This chapter provides information of the results of the data analysis. SPSS software was utilized to calculate means, standard deviations and correlations between variables. The Smart PLS software was utilized to test the hypotheses.
Correlation Analysis
According to Table 4.1, there is a significant correlation between education and gender (r=.459, p<0.01). This might be due to the fact that males in Honduras usually receive more support in their education than females do. In addition, education was found to be negatively correlated with age (r=-.355, p<0.01). This might be due to the fact that the older generation didn’t have as much access to education as the younger generation has now.
In addition, a significant correlation was found between company tenure and age (r=.714, p<0.01). This might indicate older employees also have more time in the organization. Company tenure was found to be negatively correlated to education (r=-.253, p<0.01). This might indicate that the older employees, who have longer tenure in the organization, also had less access to education.
Union tenure was found to be positively correlated with age (r=.672, p<0.01). In other words, the longer a union worker has been part of the union, the older the union worker might be. Moreover, union tenure was found to be negatively correlated with education (r=-.159, p<0.05) and positively correlated with company tenure (r=.796, p<0.01).
There was a significant correlation between union participation and gender (r=.605, p<0.01). This might mean that males are more participative and involved in the labor union. Furthermore, union participation was also found to have a significant correlation with age (r=.496, p<0.01). It might indicate that the older union workers tend to be more participative in the labor union. In addition, union participation was found to have a significant correlation with education (r=.162, p<0.05). This might indicate that the more educated union workers, probably with more confidence in their opinions, were
44
also the more participative. In addition, union participation was found to have a significant correlation with company tenure (r=.356, p<0.01) and union tenure (r=.446, p<0.01). This might indicate that the union workers with longer tenure, either in their labor union or in the company, are also more participative.
Surprisingly, social desirability was found to be negatively correlated with age (r=-.299, p<0.01). This might indicate that the younger employees tend to be more socially desirable. In addition, social desirability was found to be negatively correlated with company tenure (r=-.202, p<0.01), union tenure (r=-.145, p<0.05), and union participation (r=-.240, p<0.01).
According to table 4.1, satisfaction with collective bargaining results was found to be negatively correlated with gender (r=-.210, p<0.01). This might indicate that women might be more satisfied with collective bargaining results than men. Likewise, satisfaction with collective bargaining results was found to be significantly correlated with age (r=.195, p<0.01). This might indicate that the older union workers are also more satisfied with the results attained from collective bargaining. Moreover, satisfaction with collective bargaining results was also found to be significantly correlated to company tenure (r=.270, p<0.01) and to union tenure (r=.183, p<0.01).
Additionally, a positive union-management environment was found to be positively correlated with satisfaction with collective bargaining results (r=.317, p<0.01).
It might indicate that the more positively perceived the union-management is, the more satisfied union workers are with the collective bargaining results.
Perceived employee voice was found to be significantly correlated to company tenure (r=.179, p<0.05). It might indicate that those union workers who have a longer tenure also perceive to have a degree of voice. Likewise, perceived employee voice was also significantly correlated to satisfaction with collective bargaining results (r=.266, p<0.01) and significantly correlated with a positive union-management environment (r=.373, p<0.01).
In the case of employee compliance, it was only found to be negatively correlated to age (r=-.172, p<0.05). It seemed that the younger employees where more compliant to organizational rules and policies.
45 Table 4.1
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlation Coefficients
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Note: Numbers in parenthesis indicate the construct’s Cronbach’s alpha.
Gender = Female (0) Male (1)
Age = 19 or less (1), 20 -30 (2), 31 – 40 (3), 41-50 (4), 51-60 (5), 61 or more (6)
Education = Elementary School (1), High School (2), Technical/Vocational School (3), College (4)
Company Tenure = Less than a year (1), 1-3 years (2), 4-6 years (3), 7-9 years (4), 10-15 years (5), More than 15 years (6) Union Tenure = Less than a year (1), 1-3 years (2), 4-6 years (3), 7-9 years (4), 10-15 years (5), More than 15 years (6)
Variable Mean S/D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Gender 0.75 0.43
2. Age 3.68 0.87 -.015
3. Education 1.65 0.47 .459** -.335**
4. Company Tenure
4.76 1.02 -.005 .714** -.253**
5. Union Tenure
4.37 1.14 .019 .672** -.159* .796**
6. Union Participation
3.54 0.98 .605** .496** .162* .356** .446**
7. Social Desirability
7.69 1.94 -.068 -.299** .001 -.202** -.145* -.240** (0.85) 8. Satisfaction with
Collective Bargaining
Results 3.34 0.62 -.210** .195** -.083 .270** .183** -.045 -.090 (0.70)
9. Positive Union-Management
Environment 2.90 1.10 .023 .008 .127 .132 -.048 -.029 .053 .317** (0.94)
10. Perceived Employee
Voice 4.43 0.60 -.107 .060 -.070 .179* .093 -.132 -.079 .266** .373** (0.90) .
