Effects of Union-Management Environment and Employee Voice in Labor Unions: Evidence from Union Workers of a Multinational Company in Honduras

全文

(1)Effects of Union-Management Environment and Employee Voice in Labor Unions: Evidence from Union Workers of a Multinational Company in Honduras. By Elisa Mariel Romero Molina. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of. MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: C. Rosa Yeh, Ph.D.. National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan June 2013.

(2)

(3) ACKNOWLEDGMENT I am thankful to God, who not only gave me this opportunity, but also gave me the strength to successfully complete this journey. I can do all things through Him, who gives me strength. I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. C. Rosa Yeh, who was not only an advisor throughout this process, but a mentor and a friend. Thank you for your words of encouragement, for your motivation, and for your constant help and support. In addition, I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. C.F. Phillip Tsai, and Dr. Yi-Chun Jane Lin, for your comments and advice. My deepest admiration and appreciation to you both. I would also like to thank my father, my role model, who showed me the beauty of human resources. Thank you for your advice and for the long hours of discussions about union workers, this work would have never been completed without your support. I would also like to thank my mother and my brother, who are my inspiration, and who were there throughout this process to keep me moving forward. My deepest thanks to Heber, my better half, who was my rock throughout this process. Thank you for the sleepless nights, the laughs and the strength you gave me when I needed them the most. Thank you to Carol, Shaun and Ampi, who shared the happiness and the frustrations with me. Thank you to Olga, Giselle, Jeanine, Wilson, some of my favorite Latin Americans, for supporting me always. Special thanks to Fatou and Mariam, who took the time to read this thesis and help with the formatting. Additional thanks to Tracy and Kate, our project managers, who are always caring and supportive..

(4)

(5) ABSTRACT Labor unions are organizations whose main purpose is to represent all workers and protect their rights and interests. As such, labor unions are one of the most important channels to provide workers with a voice. In this research, the aim is to examine whether positively perceived employee voice in their labor unions will lead to higher satisfaction with collective bargaining results and employee compliance. In addition, it aimed to understand the relationship between perceived employee voice and a positive union-management environment. In addition, the relationship between a positive union-management environment and satisfaction with collective bargaining results and employee compliance was examined. According to the procedural justice theory, perceptions of fairness of decision-making processes by employees are believed to promote feelings of compliance. A positive union-management environment was tested as a mediator in the relationship between perceived employee voice and satisfaction with collective bargaining results and perceived employee voice and employee compliance. A quantitative study was conducted, and respondents were asked to complete a paper-and-pencil questionnaire related to their perceptions on employee voice, union-management environment, satisfaction with collective bargaining results and employee compliance. The data gathered from 205 union workers was analyzed with the use of SPSS and the Smart-PLS software. It was found that perceived employee voice had a positive effect on satisfaction with collective bargaining results and a positive union-management environment. In addition, a positive unionmanagement environment was found to mediate the relationship between perceived employee voice and satisfaction with collective bargaining results. Perceived employee voice and a positive union-management environment did not show any relation to employee compliance.. Keywords: Labor Unions, Procedural Justice, Employee Voice, Union-Management Environment, Employee Compliance. I.

(6)

(7) TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT............................................................................................ I TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................ II LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................IV LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................V CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION............................................................ 1 Background of the Study ...................................................................................1 Problem Statement .............................................................................................2 Rationale of the Study........................................................................................2 Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................3 Research Questions ............................................................................................3 Scope of the Study .............................................................................................4 Definitions of Terms ..........................................................................................5. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................... 9 Labor Unions: An Introduction..........................................................................9 Labor Unions in Honduras .................................................................................9 Labor Unions Research ......................................................................................10 Procedural Justice ..............................................................................................11 Satisfaction with Collective Bargaining Results................................................13 Employee Compliance .......................................................................................15 Perceived Employee Voice in Labor Unions .....................................................16 Positive Union-Management Environment........................................................19. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 25 Research Framework .........................................................................................25 Hypotheses .........................................................................................................26 Research Design.................................................................................................27 Research Procedure ............................................................................................27 Sample................................................................................................................28 Sample Profile....................................................................................................29 II.

