Reciprocity and Workers’ Tastes for Representation

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research at DIW BerlinThis series presents research findings based either directly on data from the German SocioEconomic Panel Study (SOEP) or using SOEP data as part of an internationally comparable data set (e.g. CNEF, ECHP, LIS, LWS, CHER/PACO). SOEP is a truly multidisciplinary household panel study covering a wide range of social and behavioral sciences: economics, sociology, psychology, survey methodology, econometrics and applied statistics, educational science, political science, public health, behavioral genetics, demography, geography, and sport science.The decision to publish a submission in SOEPpapers is made by a board of editors chosen by the DIW Berlin to represent the wide range of disciplines covered by SOEP. There is no external referee process and papers are either accepted or rejected without revision. Papers appear in this series as works in progress and may also appear elsewhere. They often represent preliminary studies and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be requested from the author directly.Any opinions expressed in this series are those of the author(s) and not those of DIW Berlin.Research disseminated by DIW Berlin may include views on public policy issues, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. Abstract: Using unique survey data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, this study examines the influence of reciprocal inclinations on workers' sorting into codetermined firms. Employees with strong negative reciprocal inclinations are more likely to work in firms with a works council while employees with strong positive reciprocal inclinations are less likely to work in such firms. We argue that these findings conform to hypotheses derived from the experimental literature. Moreover, the results show striking gender differences in the relationship between reciprocity and taste for representation. These differences can be partially explained by gender-specific differences in the average degree of labor force attachment.JEL: D03, J52, J53, M50.

Sickness Absence and Works Councils: Evidence from German Individual and Linked Employer–Employee Data

“… This number is broadly comparable to the percentage reported by Ellguth and Kohaut () and consistent with the percentages calculated by Jirjahn and Lange () and Gralla, Kraft, and Lang () on the basis of SOEP data. …”

Owner‐Managers and the Failure of Newly Adopted Works Councils

“…These unobserved factors can result in an omitted variable bias. For example, findings by Jirjahn and Lange () indicate that workers with specific personality traits such as positive reciprocal inclinations sort away from co‐determined firms as they prefer more personal and informal relationships with their employer. To the extent these workers self‐select in owner‐managed firms, it may be not the owner‐managers but rather the workers themselves who oppose co‐determination.…”

Nonunion Employee Representation: Theory and the German Experience With Mandated Works Councils

“…While unemployment has well known negative psychological effects, re‐employment into low quality jobs – including those with low autonomy and high insecurity as well as low pay – may lead to even worse health outcomes (Chandola and Zhang ); again a key channel may be through chronic stress. It is perhaps surprising that the psychological and health dimensions of works councils appear to have been largely neglected (but see Jirjahn and Lange and Sapulete, van Witteloostuijn and Kaufmann for exceptions).…”