11. Employee Compliance 6.17 1.17 .075 -.172* .104 -.026 .075 -.071 .090 .108 .028 .059 (0.92)
46
Model Testing in PLS
PLS software was utilized to test the relationships among the variables by duplicating the sample and the t-value of the duplication through bootstrapping.
Bootstrapping is used to evaluate the significance of the path coefficients and estimate the standard of error. Bootstrapping is not a standardized procedure (Bontis, Booker &
Serenko, 2007). However, research states that it is recommended to run bootstrapping at a 5000 sample (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
Moreover, PLS allowed the researcher to review how much of the variance of the dependent variables is explained by the independent variable through the coefficient of determination (R2). According to Cohen (1988), the close the R2 is to 1, the better.
However, some R2 values of 0.02, 0.13 and 0.26 can be used to asses weak, medium or strong R2.
Furthermore, the path coefficient indicates the relationship between the dependent and independent variable. According to Moore, McCabe, Duckworth and Alwan (2009), a significant relationship is found at 90% confidence level when t>1.65 (*), at a 95%
confidence level when t>1.984 (**), and at a 99% confidence level when t>2.626 (***).
Figure 4.1 shows the PLS algorithm results. In addition, table 4.2 shows the path coefficient, error, t-value, and R square of the analysis of this research.
47 Figure 4.1. PLS algorithm result
Note: The number in the circle shows the R square and the number next to the path shows the path coefficient.
48 Table 4.2
PLS Model Testing Results
Note: *Significant at 90% confidence level t>1.65, **at 95% t>1.984, ***at 99% t>2.626 Path Coefficient
Satisfaction with Collective Bargaining Results 0.24
Employee Compliance 0.04
49
Hypothesis 1, which stated a positive relationship between perceived employee voice in labor unions and satisfaction with collective bargaining results, was supported, as (β=0.23, t>2.626). On the other hand, hypothesis 2, which stated a positive relationship between employee voice in labor unions and employee compliance, was not supported, as there was no significant relationship between them (β=0.08, t=1.09).
Hypothesis 3 stated that perceived employee voice in labor unions would have a positive effect on a positive union-management environment. The results show that hypothesis one was supported, as perceived employee voice in labor unions positively affects a positive union-management environment (β=0.36, t>2.626). Likewise, the results show that hypothesis four, which hypothesized that a positive union-management environment positively affects satisfaction with collective bargaining results was also supported (β=0.38, t>2.626).
In addition, results show that the relationship between a positive union-management environment and employee compliance was not significant (β=-0.002, t=0.04), therefore hypothesis five was not supported. This is an unexpected result, as it was expected that perceptions of fairness in the decision making procedures, would promote feelings of compliance. However, it’s important to note that compliance had very little variance, with a mean of 6.17.
The control variable that seems to have an effect on satisfaction with collective bargaining results is gender. In fact, gender seems to have a negative effect on satisfaction with collective bargaining results (β=-0.25, t>2.626). The control variable that seems to have an effect on employee compliance is age. In fact, age seems to have a negative effect on employee compliance (β=-0.19, t>1.984).
Mediation Testing in PLS
In addition, Smart PLS allowed the researcher to test whether a positive union-management environment is a significant mediator between employee voice and satisfaction with collective bargaining results. According to Bontis, Booker, and Serenko (2007), in order to test for mediation, the following guidelines must be met: First, there must be a direct link between independent and dependent variable, to ensure that there is a relationship to be mediated. Second, a direct relationship must be established between
50
independent and mediator variable. Third, the mediator must be shown to be related to the dependent variable.
Mediation exists if the coefficient of the direct path between independent and dependent variable is reduced when the indirect path via the mediator is introduced into the model. However, there was no significant relationship between perceived employee voice, a positive union-management environment and employee compliance; as such, the mediation relationship cannot be tested. On the other hand, the standardized beta of the direct path between perceived employee voice and satisfaction with collective bargaining results was 0.249. After a positive union-management environment was introduced as a mediator, the standardized beta was reduced to 0.086. As such, the amount of relationship between perceived employee voice and satisfaction with collective bargaining results accounted for by the mediator was 0.161.
