Strikers and nonstrikers: A social comparison. Industrial Relations, 14: 371-374.
53.
Spinrad, W. (1960). Correlates of trade union participation: A summary of the literature. American Sociological Review, 25: 237-244.
54.
Strauss, G. (1977). Union government in the United States: Research past and future. Industrial Relations, 16: 215-242.
55.
Summers. T. P., Betton, J. H., & Decottiis, T. A. (1986). Voting for and against unions: A decision model. Academy of Management Review11: 643-655.
56.
Thacker, J. W., Fields, M. W., & Barclay, L. A. (1990). Union commitment: An examination of antecedents and outcomes variables. Journal of Occupational Psychology63: 33-48.
57.
Thacker, J. W., Fields, M. W., & Tetrick, L. E. (1989). The factor structure of union commitment: An application of confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 228-232.
58.
Warr, P. B.Cook, J., & Wall, T. D. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52: 129-148.
59.
Wheeler, H. N. & McClendon, J. A. (1991). The individual decision to unionize. Pp. 47-83 in G. Strauss, G. D. Gallagher, & J. Fiorito (Eds.), The state of the unions. Industrial Relations Research association Series, Wisconsin.
60.
Youngblood, S. A., DeNisi, A. S., Molleston, I. L., & Mobley. W. H. (1984). The impact of work environment, instrumentality beliefs. perceived labor union image, and subjective expected norms on union voting intentions. Academy of Management Journal, 27: 576-590.
