http://jir.sagepub.com/Relations

Journal of Industrial

http://jir.sagepub.com/content/52/2/236The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/00221856093539447

2010 52: 236JIRBlumenfeld

Boaz Shulruf, Beven Yee, Brett Lineham, Louise Fawthorpe, Roopali Johri and StephenPerceptions, Conceptions and Misconceptions of Organized Employment

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  Australian Labour and Employment Relations Association

can be found at:Journal of Industrial RelationsAdditional services and information for    

  http://jir.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jir.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://jir.sagepub.com/content/52/2/236.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- May 14, 2010Version of Record >>

by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012jir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

236

Perceptions, Conceptions and Misconceptions of Organized Employment

Boaz ShulrufDepartment of Labour and University of Auckland, New Zealand

Beven Yee, Brett Lineham, Louise Fawthorpe and Roopali JohriDepartment of Labour, New Zealand

Stephen BlumenfeldVictoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Abstract: The main objectives of this study were to identify facilitators and barriers to unionization among employees as well as to identify the effect of unionization and collective bargaining on employers’ and employees’ perceptions of workplace relations. To address these objectives survey data from just under 4000 employees and employers in over 150 New Zealand organizations was collected. The findings of this study suggest that union membership is related to employees’ perceptions of job security, ideology and job satisfaction. Employees’ perceptions of workplace relations were associated with union membership status. Employers’ perceptions of the contribution that unions make to their businesses were associated with the type of interaction employers had with trade unions. Implications for employees, employers, legislators and policy makers are discussed.

Keywords: collective agreement; perceptions; unions

Journal of Industrial Relations© Industrial Relations Society of AustraliaSAGE Publications Ltd,Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DCISSN 0022-1856, 52(2) 236–241[DOI: 10.1177/00221856093539447]

research note

Contact address: Boaz Shulruf, Centre for Medical and Health Sciences Education (CMHSE), Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. [email: b.shulruf@auckland.ac.nz]

by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012jir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Shulruf et al.: Perceptions, Conceptions and Misconceptions of Organized Employment

237

Union impacts, unionization, and collective bargaining on employment rela-tions and workplace performance have been extensively investigated (Foster et al., 2005; Harbridge et al., 2003; Hirsch, 1997, 2003; McHugh, 2007; Waddington and Whitston, 1997). New Zealand (henceforth NZ) legislation change in 2000, and the subsequent Employment Relations Act 2000 (henceforth the Act; see http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/DLM58317.html), provided a key opportunity to revisit issues of organized employment, particularly looking at the contemporary perspective of employ-ers, employees and unions. The key objective of the Act is ‘to build productive employment relationships through the promotion of mutual trust and confid-ence in all aspects of the employment environment and of the employment relationship’. Furthermore, by introducing this act the government at the time aimed to promote unionization and collective bargaining (Foster et al., 2005). Nonetheless, there was no increase in unionization from 1997 to 2007 that also reflects international trends (Foster et al., 2005). Hence, the major questions raised by these data are: (1) what factors determine whether or not employees join trade unions (henceforth: unions); and (2) what role does collective bar-gaining play in the contemporary NZ labour market, particularly in terms of employment relations and workplace performance?

The international literature suggests that the key factors determining union membership are the presence of a union in the workplace and the employee’s belief that workers need strong unions to protect work conditions and wages as well as the belief that unions provide support at work if they had problems (Jelle, 2002; Waddington and Whitston, 1997). There has been speculation that the decline in union membership within NZ was initially related to the 1991 enactment of the Employment Contracts Act 1991 (ECA). The ECA ended compulsory conciliation and arbitration and the guaranteed bargaining role for unions (Lafferty and May, 2004). Other factors affecting the decline in unioni-zation are tied to three major issues: (1) indifference on the part of the majority of workers in non-unionized firms; (2) lack of union reach (mainly into small, private sector workplaces); and (3) free-riding (Bryson, 2006; Haynes et al., 2006).

The present study aims to identify the factors that determine an employees’ decision to join or not to join a union, particularly in relation to the imple-mentation of the Act. This study also aims to address the question of whether collective bargaining affects employment relations and business performance. Recent analysis of US and German data suggests that national and collective bargaining institutions as well as high-involvement management practices were positively associated with lower staff turnover in both countries (Doellgast, 2008). Research also shows that a positive relationship between team member-ship and work-related attitudes exists for those who are more active in their union (McHugh, 2007).

On the other hand, Hirsch (1997) argued that unions do not increase pro-ductivity, and that collective bargaining is associated with lower profitability, decreased investment in physical capital, research and development. Addison

by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012jir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Journal of Industrial Relations 52(2)

238

and Belfield (2002) suggested that unions negatively affect business perform-ance and employment conditions. Evidence from NZ suggests that the level of unionization in a workplace does not affect business performance, howev-er collaborative union relationships between employers and employees does improve business profitability (Shulruf and Markey, 2008).

