The antecedents of union commitment and participation: evaluating moderation effects across unions

• Published date: 01 November 2014
• Date: 01 November 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12073

The antecedents of union commitment and

participation: evaluating moderation

effects across unions*

Tom Redman and Ed Snape

ABSTRACT

This article evaluates whether the nature of the union moderates the antecedents of

union commitment and participation, based on a study of member attitudes in Voice,

formerly the Professional Association of Teachers, and the National Unions of Teach-

ers, often seen as the most ‘moderate’ and ‘militant’ teacher unions, respectively.

1 INTRODUCTION

There is long-standing and well-established body of research on members’ union

commitment and their participation in union activities (Fiorito et al., 2014; Gordon

et al., 1980; Snape et al., 2000). A meta-analysis identified members’ union instru-

mentality, pro-union attitudes, organisational commitment and job satisfaction as

antecedents of union commitment, which was then associated with members’ partici-

pation in union activities (Bamberger et al., 1999).1In discussing future research

needs, Bamberger et al. (1999) argued that: ‘. . . researchers should begin to focus

their attention on how multivariate union commitment models may vary with the

nature and composition of the workforce examined . . .’ (p. 315). The argument is that

the importance of the factors associated with union commitment and participation is

likely to vary according to the relative salience of instrumentality and ideological

needs. For example, it has traditionally been suggested that white-collar workers are

less likely to attach to a union on the basis of ideology or general pro-union attitudes,

with instrumentality considerations looming larger than in the case of blue-collar

workers (Roberts et al., 1972; Strauss, 1964; Tapia, 2013).

In this article, we address the need for more work on the boundary conditions of

union commitment and participation models by evaluating the suggestion that the

nature of the union and the characteristics of its membership influence the relative

importance of the various antecedents of union commitment and participation. We

compare member attitudes in two unions: Voice, formerly the Professional Associa-

❒Tom Redman and Ed Snape are Professors of Management at Durham University Business School,

Durham University. Correspondence should be addressed to Tom Redman, Durham Business School,

Durham University, Mill Hill Lane, Durham City, Durham DH13LB; email: tom.redman@durham.ac.uk

*The authors have contributed equally to this article.

1The meta-analysis drew on 59 studies with 80 independent samples conducted from 1980. The majority of

studies were based on North American samples, but the analysis also included a sizeable number of Asian,

European and Australian studies.

Industrial Relations Journal 45:6, 486–506

ISSN 0019-8692

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

tion of Teachers (PAT), and the National Unions of Teachers (NUT). These are often

seen as the most ‘moderate’ and ‘militant’ teacher unions, respectively. First, we aim

to establish the extent to which these union ‘images’ (Craft and Abboushi, 1983) or

‘brands’ (Riley, 1995) are reflected in the pattern of member attitudes and union

participation. Both unions recruit teachers, but they make very different appeals in

recruiting members, and we aim to see whether or not this results in different mem-

bership profiles. Second, and our main contribution, we evaluate whether or not the

antecedent processes of union commitment and participation differ across the two

unions. There is already US research suggesting that union image, measured as unions

being strong (e.g. achieving good terms and conditions for their members, adequately

representing women, not corrupt, etc.), may predict voting intentions in union rep-

resentation elections (Youngblood et al., 1984). We evaluate whether there are dif-

ferences in the importance of the antecedents of union commitment and participation

between our two unions. In this, we are responding to Bamberger et al.’s (1999) call

for more research on moderation effects in union commitment models.

2 UNION COMMITMENT AND PARTICIPATION

Based on their meta-analysis, Bamberger et al. (1999) proposed and found support

for an ‘integrative’ model of union commitment and participation. According to this

model, the impact of job satisfaction on union commitment is partially mediated by

organisational commitment and that of union instrumentality by pro-union attitudes.

Finally, union commitment has a direct effect on union participation.

Union instrumentality refers to the perceived impact of the union on valued out-

comes, such as pay and employment conditions (Fullagar and Barling, 1989). Pro-

union attitudes is defined as the perceived desirability of unions in general (McShane,

1986), rather than attitudes towards the individual’s own union in particular.

Bamberger et al. (1999) find that pro-union attitudes has a larger direct effect on

union commitment than does union instrumentality, arguing that unions should pay

more attention to social exchange aspects of the member–union relationship, because

pro-union attitudes reflect perceived mutual support and solidarity, in contrast to the

purely instrumentally based economic exchange perspective. This implies that unions

should adopt a campaigning approach, emphasising rank-and-file involvement and

building pro-union attitudes, rather than relying solely on appeals to narrow instru-

mentality, as in the traditional US ‘business union’ model (Tapia, 2013).

Bamberger et al. (1999) found evidence of dual commitment to union and

employer, in that there was a positive relationship between organisational and union

commitment. Bamberger et al. (1999) also found a positive relationship between job

satisfaction and organisational commitment, and a negative relationship between job

satisfaction and union commitment. However, findings on the latter relationship have

generally been mixed, for example, a number of studies report no significant relation-

ships between job satisfaction and union commitment (Chan et al., 2006; Tan and

Aryee, 2002). Gordon et al. (1980) found either negative or non-significant associa-

tions between satisfaction of lower and higher-order needs and three dimensions of

union commitment. Some studies (e.g. Magenau et al., 1998) find that job satisfaction

is positively related to union commitment, while others report a negative relationship

(Barling et al., 1990; Fullagar and Barling, 1989). Fuller and Hester (1998) conducted

a meta-analysis of 22 samples of mainly North American studies conducted between

1980 and 1996. They found that correlations between union commitment and job

487Union commitment and participation

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd