Union absorptions in times of restructuring: the importance of attitude towards merger in predicting post‐merger attachment levels

Abstract

Unions frequently restructure through merger, most often in the form of absorptions involving one bigger union absorbing a smaller one. However, the individual-level effects of merger resulting in big amorphous organisations remain unclear. In this article, we highlight the role of the individual member in union absorptions, and investigate the relative importance of being a member of a large absorbing union or a small absorbed union, as well as the attitude of members towards merger in predicting post-merger member attachment. The results from longitudinal data before and after absorption showed that members' attitude towards merger significantly predicted the members' attachment levels after absorption-this was, however, not the case for union commitment. We also uncovered a significant interaction indicating that the effect of members' attitude towards merger was more strongly related to perceptions of union support and instrumentality among members of the absorbed union.

Union‐division: on the paradoxes of purpose and membership scope in union mergers

“…Merger waves within the trade union movement have been widely reported over the years. Recently, mergers have been depicted as a defensive strategy within the context of an increasingly hostile union environment and declining membership (Baraldi et al ., ; Blaschke, ; Waddington, ; Willman and Cave, ). Concurrently, mergers are broadly advocated and internally driven by senior union officers and leaders (Chaison, ; Ebbinghaus, ).…”

“…Considerations of large unions with a broader membership scope are salient to union mergers. In hostile environments, increasing size by merging has been a commonplace strategy (Baraldi et al ., ; Ebbinghaus, ; Moody, ). Arguments for size‐related benefits rest on economies of scale: large size can alleviate financial difficulties while increasing bargaining power and mustering more workers in strike action (Chaison, ; Ebbinghaus, ; Undy et al ., ).…”

“…Scale is particularly salient for defensive mergers aimed at preventing union extinction (Campling and Michelson, ; Undy et al ., ). Yet authors also point out that the relationship between mergers and economies of scale that deliver financial benefits is less clear in practice (Baraldi et al ., ; Moody, ).…”

“…For example, Baraldi et al . 's (; ) work addresses the difference between the perceptions of the leaders driving a merger and the membership voting on it and argue that effective mergers depend on effective dialogue between the two. Whereas a committed and well‐informed membership is crucial to merger success, a proposed merger stands little chance without union leaders’ support (Baraldi et al ., ).…”

“…Some AUS participants perceived these as promoting the merger to the broader membership, which then largely followed the leaders’ recommendation (McClendon et al ., )—regardless of whether the latter addressed their specific interests. There was also variation in the views articulated by leaders and other council members (Baraldi et al ., ; ) as pertains to the effectiveness of dialogue and consultation. In this case, some AUS participants perceived the merger negotiation as more directive than genuinely dialogic: whereas there had been many consultation activities, these had largely steered the broader membership towards supporting the merger.…”