It is not just about paying your dues: Impact of generational cohort on active and passive union participation

• Author: Michael Halinski,Linda Duxbury,Christopher Smith
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12230
• Date: 01 July 2019
• Published date: 01 July 2019

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

It is not just about paying your dues: Impact of

generational cohort on active and passive union

participation

Christopher Smith

1

|Linda Duxbury

1

|Michael Halinski

2

1

Sprott School of Business, Carleton

University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

2

Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson

University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Correspondence

Christopher Smith, Carleton University, Sprott

School of Business, 1125 Colonel By Dr,

Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada.

Email: christophersmith4@cmail.carleton.ca

Abstract

The lack of a validated measure of active–passive union

participation and a dearth of research into the relationship

between generational cohort and union participation

challenge union leaders to develop policies and practices

to facilitate union renewal. We address these issues by (a)

developing a multidimensional measure of union participa-

tion that captures both active and passive components, (b)

using structural equation modelling to validate the measure

within a nomological framework, and (c) investigating the

impact of generational cohort on all paths in our framework.

Data from members of a large American union confirm that

generational cohort influences how union members

participate in their union. The two‐factor measure devel-

oped in this study facilitates research into antecedents

and outcomes of passive and active union participation.

Our findings should also prove useful to unions seeking to

increase participation within their membership, academics

researching unions and generational cohort, and human

resource practitioners operating in unionised environments.

KEYWORDS

active participation, generational cohort, union participation, union

renewal

Received: 2 March 2017 Revised: 24 January 2019 Accepted: 28 January 2019

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12230

Hum Resour Manag J. 2019;29:371–394. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltdwileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj 371

1|INTRODUCTION

Over the past several decades, the union movement has experienced a precipitous decline. Unions have seen their

memberships shrink in proportion to the total workforce, their political and economic powers eroded, and their ability

to reach new members with pro‐worker messaging diminish (Behrens, Hamann, & Hurd, 2004). Participation in union

activities has also declined (Cates, 2014; Gall & Fiorito, 2012a). These shifts have encouraged unions to focus on

union renewal or revitalisation, a process of change designed to rebuild the institutional strength of the union

movement in order to advance the interests and rights of workers (Behrens et al., 2004).

For union renewal to succeed, unions need to determine how best to increase union membership and

participation, particularly amongst younger workers (Dufour‐Poirier & Laroche, 2015; Hodder, 2015). Such efforts

are motivated by data showing that unions are getting older (Schmitt & Warner, 2009) and younger members are

not as engaged with their union as their older colleagues (Cates, 2014). Researchers (Bryson, Gomez, Gunderson,

& Meltz, 2005; Gomez, Gunderson, & Meltz, 2002; Hodder, 2015) identify two macrolevel shifts that have

contributed to these trends. First, they observe that younger workers tend to be employed in contract positions or

newer industries that are not highly unionised. This limits their exposure to union benefits. Second, they claim the

spread of neoliberal ideology and policies have made it harder for unions to adequately socialise and attract younger

workers to the union movement.

Increased participation in union activities by union members is a necessary precursor to union renewal (Gall &

Fiorito, 2012a). Bolton et al. (2007, p. 74) define union participation as “involvement in collective action and other

union related activities that are closely related to the effective functioning of the union.”Bolton et al. (2007) outline

a wide range of ways in which union participation activities have been classified by researchers including the nature

of the activity (i.e., formal and informal), the type of activity (e.g., meeting, voting, and administrative), and who typ-

ically engages in such activities (e.g., individual and activist). Others argue that union participation should be

conceptualised as a multidimensional construct based on the amount of effort required on the part of the union

member to engage in various union activities (Gall & Fiorito, 2012a; Kelloway, Catano, & Carroll, 1995; Snape,

Redman, & Chen, 2000). Proponents of this view argue that because some union activities (e.g., settling grievances

against the employer) require more time and effort than others (e.g., talking about the union with coworkers),

different processes might drive member participation in active and passive activities. Others claim that active forms

of union participation are more important to union renewal than are passive contributions (i.e., Fiorito, Gall, &

Martinez, 2010; Hickey, Kuruvilla, & Lakhani, 2010).

Regardless of how the union participation construct is defined, “the raison d'être”of any union can only be

fulfilled if its members participate in union activities (Bolton et al., 2007). This makes the union participation construct

valuable both practically (i.e., to unions and labour leaders) and academically, as it is something that unions can

directly influence in a manner that will facilitate union renewal (Behrens et al., 2004; Bolton et al., 2007; Gall &

Fiorito, 2012a). Unfortunately, despite the perceived importance of active union participation to union renewal (Gall

& Fiorito, 2012a), a generally accepted measure of active versus passive union participation has not been developed

(Tripti & Ginni, 2015).

Moreover, although research demonstrates a need for unions to better integrate younger workers into the labour

movement, there is little empirical research that explores union participation through a “generational cohort”lens

(Cates, 2014). If generational theory holds and the values, beliefs, and behaviours of each cohort are in fact influ-

enced by their environment, then society's increasing hostility towards unions (Clawson & Clawson, 2007) and

increases in individualism over time (Twenge, 2006) may result in between‐cohort differences in attitudes towards

and behaviours related to unions and unionism in a way that is likely to impact both union participation and efforts

towards union renewal. Research in the area is, therefore, needed to elucidate these relationships.

Our study addresses the above gaps in our understanding by (a) developing and validating a multidimensional

measure of union participation that captures the active–passive components of the construct and (b) exploring the

relationship between generational cohort, active–passive participation, workers' relationship with the union, and

372 SMITH ET AL.