The significance of the mediation effect was assessed using the Sobel test. The Sobel test has been a traditional method of testing mediation effects, and it will be utilized in this study, as it is the most widely employed (Bontis et al., 2007). According to the authors, this formula requires the unstandardized regression coefficient and the standard error between the independent variable and the mediator, and the mediator and the dependent variable. This is shown in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3
Test of Mediation
Path Regression Coefficient Standard Error Perceived Employee Voice – Positive
Union-Management Environment 0.3696 0.0537
Positive Union-Management Environment – Satisfaction with Collective Bargaining
Results
0.3859 0.0727
In addition, according to Kock (2014), in order for a mediation effect to be significant, the z-value provided by the Sobel tests must be higher than 1.96 and the p value lower than 0.05 (p<0.05). The z-value provided by the Sobel test was 4.715, and
51
p<0.01. Furthermore, Kock (2014) states that in order for a mediation to be considered a
‘full mediation’ the path between independent and dependent variable should have a t-value of lower than 1.96. As shown in figure 4.2, the path between perceived employee voice and satisfaction with collective bargaining results has a t-value of 1.063. This shows that a positive union-management environment is a full mediator between perceived employee voice and satisfaction with collective bargaining results.
The results show that hypothesis six was supported, as a positive union-management environment positively mediates the relationship between perceived employee voice and satisfaction with collective bargaining results. On the other hand, hypothesis seven, which stated the mediation effect of a positive union-management environment between employee voice and employee compliance was rejected, as the relationships could not be tested for mediation. Refer to Table 4.4.
52 Figure 4.2. PLS bootstrapping result
Note: The number next to the paths show the t-value and the stars represent the level of significance of the t-value.
53 Table 4.4
Hypotheses Testing Results Summary
Hypotheses Results
Hypothesis 1: Perceived employee voice in labor unions will positively affect satisfaction with collective bargaining results.
Supported
Hypothesis 2: Perceived employee voice in labor unions will positively affect employee compliance.
Not Supported
Hypothesis 3: Perceived employee voice in labor unions will positively affect a positive union-management environment.
Supported
Hypothesis 4: A positive union-management environment will positively affect satisfaction with collective bargaining results.
Supported
Hypothesis 5: A positive union-management environment will positively affect employee compliance.
Not Supported
Hypothesis 6: A positive union-management environment will mediate the relationship between perceived employee voice in labor unions and satisfaction with collective bargaining results.
Supported
Hypothesis 7: A positive union-management environment will mediate the relationship between perceived employee voice in labor unions and employee compliance.
Not Supported
54
Post-Hoc Interview
After conducting the study, the researcher wanted to gain more in-depth information about the results. The researcher was especially concerned with employee compliance, and why it did not have any significant relationship with the other research variables. In order to understand more about the results of the study, a labor relations expert currently working at the case company, with more than 20 years of expertise with labor unions, agreed to be interviewed.
The semi-structured interview was divided into four parts: (1) Union-Management Environment, (2) Employee Voice (3) Satisfaction with Collective Bargaining Results, and (4) Employee Compliance.
In order to understand whether the findings in the study actually reflected the current union-management environment in the case company, in the first part of the interview, the interviewee was asked about the current situation of the union-management relations in the case company.
In the second part of the interview, the interviewee was asked about employee voice. In specific, the interviewee was asked was asked whether employee voice could lead to a more positive union-management environment in the company.
During the third part of the interview, the interviewee was asked more about collective bargaining in the company. Specifically, the interviewee was asked about the relationship between a positive union-management environment and the satisfaction with collective bargaining results.
In the fourth and last part of the interview, the topic of employee compliance was approached. In specific, the interviewee was asked about the high rating that employees gave to themselves when asked about their compliance. In addition, the interviewee was asked more details about why union workers were unwilling to comply to the organizations’ regulations and policies.
Because the researcher and the interviewee where geographically isolated, the interview was conducted via Skype, an internet voice communication application, and the interview lasted an hour. The interview was conducted in Spanish, the native language of the interviewee, and was later transcribed into English.