(8) Data Collection ..................................................................................................31 Data Analysis .....................................................................................................31 Instruments and Measurement ...........................................................................32 Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................37. CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ........................... 43 Correlation Analysis ..........................................................................................43 Model Testing in PLS ........................................................................................46 Mediation Testing in PLS ..................................................................................49 Post-Hoc Interview ............................................................................................54. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS........................ 61 Conclusions ........................................................................................................61 Discussions ........................................................................................................61 Research Implications ........................................................................................62 Practical Implications.........................................................................................64 Contribution of the Study...................................................................................65 Limitations .........................................................................................................65 Future Research Suggestions .............................................................................66. REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 67 APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRES ........................................................ 76. III.

(9) LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Descriptive Statistics of the Sample……………………………….30 Table 3.2 Rotated Component Matrix of a Positive Union-Management Environment……………………………………………………….33 Table 3.3 Descriptive Statistics, Factor Loadings, Composite Reliability and AVE .................................................................................................38 Table 3.4 Factor Loadings and Cross-Loadings Among the Variables ...........40 Table 3.5 Overview of Discriminant Validity Testing among the Constructs .......................................................................................41 Table 3.6 Cronbach’s Alpha ............................................................................42 Table 4.1 Means, Standard Deviations and Correlation Coefficients ..............45 Table 4.2 PLS Model Testing Results .............................................................48 Table 4.3 Test of Mediation .............................................................................50 Table 4.4 Hypotheses Testing Results Summary ............................................53. IV.

(10) LIST OF FIGURES. Figure 3.1 Research Framework ......................................................................25 Figure 3.2 Research Procedure ........................................................................28 Figure 4.1 PLS Algorithm Results ...................................................................47 Figure 4.2 PLS Bootstrapping Result ..............................................................52. V.

(11) CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. This chapter is an overview of the study and it offers a background of the study, the problem that the researcher is addressing, the rationale of the study, the research questions, the purpose of the study, the scope of the study, the contribution of the study and definitions of terms.. Background of Study The strike of 1954 was probably one of the most important economic and political events in the history of Honduras. Also known as the ‘banana strike’, it involved at least 38,000 workers in the country, and it took almost 3 months to settle (Euraque, 1996). It was thanks to this strike, that the first labor union was consolidated in the multinational company used for this study. Since the formation of this first union, this multinational company has overseen countless strikes from its numerous labor unions. In fact, in the year 2010 alone, $1 million USD was lost on operations due to workers’ strikes (La Tribuna, 2010). Because of this, labor unions have gained a reputation of ‘doing more harm than good’ to organizations in Honduras. As a consequence, many organizations are attempting to close their labor unions. For instance, strikes and financial loss in some of the farms of the multinational company in this study, led the organization to attempt to close 13 farms, which would leave 3,500 families without a source of income. After a series of negotiations which took months to settle, not all of the 13 farms were closed; however, many workers were left without a job (EMI, 2011). In order to stay competitive and prevent economic loss, organizations in Honduras are more conscious than ever of the need to have positive union-management relations. In addition, labor unions are needed more than ever by workers who demand fair wages and practices. A better understanding of union workers perceptions not only of the unionmanagement environment, but of their voice in labor unions can not only benefit the workers themselves, but it can also benefit firms and companies established in Honduras. It might help organizations and labor unions work together in a completely distinct manner: instead of having a conflictive relationship that leads to strikes and layoffs, they 1.

(12) might realize that in the long run, a positive, cooperative environment might provide more benefits to both parties.. Problem Statement A great number of organizations are opting to move into a non-union environment, which has lead to a decrease in union density around the world (Sano & Williamson, 2008). Latin America is no exception to this decline, and some countries have seen a steady decrease of unions in the past years (Wachendorfer, 1990). In Honduras, a country in which the phrase ‘workers’ rights’ is still not respected, labor unions are fundamental to society. In fact, according to the US Annual Human Rights Report (2012) union workers in Honduras exercise with difficulty the right to engage in collective bargaining and the government failed to enforce applicable laws effectively. This led many employers to actually refuse to engage in collective bargaining with unions. In the case where employers actually engage in collective bargaining, workers are mostly dissatisfied with the results and they demonstrate this dissatisfaction by not complying with organizational policies. In addition, this dissatisfaction leads to strikes, which can last from days to weeks. In some cases, private organizations have been forced to close their areas of operation for days because of strikes. Unfortunately, up to this time, union-management relations in the country have a long history of disagreement. Consequently, there is very little knowledge on how organizations can collaborate with labor unions, and the benefits that a positive unionmanagement environment and perceived employee voice can bring to the organization.. Rationale of the Study Research on workers’ perceptions of employee voice, union-management environment, satisfaction with collective bargaining and employee compliance are quite few. Moreover, there are very few studies that have been conducted in Honduras that concentrate on union workers. Needless to say, none of the studies have been applied to labor unions from the agro-industrial sector in Honduras. This research is not only a first of its kind in 2.

