LITERATURE REVIEW - Effects of Union-Management Environment and Employee Voice in Labor Unions:

Labor Unions: An Introduction

Labor unions have played an extremely important role in shaping how we live and work. Unions can be an instrument of social change, but even when the labor unions play an important role in their respective societies; their activities always remain focused on their workplace.

Labor unions are organizations that are established by and for workers with the purpose of achieving collective goals related to their work environment (Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008). Many of the “collective” goals of labor unions are economic, such as: achieving higher wages and higher benefits for the workers. Moreover, there are other educational, cultural, recreational and social goals (Tiburcio, 1998) aimed at benefiting the employees. These goals go beyond economic purposes, such as making the workplace safer and protecting employees’ rights.

Labor unions were born in Great Britain and France, however, they have quickly extended throughout the world (Lescas, 2009). Long hours, poor living conditions, unsafe workplace conditions, low wages, and exploitation of the workers, are just some of the aspects that have contributed to the formation of countless labor unions throughout Latin America (Tiburcio, 1998). According to Santos (2012), labor unions are probably the most “legitimate expression of the organized working class”, and as such, are a fundamental aspect of workers’ life in Latin America.

Labor Unions in Honduras

The labor union movement in Honduras is traditionally considered one of the strongest in Central America (Merrill, 1995). However, despite their strength, the labor movement in Honduras is relatively young: labor unions were recognized by the government until 1954, after a worker strike that lasted more than three months (Posas, 1988).

According to Posas (1988), what were once small and short-lived labor unions have now become an important political force in Honduras. As a matter of fact, recent

statistics state there are approximately 450 labor unions in the country (Sepúlveda, 2003) and at least 15% of all Honduran workers are unionized (cited in La Prensa, 2012).

Labor unions in Honduras are established throughout an assembly that gathers at least the minimum number of workers that are required for its formation. For instance, if the company has more than 50 workers, the minimum number of workers required is 25, which have to represent at least 10% of the workers in the company. If the company has less than 50 workers, the minimum number of workers is 8, which have to represent at least 50% of all the workers in the company (Tiburcio, 1998).

Merrill (1995) states that historically, Honduran labor unions have strongly opposed ‘solidarismo’ or solidarity associations. These associations tend to emphasize

‘management-labor harmony’, by having management and labor workers representatives (Merrill, 1995). In the long run, this reluctance from union workers to cooperate with management might negatively affect not only Honduran companies, but also the workers themselves. Because of this, more companies in the country are aiming to build a positive relationship with labor unions.

Labor Unions Research

Labor union research is quite popular and varied. Research on labor unions includes: labor-management relations, workplace grievance resolutions, women’s participation in labor unions, and importance of labor unions in the workplace, among others. For the purpose of this research, the most relevant research topics will be listed.

Much of the research on labor unions is related the role labor unions play through organizational change. In a globalized world, organizations are experiencing significant changes related to technology or work structures, and many firms are even force to downsize. However, research suggests that labor unions can play a significant role through organization change. In fact, Tsai and Shih (2013) argue that labor unions negotiations are an important factor to consider when investigating the impact of organizational change or downsizing strategies on firm performance. The authors argue that labor unions actually lessen the impact of downsizing, because through their negotiations they improve job security and benefits.

In addition, much research related to labor unions is concerned with declining numbers in labor union membership. In fact, Martinez (2009) states that union decline has steadily increased during the last years. Much of the research related to union decline aims to understand what can be done to stop or to slow down this decline (Sano &

Williamson, 2008). Moreover, Sano and Williamson (2008) suggest that workplace access, better bargaining arrangements, better relationships with employers and better benefits can be a way to reverse this union decline.

In response to this drop in union membership, researchers are turning to union-management environment. In fact, research suggests that the benefits a positive relationship between union and management can bring to an organization go beyond reversing union decline, but can also increase productivity, efficiency and service quality (Deery & Iverson, 2005). In addition, research findings suggest that collaboration between both parties can encourage employees to work according to the firm’s interests (Deery & Iverson, 2005) and have a strong influence on organizational performance (Weinstein, 2012).

