AUT UNIVERSITY TE WANANGA ARONUI O TAMAKI MAKAU RAU Trade Union Membership and Happiness at Work:...

AUT UNIVERSITYAUT UNIVERSITYTE WANANGA ARONUI O TAMAKI MAKAU RAUTE WANANGA ARONUI O TAMAKI MAKAU RAU

Trade Union Membership and Happiness at Work:Trade Union Membership and Happiness at Work:Lessons from Eastern and Western European Labor MarketsLessons from Eastern and Western European Labor Markets

Thomas Lange, Ph.D., Professor & Chair of Economics

AUT Business School, Auckland, New Zealand

Yannis Georgellis, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer in Economics

Brunel University, London, United Kingdom


Unionisation and ‘Happiness at Work’

• The dominant view in the job satisfaction literature suggests that there is a strong, negative relationship between unionization and job satisfaction

• “In survey after survey of job satisfaction, unionized workers … report themselves less satisfied with most facets of their work” (Freeman and Medoff, 1984)

• However, union objectives can be generally described as an endeavour to maintain and improve the conditions of employment, workers’ welfare and satisfaction by influencing the working environment and wages

• It follows that the widely reported negative

relationship between unionization and job

satisfaction is paradoxical


Pros and Cons

• It has been argued that unionized employment is inherently more unpleasant than non-union employment, with the union wage effect merely serving as a compensating differential that may be insufficiently large to counter less desirable working conditions

• Even when the wage variable is omitted from the estimating equation, the impact of unionization on satisfaction remains statistically significant and negative (Borjas 1979)

• Yet, it is equally plausible to contend that unions reduce wage inequality and influence control over job design

• This, in turn, may increase workers’ satisfaction

The most popular theoretical explanation

• Despite arguments for a positive relationship, the dominant empirical perspective suggests that unionized employment reduces job satisfaction

• The “voice hypothesis” serves as the most popular theoretical explanation for this finding: unionization politicizes the work force and makes workers more critical towards the workplace and more willing to complain about problems. Thus unionization legitimizes and facilitates the expression of dissatisfaction

• Is this a valid argument?


Problems with the argument

• A number of studies have questioned the validity of the argument on the grounds of imperfect data and modelling techniques:

– Small sample sizes and missing observations

– Lacking data on important aspects of a job

– Limited cross-national data sets

– Treating selection into union membership as a given


Objectives and Data

• The aim of this study is to fill the gap in the empirical literature by comparing the determinants of job satisfaction and the impact of union membership across a large number of Eastern and Western European labor markets

• The data used is derived from the third wave of the European Values Study (EVS), covering 14 Eastern European and 17 Western European countries. We use pooled data at regional level (Eastern vs Western Europe) to avoid small samples and missing observations

• In support of the present study, EVS provides information on:– Union membership

– Job satisfaction

– Demographics

– Various labor market characteristics

– Values, beliefs and important aspects of a job


Value added of the study

• Large data set, collected during 1999/2000• Data covers not only Western European, but also a large number of

Eastern European labor markets, with an effective sample of 2670 and 3502 observations for Eastern and Western European workers, respectively (our sample is limited to male workers in salaried employment, aged 18-65).

• Unusually, the data also covers individual values, beliefs and workers’ perceptions of important aspects of a job

• Methodology explicitly tackles “endogeneity bias”


Empirical Framework

• Job satisfaction is measured by an ordinal, categorical variable (1 = extremely dissatisfied; 10 = extremely satisfied)

• We first follow the ‘traditional approach’ and estimate an ordered probit model, controlling for personal characteristics, educational achievements, values and beliefs, and important aspects of a job

• In recognition of endogeneity bias, we subsequently express our regression as a linear model and then correct this specification for unionization-job satisfaction endogeneity.

• For the latter, we use a slight generalization of

Heckman’s bivariate selection model. The formal

treatment of the model is provided in the text.

AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGYAUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGYTE WANANGA ARONUI O TAMAKI MAKAU RAUTE WANANGA ARONUI O TAMAKI MAKAU RAU

Findings: Descriptive statistics (a)

Table 1: The distribution of job satisfaction

EASTERN EUROPE WESTERN EUROPEJob satisfaction Union% Non-union% Union% Non-union%

1 – 6 46.84 39.97 18.81 22.06 ≥ 7 53.16 60.03 81.19 77.94

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Count 711 1959 1127 2375


Findings: Descriptive statistics (b)

Table 2: Important aspects of a job

EASTERN EUROPE WESTERN EUROPE Job attributes Union% Non-union% Union% Non-union%

Pay 90.86 90.15 80.39 82.57 Job security 70.89 66.77 61.58 59.62 Respected 49.24 46.56 37.22 43.61 Hours 46.55 46.61 49.33 48.67 Initiative 47.40 47.98 59.89 56.13 Achievement 54.85 54.77 62.73 60.67 Responsibility 40.51 41.35 51.46 52.34 Interaction with colleagues 71.59 69.42 71.25 70.99 Promotion 40.23 42.83 35.67 42.95