55
Interview Results
First, the interviewee was asked whether the findings of the study reflect the current union-management relations in the company, he stated:
“Actually it does. Our union-management relations could not be better now. In fact, we just got an award by the International Labour Organization (ILO) in Honduras...we won first place on Union-Management relations. We have implemented many changes in our organization, to make sure we have good relations with the labor union. We give the union workers scholarships, free housing, health insurance, schooling and trainings. We also strongly emphasize an open labor-management talk, to have better collaboration with labor unions.”
In addition, when asked the labor expert whether he believed employee voice leads to better union-management relations in the company, he answered:
“Yes, it definitely can. Like I was mentioning before – we place a strong emphasis on communication. This means to not only talk with the union workers, and to be in constant contact, but also to listen to them. These workers are the ones who really know what is really going on at the workplace, and how we can improve some things to work more efficiently. And they like being listened to! When we listen to them, they are more open, more willing to cooperate. Let me give you an example: just a couple of days ago, I had a long meeting with some of the union workers at one farm. To make the story short, the company used to give the union workers fruit to take home. However, some of them started to abuse and take too much fruit, and as such we decided to end this benefit.
Of course, the union workers were not happy. So, we met with them, we talked to them, we listened to them. Nothing changed – we still ended that benefit – but all of the union workers left that room happy, because we heard what they had to say. It’s small things like these that make union-management relations more cooperative.”
56
Furthermore, the expert was asked whether a higher satisfaction with collective bargaining results could be some of the benefits of a positive union-management environment. He stated:
“A positive union-management environment does provide countless benefits – and yes, one of those benefits can be a higher satisfaction with collective bargaining. See, negotiations might take a long time, but with more cooperative union-management relations, negotiations might be more effective. It’s important to listen to union workers, to work with them and try to implement some of their ideas or opinions, so that they will feel more satisfied. In fact, I will tell you this – the more a union worker feels like he/she participates in making decisions, the more satisfied they will be with collective bargaining, since they will feel that they had an input and that they have a voice in their organization. Of course, none of this would be possible without a positive union-management environment. Positive union-union-management relations are the key to everything.”
In addition, the expert was asked about employee compliance. Specifically, he was asked on the reason why most of the union workers rated themselves very high on their compliance to organizational rules and regulations. He mentioned:
“Well, none of them will actually say that they don’t comply to our regulations – no one will admit that. And unfortunately – most of them refuse to follow our regulations.
In fact, they only follow the rules and regulations that we agree on through collective bargaining. Anything outside collective bargaining – even if it’s the tiniest thing – the union workers refuse to comply. We could say that the collective agreement is their bible – if it’s not there, they will not even consider following it.”
Moreover, the labor expert was asked on some of the reasons why union workers are unwilling to comply with organizational rules and policies. He stated that one of the main reasons was their reluctance to change.
57
“Change is never easy to implement in an organization, especially in labor unions.
Permanent union workers usually feel ‘protected’ by their labor union – and they enter a
‘comfort zone’ – where they feel that everything is established, and that there is no need to follow any regulations in the company. And if some of the union workers follow the rules, they don’t follow all of the rules and only to a certain degree – until a level of comfort. So, when we need to reinforce compliance, or when we have new regulations, we do so through the union officers. The union workers always listen to the union officer, so once we the union workers get the approval of their union officer, then they will be more compliant.”
In addition, the labor expert mentioned that the level of education also had an impact on the employees’ compliance:
“It’s also important to remember that most of these workers have a very low educational level and most of the time, they don’t really ‘understand’ what these regulations mean or the importance of complying with these regulations. Even with simple regulations, such as regulations related to quality control - they don’t understand the importance. They don’t understand about our market, our competitors, and efficiency.
Most of these workers live in farms far away from the city, they don’t read newspapers often, and they are not informed about the outside world. We try to do our best to explain to them everything, to teach them – at least I always try to do it – but it’s still difficult for them to understand some of the regulations. If they don’t fully understand the regulations, how can they follow them?”
Furthermore, another reason to low compliance by union workers could be a high paternalistic environment by the company. The expert explained:
“Also, in Honduras, multinationals tend to have a very paternalistic nature. These companies have given them everything – housing, loans, even milk and wood. Imagine, the company even paid to clean their yards! Of course, since 2010, this is starting to change, but still union workers have the idea that the company must provide for them. In
58
Honduras, union workers have a lot of power, a lot of voice. They know this, and they
Honduras, union workers have a lot of power, a lot of voice. They know this, and they