Collective Bargaining is a topic that has gained attention during the past years. In fact, Belman and Block (2003) state that research on collective bargaining is extensive and controversial. Some research suggests that organizations move away from the traditional way of bargaining, into a way of bargaining that can provide benefits for both parties. In fact, Till-Retz, Holub, and Clements (2000) propose a new model of collective bargaining: a ‘mutual gains’ way of negotiating. Instead of the usual adversarial bargaining, through this new model of bargaining, both parties are equally committed to continuing their relationship, and both parties will equally propose solutions together (Till-Retz et al., 2000).

Procedural Justice

Employees’ perceptions about fairness in an organization are of increasing importance to researchers. Studies suggest that how employees perceive certain work-related aspects can be directly linked to how employees behave and act in an organization (Halle, 2013). For instance, Ince and Gul (2011) argue that employee perceptions about

the organization’s decisions and practices can influence whether employee exhibit organizational citizenship behaviors.

Halle (2013) described perceptions as “the process through which we select, organize, and interpret the information gathered by our senses, in order to fully understand our environment”. In other words, individuals give meaning to their environment based on their perceptions. Moreover, Kannan and Panimalar (2013) state that an individual’s perception is not necessarily based on reality, but it is an outlook, an individual’s view of a situation.

Organizational justice is concerned with the ways employees perceive and determine if they are treated fairly, and those determinations can have an effect on how employees behave. In fact, Ngodo (2008) states that organizational justice is a term that describes the role of fairness in the workplace. Furthermore, the author argues that researchers have determined two major perspectives on organizational justice:

distributive justice and procedural justice.

McFarlin and Sweeney (1992) define procedural justice as the perceived fairness of processes used to determine decisions. In other words, procedural justice can be described as the employees’ perceptions on how fair and transparent the organization’s decision–making procedures are.

Perceptions on procedural justice are related to attitudes and behaviors towards all processes, policies, decision making and outcomes in the organization (Dogan, 2008).

Actually, research suggests that in an organization where employees perceive that the processes that are utilized to determine the outcomes are fair and transparent, and that management is willing to accept their obligations under the collective bargaining agreements, then the union-management environment will be more positively perceived (Deery & Iverson, 2005) and there will be a better communication between management and labor unions (Yarrington, Townsend & Brown, 2007).

In addition, one of the most significant findings related to procedural justice is the positive effect it can have on employees. According to Törnblom and Vermunt (2007) procedural justice is positively correlated with satisfaction in the workplace.

Furthermore, studies show that there is a very strong relationship between procedural justice and trust and commitment in employees (Dogan, 2008). Moreover, Dogan (2008)

argues that the trust that procedural justice might bring to the workplace is an antecedent of voluntary cooperation. Dogan (2008) argue that procedural justice is a predictor for organizational citizenship behaviors such as conscientiousness, compliance, altruism and courtesy. Although these behaviors are not identical to voluntary cooperation, they do demonstrate the ability of employees to overrule personal self-interest in behalf of the organization.

Furthermore, Doyle, Gallery and Coyle (2009) argue that individuals who perceive that they have been treated fairly feel entitled to comply and adhere. O’Hear (2008) agrees: the author states that perceptions of fairness will promote feelings of cooperation and compliance. Thus, it can be argued that if employees in an organization feel that the decisions in an organization were reached through fair procedures, then these employees will feel more obligated to comply with the organization’s regulations.

However, employees’ perceptions of fairness are not only based on the final decision, but on how that decision was reached. Blader and Tyler (2003) argue that an individual’s perception of fairness of the decision-making process doesn’t depend solely on the outcome of the decisions, but on the attributes of the process to reach the outcome.

Furthermore, O’Hear (2008) argues that one of these attributes includes employee voice: whether the individual perceives that he/she had the opportunity to give out his/her opinions and suggestions. In fact, the author argues that perceptions of voice can actually promote the acceptance of decisions that otherwise would be believed to be unfair.

Satisfaction with Collective Bargaining Results

As discussed earlier, Wilkinson et al., (2004) proposed that union workers could communicate their views and opinions of work related issues to management through collective bargaining. Before understanding satisfaction with collective bargaining results, it’s important to understand the nature of collective bargaining.

The Department for Professional Employees (2011) defined Collective Bargaining as:

“Collective bargaining is a form of employer–employee relations that allows employees to be heard in the workplace on issues that affect them. It offers

workers the advantage of being able to speak with one voice. Professionals use collective bargaining to preserve workplace integrity and respect, and create safe, professional, and rewarding work environments.” (p. 1)

Aydin and Ceylan (2009) define employee satisfaction as “the combination of affective reactions to the differential perceptions of what the employee wants to receive with what he/she actually receives”. Utilizing this definition, satisfaction with collective bargaining results can be described as the differential perceptions of what the employee wants to receive through collective bargaining, with what he/she actually receives. It is important to note, that employees’ perceptions of what the employees wants to receive and perceptions of what he/she actually receives, are influenced by the employees’ own unique needs, values, and expectations (Castro & Martins, 2010).

Collective bargaining deals with an extensive variety of issues. According to Budd, Warino and Patton (2004) the most important issues that collective bargaining covers are hours of work, wages, benefits and terms of employment. It is through collective bargaining that union workers can earn higher wages, have access to benefits (such as health insurance and pensions) and negotiate over issues regarding a safer work environment.

The pattern of collective bargaining can be different in different countries.

However, the main steps in the collective bargaining process are usually the following:

present the demands of employees to the employer, followed by discussions and negotiations on a ‘give or take basis’ to fulfill the demands (Benites & Larco, 2004). In the long run, collective bargaining will lead up to the conclusion of a collective agreement. According to Gernigon, Odero, and Guido (2000) collective agreements are written agreements between an employee and its employer regarding working conditions.

Collective agreements have a strong, binding nature, and even contracts of employment that contradict the collective agreement can be regarded as null and be replaced by the new conditions of the collective agreement (Gemigon et al., 2000).

In addition, according to Budd, Warino and Patton (2004) a typical organization is ruled by principles of authority and subordination. However, throughout the bargaining process, the union members are no longer in a position of subordination towards the

management. By no longer being in this position of subordination, union workers will have the opportunity not only to speak out their concerns and opinions, but actually to propose ideas and solutions to the management. By doing so, the union workers have the chance to change their work environment and their work conditions for the better.

Collective bargaining can provide the opportunity for employees to give opinions about their work conditions and collective agreements can be the tools for management to act according to these opinions. In addition, collective bargaining can be a process which can benefit both parties: management and labor unions. As a matter of fact, Belman and Block (2003) suggested that collective bargaining can provide a mechanism through which both union and management can propose, discuss and agree on certain situations.

Through a “win-win” collective bargaining, an organization open to collective bargaining is more likely to be efficient than one in which decisions are only taken by management (Till-Retz, Holub, & Clements, 2000).

Employee Compliance

Lee, Kim and Kim (2013) argued that nowadays, constant changes in organizational environments results in greater importance in organizational flexibility and adaptation. In turn, in order to for an organization to be flexible and adapt to changing situations, it calls for voluntary and engaged behaviors from the organization’s employees. Concerning this matter, more researchers are gaining interest in employee compliance.

Employee compliance indicates employees’ intentions to follow the organizational rules (Lee et al., 2013). Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000) supported this definition. The authors argue that compliance captures employees’

internalization and acceptance of the organization’s rules, regulations and procedures.

Acceptance will result in a conscious adherence to these regulations and procedures, even when no one is observing or monitoring the employee.

Compliance behaviors can benefit the organization in many ways. Emami, Alizadeh, Nazari and Darvishi (2012) argued that high rates of ‘regulation following’

keep the organization running efficiently. Furthermore, the authors argued that employees who tend to adhere to the organizations regulations tend to be more productive. When

employees adhere to regulations, they tend to spend less time in unnecessary breaks or chatter, and tend to be more productive in their work environments. In addition, research suggests that employees who comply to the organization’s regulations have lower rates of absenteeism, which translates into lower costs for contracting ‘temps’ to fill in for absent workers or fewer people needed on payroll (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006).

Most of the time, people assume that all employees comply with their organizations’ regulations. However, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000) argued that even though all employees in an organization are expected to follow the organization’s regulations at all times, many do not. Therefore, an employee who follows the regulations even when no one is watching is an invaluable asset to an organization.

Perceived Employee Voice in Labor Unions

In today’s workplace, both employers and employees have a shared interest in the success and growth of the organization. Employee voice might be the mechanism that can be used by managers to understand performance problems and for employees to know how improvements can be made. As a matter of fact, employee voice is a term that has become more common in human resources literature in recent years (Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington & Ackers, 2004). This variety of literature has made employee voice a very broad term which holds extensive definitions from a wide range of authors (Townsend, Wilkinson & Burgess, 2013).

In fact, employee voice is a term that can be used with different applications and in different contexts. Nevertheless, researchers argue that this predicament can be overcomed by simply defining employee voice as an opportunity to ‘have a say’: a concept that is essential in most definitions of employee voice (Townsend et al., 2013).

Perceived employee voice in labor unions can be defined as employees’

perceptions of whether or not they ‘have a say’ in labor unions. Moreover, Hames (2012) argued that perceptions of voice relate to the acceptability or the consequences of speaking out and providing input in an organization. Particularly, perceived employee voice is derived from how employees perceive the behaviors of their superiors, and whether they provide an opportunity for employees to provide input (Hames, 2012).

Usually, organizations have a range of formal and informal mechanisms for employees to voice out their views and opinions. Freeman and Medoff (2004) argue that labor unions are the best agents to provide employee voice. Townsend et al. (2013) argue that unions, through their collective actions, are an opportunity to air out grievances and opinions. In their 2002 report, “Management choice and employee voice”, the Institute of Personnel and Development argue that the most widely used voice mechanisms include:

two-way communications, attitude surveys, joint consultation, suggestion schemes and collective representation.

However, none of these mechanisms are useful if voice is not perceived as being heard. Emmott (2012) argued that for voice to be an effective mechanism in an organization, it is really needs to be ‘fed’ into the organization’s decision making process.

In fact, for union workers to have a positive perception of their voice in their labor unions, they have to perceive that their views and opinions are listened to and acted upon. If employees perceive that their voice is not acted upon, then their perceptions of voice in the organization will be negative. Budd (2012) argued that if an employee perceives that their voice never achieves or leads to something, then employees will not desire to exercise voice.

Potter (2006) argued that countless procedural justice studies evidence the positive effects of employee voice. In fact, Purcell (2010) argues that listening to employee voice can drive employee engagement. If employees perceive that their voice will promote a positive change in the organization, then this will encourage them to engage and participate in their organization. Moreover, research suggests that when employees perceive themselves as having a voice and they perceive that their voice will have an impact on organizational decisions, then employees will have higher levels of organizational commitment (Farndale, Van Ruiten, Kelliher & Hope-Hailey, 2011). In addition, Hames (2012) argued that employees satisfied with their perceptions of their voice, will have higher levels of affective commitment and lower levels of exit. In fact, employees with a positive perception of voice are not only more willing to make contributions, but also show loyalty to the organization and the organization’s goals (Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development, 2005).

In addition, perceived employee voice has been found to affect satisfaction with collective bargaining results. In fact, Belman and Block (2003) argued that collective organization and collective bargaining are of extreme importance, as they can provide a means in which employees can voice out any grievances and negotiate an arrangement with their employer. Collective bargaining can provide the opportunity for employees to give opinions about their work conditions and collective agreements can be the tools for management to act according to these opinions. In addition, collective bargaining can be a process which can benefit both parties: management and labor unions. As a matter of fact, Belman and Block (2003) suggested that collective bargaining can provide a mechanism through which both union and management can propose, discuss and agree on certain situations. Through a “win-win” collective bargaining, an organization open to collective bargaining is more likely to be efficient than one in which decisions are only taken by management (Till-Retz, Holub, & Clements, 2000). In addition, if employees’

perceive that their voices are being heard and acted upon in collective bargaining

在文檔中 Effects of Union-Management Environment and Employee Voice in Labor Unions: Evidence from Union Workers of a Multinational Company in Honduras (頁 19-35)