Count 711 1959 1127 2375


Regression analysis - selected findings (full set of results in text)

EASTERN EUROPE WESTERN EUROPE Ord. Probit Linear Linear Corrected Ord. Probit Linear Linear Corrected

Constant 7.604** 8.216** 7.597** 7.516**(0.611) (0.672) (0.430) (0.448)

Union member -0.150** -0.308** 1.377** 0.008 0.035 0.711*(0.046) (0.100) (0.534) (0.038) (0.065) (0.320)

Age -0.023+ -0.047+ -0.073* -0.017 -0.020 -0.011(0.013) (0.029) (0.029) (0.012) (0.021) (0.021)

(Age)2 0.026 0.049 0.078* 0.029+ 0.036 0.023(0.016) (0.035) (0.035) (0.015) (0.026) (0.025)

Married 0.051 0.140 0.104 0.092* 0.166* 0.139+(0.051) (0.110) (0.120) (0.042) (0.072) (0.072)

Main earner 0.227** 0.509** 0.471** 0.110* 0.215* 0.160(0.055) (0.120) (0.125) (0.056) (0.096) (0.099)

Income Middle 0.207** 0.518** 0.412** 0.087+ 0.192* 0.078

(0.060) (0.131) (0.137) (0.050) (0.086) (0.091) Upper 0.405** 0.965** 0.888** 0.205** 0.384** 0.257**

(0.060) (0.130) (0.138) (0.054) (0.092) (0.099)

Part-time worker -0.127 -0.333+ -0.055 -0.042 -0.148 -0.030(0.083) (0.181) (0.190) (0.085) (0.146) (0.146)


EASTERN EUROPE WESTERN EUROPEOrd. Probit Linear Linear Corrected Ord. Probit Linear Linear Corrected

Values and beliefs Competition is harmful -0.014 -0.033+ -0.021 -0.056** -0.086** -0.065**

(0.009) (0.019) (0.019) (0.008) (0.014) (0.014) State should control firm -0.011 -0.026+ -0.032* -0.003 -0.019 -0.0187

(0.007) (0.015) (0.015) (0.007) (0.012) (0.013) Inequality not a concern -0.102 -0.236 -0.104 0.313** 0.442** 0.282*

(0.086) (0.186) (0.195) (0.078) (0.131) (0.141)

Important aspects of a job

Pay -0.177* -0.381* -0.246 -0.063 -0.040 -0.040(0.070) (0.152) (0.157) (0.048) (0.082) (0.083)

Job security 0.011 0.027 -0.195+ 0.078* 0.111 0.028(0.048) (0.104) (0.116) (0.039) (0.068) (0.072)

Respected -0.003 -0.017 -0.081 0.069+ 0.119+ 0.120+(0.049) (0.106) (0.113) (0.040) (0.068) (0.070)

Hours -0.074+ -0.159+ -0.064 -0.073+ -0.122+ -0.195**(0.044) (0.095) (0.101) (0.039) (0.066) (0.068)

Initiative -0.022 -0.035 -0.084 0.082+ 0.175* 0.113(0.051) (0.110) (0.113) (0.043) (0.073) (0.074)

Achievement -0.032 -0.083 -0.156 0.019 0.018 0.023(0.050) (0.110) (0.114) (0.041) (0.070) (0.072)

Responsibility 0.308** 0.655** 0.588** 0.117** 0.177* 0.189**(0.051) (0.110) (0.114) (0.041) (0.070) (0.071)

Interaction w/colleagues 0.119* 0.279** 0.294** 0.061 0.079 0.062(0.048) (0.104) (0.107) (0.043) (0.074) (0.075)

Promotion -0.026 -0.079 -0.050 -0.092* -0.150* -0.082)(0.050) (0.108) (0.113) (0.042) (0.073) (0.075)


Key Results & Future Research

• After controlling for union-job satisfaction endogeneity, a positive relationship between the two variables can be observed

• This questions the validity of the voice hypothesis• Results for Eastern Europe evince traits of the region’s communist

past as well as experiences during socio-economic transition• Implications for the evolving process of European labor market

integration are complex and as yet not fully understood• In particular, treating Eastern Europe as a homogenous group may

mask important country and sub-regional differences• Future research should disentangle the latter

AUT UNIVERSITY TE WANANGA ARONUI O TAMAKI MAKAU RAU Trade Union Membership and Happiness at Work:...

Documents

Transcript of AUT UNIVERSITY TE WANANGA ARONUI O TAMAKI MAKAU RAU Trade Union Membership and Happiness at Work:...