To vote or not to vote: abstaining from voting in union representation elections

Abstract

SummaryWe conducted two studies addressing abstaining from voting in union representation elections. In Study 1 of a faculty representation election, we showed that compared to voters abstainers possessed less extreme work and union attitudes, believed less in the ability of their vote to affect the election outcomes, and were less involved in the election (e.g., less interested, felt less responsibility to vote). To assess the practical utility of these findings. Study 2 used vignettes in a 2 (traditional bread-and-butter issues) 2 (emerging issues related to fairness) X 2 (voting instrumentality) x 2 (responsibility to vote) experimental manipulation.Results showed that the likelihood of abstaining is reduced when efforts to emphasize the responsibility to vote are presented together with information on both traditional and emerging issues. The two studies show why people abstain from voting in union representation elections, and suggest how abstaining might be reduced. Conceptual implications, practical interventions and research directions raised by the two studies are discussed.

Identifying significant determinants for acceptance of nature reserves: a case study in the Stilfserjoch National Park, Italy

“…The results of the 'snap election' question reveal a small number of non-voters, which confirms studies from Feddersen and Pesendorfer (1999) and Hepburn et al 2001 who found a large interest in the topic among locals. Although more opponents were expected, the results indicate a lack of acceptance given the large group of sceptics (41.3 %).…”

Union Professors: Framing Processes, Mobilizing Structures, and Participation in Faculty Unions*

“…Some studies suggest that professors who thought university supervisors were autocratic or capricious were decidedly more pro‐union (Elmuti and Kathawala 1991; Karim and Rassuli 1996; Lipset and Ladd 1973) as were professors who see stunted or feeble faculty senates (Allen and Keavney 1981; Bornheimer 1985; Gress 1976; Lee 1979; Zalesny 1985). Likewise, some studies suggest that the desire for increased participation in governance was the primary motivation for unionization (Finley 1991; Gress 1976; Hepburn and Barling 2001; Karim and Rassuli 1996; Lee 1979; Magney 1999).…”

Perceived support in a dual organizational environment: Union participation in a university setting

“…Although the response rate appears low, we believe this rate is not unusual for a population in a university setting. For instance, Hepburn and Barling (2001) surveyed graduate assistants regarding their voting intention in a hypothetical certification election, with a response rate of 20%. The Internet format may also have been a contributing factor to the low response rate.…”