The recent change in the NZ legislation emphasizes the need for a fresh investigation and analysis of this issue in order to provide the most contempo-rary and relevant evidence. It is hoped that the present study may shed more light on the NZ contemporary landscape of organized employment and its effect on employment relations and business performance.

MethodsThe data for this study was derived from a survey of employers and employees located in three major regions in NZ (Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch) and covered private and public sector enterprises within some major industries (Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade, Financial and Insurance, Education, and Health and Community Services).

The employee questionnaire asked about union membership and reasons for joining a union or not, as well as perceived benefit of collective agreements and employee’s attitudes towards their employer. The employers’ questionnaire asked about business demographics, relationship with unions, and union con-tributions to business performance and employment relations. Employers were invited to participate in the survey. If they agreed, a sample of their employees was invited to participate.

ResultsThe survey included 156 enterprises and 3930 employees, 2083 (53 percent) of which were organized. Women comprised 57.1 percent of the sample and average age was 43.3 years. Ethnic distribution was similar to national compo-sition and the mean weekly working hours was 39.2.

The most common reason for joining a union was the belief that the union would provide support in work conflicts (35.4 percent), followed by ideological support in unions (21.3 percent), and a desire for job security (20.9 percent). The primary reason for not joining a union was high satisfaction with their job (34.7–39 percent). Little knowledge of union presence at the workplace, the belief that own employment was not covered by collective agreement and dissatisfaction with union performance at the workplace were more frequent reasons for not joining unions among employees who had never been union members before (p < .05).

Non-unionized employees expressed greater loyalty to their employers and believed they had better employment relations with their employers than union-ized employees (3.96 vs 3.52 p < .0001 and 5.24 vs 4.85 p < .001 respectively on scale 1–6). Loyalty to an employer decreased as a unionized employee’s income

by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012jir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Shulruf et al.: Perceptions, Conceptions and Misconceptions of Organized Employment

239

or educational attainment increased but remained unchanged amongst non-unionized employees. Among the employees who held managerial positions, more non-unionized employees earned a higher income than their unionized counterparts.

Employers’ perceptions about unions were defined by one common factor – ‘unions are good for businesses’ (Table 1). This belief was positively associ-ated with the percentage of unionized employees in the business (r = .050, p < .001). Furthermore, employers who directly negotiated with unions had stronger belief that unions are good for the business than their counterparts who did directly negotiate with unions (2.76 vs 2.20 respectively, p = .002; on scale 1–6).

DiscussionThe results, which are in line with the literature, suggest that the key factors determining whether or not employees become union members are the pres-ence of unions in the workplace and the employee’s belief that workers need strong unions to protect work conditions and wages (Bryson, 2006; Charlwood and Haynes, 2008; Gill, 2005; Haynes et al., 2006; Jelle, 2002; Waddington and Whitston, 1997). These findings suggest that regardless of the protections provided by the Act, some still seek further support by joining unions.

Previous NZ literature suggests that the presence of unions at workplaces is associated with motivation to join unions (Charlwood and Haynes, 2008;

Table 1 Employers’ perceptions about trade unions

Factor

1 2

Q112 HR costs are reduced where employees are in unions .855 .308

Q115 Businesses retain staff where employees organized .817 –.096

Q113 Cost of EDR is reduced where employees are in unions .789 .267

Q116 Employees’ motivation increased when they are organized .788 –.299

Q114 Cost of negot coll agreem lower than cost of ind agreem .626 .135

Q121 It’s easier to resolve grievances when unions are involved .597 .026

Q119 Employers prefer bargaining directly with employees –.535 –.042

Q118 Productivity is increased where employees are organized –.201 .328

Q117 Union representatives care about success of business .202 .308

Q120 More employees pursue grievances where union present –.018 –.080

by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012jir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Journal of Industrial Relations 52(2)

240

Foster et al., 2005; Haynes et al., 2006). This study emphasized the importance of job satisfaction, demonstrating that where employees are satisfied, the need for organized employment declines.

Overall, employers’ perceptions positively correlated with level of union presence at the workplace and these positive attitudes increased when employ-ers directly negotiated with unions. This finding is particularly important given the inconclusive literature (Addison and Belfield, 2002; Bryson, 2005; Bryson et al., 2005; Doellgast, 2008; Foster et al., 2005; McHugh, 2007). Thus, improv-ing communication and collaboration with employers may enable unions to increase their presence at workplaces to benefit all (Gall, 2004; Shulruf and Markey, 2008). When employers kept their employees satisfied the need for unions and collective bargaining declined. Consequently, promoting fair employment legislation may weaken unions because the need for such institu-tions will decline. Conversely, feeling insecure within the workplace may push more employees to join the union for gaining support. Since the number of unionized employees has remained unchanged since the Act came into effect, it is suggested that the current legislation, alongside employers’ practices and unions’ behaviour, have reached a relatively balanced interaction. Thus, any behavioural or legislative change may unbalance that relationship and should be cautiously considered.

Non-unionized employees felt that they had better working relations with and are more loyal to their employers than unionized employees. Loyalty to employers declined as income increased among unionized but not among non-unionized employees. It also appeared that among managers, more non-unionized employees earned higher income than their unionized counterparts. It is possible that perception of unfairness led to a decrease in loyalty among the unionized managers.

In conclusion, it is suggested that the balanced nature of employment rela-tions may work well for employers, employees and unions. Ensuring that employees are happy, whether by implementing collaborative workplace prac-tices internally and voluntarily by employers or by external enforcement via legislation, may make unions as they currently operate less relevant. However, if that change in employment relations eventuates, unions will need to change their traditional paradigm and take the lead as facilitators for collaboration between employers, employees and legislative institutions. This could start a new era of employment relations where a win–win approach shifts from common rhetoric to common practice.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of the New Zealand Department of Labour (DoL) who funded the research and provided the information that this article is based on. However, the authors stress that any opinions or findings made from this data are their own, and do not necessarily represent government policy or the opinion of the Department of Labour.

by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012jir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Shulruf et al.: Perceptions, Conceptions and Misconceptions of Organized Employment

241

References

Addison, J. and Belfield, C. (2002) Unions and Establishment Performance: Evidence from the British Workplace Industrial/Employee Relations Surveys. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.

Bachar, K. and Koss, M. P. (2001) ‘From Prevalence to Prevention: Closing the Gap Between what we Know about Rape and what we Do’, in C. M. Renzetti, J. L. Edleson and R. Kennedy-Bergen (eds) Sourcebook on Violence Against Women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bryson, A. (2005) ‘Union Effects on Employee Relations in Britain’, Human Relations 58: 1111–39.

Bryson, A. (2006) Union Free-riding in Britain and New Zealand. SSRN.Bryson, A., Forthnn, J. and Kirbynn, S. (2005) ‘High-involvement Management Practices,

Trade Union Representation and Workplace Performance in Britain’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy 52: 451–91.

Charlwood, A. and Haynes, P. (2008) ‘Union Membership Decline in New Zealand, 1990–2002’, Journal of Industrial Relations 50: 87–110.

Doellgast, V. (2008) ‘Collective Bargaining and High-involvement Management in Comparative Perspective: Evidence from U.S. and German Call Centers’, Industrial Relations 47: 284–318.

Foster, B., Laird, I., McAndrew, I. and Murrie, J. (2005) Employer Attitudes as a Factor in Union Stagnation in New Zealand. Palmerston North: Department of Human Resource Management, Massey University.

Gall, G. (2004) ‘Trade Union Recognition in Britain, 1995–1902: Turning a Corner?’ Industrial Relations Journal 35(3): 249–70.

Gill, K. (2005) ‘The Influences on Women Joining and Participating in Unions’, Industrial Relations Journal 36: 386–401.

Harbridge, R., May, R. and Thickett, G. (2003) ‘The Current State of Play: Collective Bargaining and Union Membership under the Employment Relations Act 2000’, New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations 28: 140–9.

Haynes, P., Boxall, P. and Macky, K. (2006) ‘Union Reach, the “Representation Gap” and the Prospects for Unionism in New Zealand’, Journal of Industrial Relations 48: 193–216.

Hirsch, B. (1997) ‘Unionization and Economic Performance: Evidence on Productivity, Profits, Investment, and Growth’, in F. Mihlar (ed.) Unions and Right-to-Work Laws. Vancouver: The Fraser Institute.

Hirsch, B. (2003) What do Unions Do for Economic Performance?. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.

Jelle, V. (2002) ‘Why Fewer Workers Join Unions in Europe: A Social Custom Explanation of Membership Trends’, British Journal of Industrial Relations 40: 403–30.

Lafferty, G. and May, R. (2004) Legislation, Mediation and Unions: New Zealand’s Employment Relations Act 2000. Wellington: Industrial Relations Centre, Victoria University of Wellington.

McHugh, P. (2007) ‘Collective Bargaining Context and Worker Attitudes: Comparing Team and Traditional Work Systems’, Journal of Labor Research 28: 697–713.

Shulruf, B. and Markey, R. (2008) Effects of Workplace Practices on Profitability in New Zealand. Wellington: Department of Labour.

Waddington, J. and Whitston, C. (1997) ‘Why Do People Join Unions in a Period of Membership Decline?’, British Journal of Industrial Relations 35: 515–46.

by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012jir.sagepub.comDownloaded from