Accounting for geographical variance in the union satisfaction gap

• Published date: 01 March 2019
• Author: Alex Bryson,Rhys Davies
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12243
• Date: 01 March 2019

Accounting for geographical variance in the

union satisfaction gap

Alex Bryson and Rhys Davies

ABSTRACT

Evidence of spatial variance in the relationship between trade union membership and

job satisfaction is limited. Using three nationally representative data sets, we examine

lower levels of satisfaction among union members and considers how this relationship

varies geographically across the nations and regions of Great Britain. The analysis

demonstrates that the union satisfaction gap can largely be accounted for by relative

characteristics of union members and the jobs that they hold. However, there is

evidence of geographical variance. The union satisfaction gap is generally found to

be highest within Scotland and North of England. Despite high levels of union

membership, evidence of a union satisfaction gap in Wales is relatively weak. These

differences relate to differences in the perceptions of industrial relations among

employees across these areas, which appear to be related to geographical variance

in worker heterogeneity.

1 INTRODUCTION

Satisfaction with work has become a popular topic with government now keen to

measure well-being not just in terms of economic outcomes (ONS, 2016). One of

the most widely researched issues related to job satisfaction is the apparent dissatis-

faction with work expressed by union members (the ‘union satisfaction gap’), with

this literature going back as far as Freeman (1978) and Borjas (1979). The emphasis

of this vast empirical literature has been to establish whether the lower levels of

satisfaction among union members either relates to the role of unions in voicing

and fostering feelings of dissatisfaction among members or whether it is simply a

spurious statistical by-product arising from differences in the characteristics of union

members or in the quality of the jobs that they hold. Few studies of the union satisfac-

tion gap have considered the issue of geographical variation and those that do have

tended to compare differences across countries (Green and Tsitsianis, 2005; Hipp

and Givan, 2015; Laroche, 2016; Lincoln and Boothe, 1993); regional variance within

nation states has been ignored. This is surprising for several reasons. First, unionisa-

tion rates differ markedly across regions implying that perceptions of unionisation

and its value may vary geographically. Second, union effects often vary with union

density because density affects union bargaining power and unions’capacity to voice

❒Alex Bryson, Department of Social Science, Institute of Education, University College London,

London, UK and Rhys Davies, Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods

(WISERD), Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. Correspondence should be addressed to Rhys Davies,

Research Fellow, Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods (WISERD),

Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. Email: daviesor@cardiff.ac.uk

Industrial Relations Journal 50:2, 104–125

ISSN 0019-8692

© 2019 The Authors Industrial Relations Journal published by Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribu-

tion and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

workers’concerns, so one might expect the causal effects of unions to differ between

high and low union density regions. Third, job quality, an important determinant of

union membership, has been demonstrated to vary across different parts of the UK

(Felstead et al., 2013). Finally, the climate of industrial relations, which is central

importance to understanding the union satisfaction gap (Bender and Sloane, 1998),

has also been demonstrated to vary across Great Britain (Drinkwater and Ingram,

2005). We therefore hypothesise that geographical differences in the employment

relations context could have particular relevance in contributing to spatial variance

in the relationship between union membership and job satisfaction between the

regions and nations of Great Britain.

This article directly addresses these issues through an examination of the relation-

ship between union membership and job satisfaction within Great Britain and how

this relationship varies spatially. This is undertaken via an analysis of three nationally

representative surveys: the Skills and Employment Survey (SES), the Workplace

Employment Relations Survey (WERS) and the British Household Panel Survey

(BHPS). Each of these surveys have their relative strengths and weaknesses in terms

of their ability to allow us to accurately control for the determinants of job satisfac-

tion. Through a systematic and, where possible, consistent examination of the impor-

tance of person, job and workplace characteristics to our understanding of the

relationship between unionisation and job satisfaction, the analysis aims to identify

the presence of commonalities in our findings derived from the three data sets being

considered. We utilise both measures of overall job satisfaction and measures based

upon different facets of job satisfaction. The analysis demonstrates that whilst the

union satisfaction gap can largely be accounted for by relative characteristics of union

members and the jobs that they hold, there is evidence of geographical variance. The

union satisfaction gap is estimated to be highest within Scotland and Northern

England. Despite high levels of union membership, evidence of a union satisfaction

gap in Wales is absent. These differences appear to relate to differences in the

perceptions of industrial relations among employees across these areas.

2 JOB SATISFACTION, UNION MEMBERSHIP AND PLACE

In his seminal study, Freeman (1978) observed that union members exhibited both

lower levels of job satisfaction and lower levels of turnover, a counterintuitive

relationship that subsequent literature has sought to resolve. Three explanations are

usually offered. The first is causal and emphasises the role of unions in providing

workers with a ‘voice’through which they express their dissatisfaction with work, as

opposed to having to ‘exit’their jobs (Freeman, 1978). Unions may also generate dis-

satisfaction to strengthen their bargaining hand in negotiations with employers by en-

couraging workers to be more critical of their workplaces and their jobs (Freeman and

Medoff, 1984). Some authors have however questioned whether it is indeed in the

interest of unions to generate feelings of dissatisfaction (Barling et al., 1992; Pfeffer

and Davis-Blake, 1990), suggesting instead that unions should be expected to increase

levels of job satisfaction through supporting improvements in job quality and engen-

dering increased levels of commitment among workers. Alternative explanations

suggest that the union satisfaction gap is simply the result of omitted variable bias that

induces a spurious negative association between membership and job satisfaction.

These may relate to the inability to adequately control for the poorer quality jobs

or workplaces in which union members are employed. Bryson and Freeman (2013)

105Geographical variance in the union satisfaction gap

© 2019 The Authors Industrial Relations Journal published by Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd