Not so dissatisfied after all? The impact of union coverage on job satisfaction

Abstract

The links between unionisation and job satisfaction remain controversial. In keeping with the existing literature we find strong statistically significant negative correlations between unionisation and overall job satisfaction. However, in contrast to the previous literature we find that once one accounts for fixed unobservable differences between covered and uncovered employees, union coverage is positively and significantly associated with satisfaction with pay and hours of work. Failure to account for fixed unobservable differences between covered and uncovered employees leads to a systematic underestimate of the positive effects of coverage on job satisfaction for both union members and non-members. It seems union coverage has a positive impact on job satisfaction that is plausibly causal.

Union membership and job satisfaction: Initial evidence from French linked employer–employee data

“…Second, the sources of union members' dissatisfaction in France are different according to the level of collective bargaining. As Bryson and White () point out, union members' job dissatisfaction is a complex process that may proceed along a number of different paths. Because union members who declare dissatisfaction with their work may be motivated either by intrinsic dissatisfaction (selection effect) or by greater voice (causal effect), testing this relationship in different workplace settings is a more accurate test of whether unionisation affects job satisfaction.…”

“…Clearly, the results obtained here should be replicated over different time periods to gain more understanding of the effects of unionisation. An alternative way to account for union membership effects on job satisfaction is the use of a fixed‐effects model with longitudinal data (see Green and Heywood, , or Bryson and White, , for examples). Rather than estimating job satisfaction equations in level forms, changes in job satisfaction can be estimated as a function of changes in union membership and other explanatory variables.…”

“…Unionised workers – who generally have a negative image of employers in France – would have a significantly lower probability of being satisfied, because they have higher expectations and are highly critical of management. In other words, we consider that unionised workers in France have a certain personality profile that affects their attitude towards their job and especially job satisfaction, as suggested by the literature (see Bryson and White, , for example). It is a selection effect in the sense that union members are more likely to be individuals who prefer conflict and have naturally lower job satisfaction.…”

“…Furthermore, workers who join a union could have different personal characteristics from those who prefer not to be unionised (Diener and Lucas, 1999;Warr, 1999;Bryson and White, 2016). An accumulating body of evidence suggests that difference in job satisfaction across workers can be due, in part, to differences in their temperament (House et al, 1996;Motowidlo, 1996).…”

“…Several authors have argued that many studies fail to account for the endogeneity of individual membership. Indeed, the investigation of the relationship between union membership and job satisfaction can be complicated by the presence of unobservable individual characteristics that influence both workers' perceptions and decisions to join the union (Powdthavee, 2011;Green and Heywood, 2015;Bryson and White, 2016). 1 In this study, we attempt to contribute to the broader literatures on union membership and job satisfaction in two ways.…”