(13) Honduras, contributing to Honduran literature which is in great need of such research, but also proves to be of great value for both organizations and labor unions.. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to apply the Procedural Justice Theory to investigate the impact perceived employee voice in labor unions had on satisfaction with collective bargaining results and employee compliance. Moreover, it aimed to investigate the impact perceived employee voice in labor unions had on union-management environment. Furthermore, it aimed to understand the impact a positive unionmanagement environment had on satisfaction with collective bargaining results and employee compliance. In addition, it investigated whether a positive union-management environment served as a mediator between perceived employee voice in labor unions and satisfaction with collective bargaining results and between employee voice in labor unions and employee compliance.. Research Questions This study answers the following questions:. 1. What is the relationship between perceived employee voice in labor unions and satisfaction with collective bargaining results?. 2. What is the relationship between perceived employee voice in labor unions and employee compliance?. 3. What is the relationship between perceived employee voice in labor unions and a positive union-management environment?. 4. What is the relationship between a positive union-management environment and satisfaction of collective bargaining results?. 3.

(14) 5. What is the relationship between a positive union-management environment and employee compliance?. 6. Does a positive union-management relationship mediate the relationship between perceived employee voice in labor unions and satisfaction of collective bargaining results? 7. Does a positive union-management relationship mediate the relationship between perceived employee voice in labor unions and employee compliance?. Scope of the Study This research studied the relationship between perceived employee voice and a positive union-management environment. Additionally, it studied whether perceptions of the union-management environment had impact on the satisfaction with collective bargaining results, and employee compliance. This framework applied the theory on Procedural Justice to study satisfaction and compliance as outcomes of perceptions of employee voice in labor unions. Therefore, only those factors that have been found to affect procedural justice feelings are included as predictors, such as perceptions of employee voice and perceptions of union-management environment. This study collected data from labor unions in the Central American country of Honduras. As a very small country whose economy is still developing, it wouldn’t be advisable to generalize the results of this study to other countries. In addition, given that Honduras’ economy is mostly based on agriculture, this study was conducted in a multinational company in the agro-industrial sector. Because the sample from this study came from a specific economic sector, it wouldn’t be advisable to generalize the results to other sectors of the economy. Moreover, this study focuses on perceptions. It’s important to note that perceptions are not based on reality, but on individual’s view of circumstances (Kannan & Panimalar, 2013). In addition, only the perceptions of union workers are considered for this study, and there was no study of non-union workers for comparison.. 4.

(15) Definition of Terms Labor Unions Labor unions are democratically operated entities established by workers, to represent workers in any company or state enterprise. The main purpose of these entities is to protect workers rights and interests (Napathorn & Chanprateep, 2011) by achieving “collective goals” (Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008). Some of the goals can be economic in nature, which includes increasing wages and benefits for the workers. Furthermore, there are other goals that go beyond economic purposes, such as providing better training for the workers and making the workplace safer (Tiburcio, 1998).. Union Worker A union worker is defined as a worker who is member of a union and who has union representation at the workplace. A union workforce can bargain or negotiate its salary and wage rates through a union, as well as employee benefits, complaint procedures, safety procedures, and policy procedures (Richards-Gustafson, 2011).. Procedural Justice Dogan (2008) defines procedural justice as the extent in which the employees perceive the dynamics of the decision process as fair. In other words, procedural justice is the perceived fairness and transparency in the decision-making procedures made by the organization. Blader and Tyler (2003) specified six principles to promote the perceptions of. procedural. justice:. consistency,. bias. suppression,. accuracy,. correctability,. representativeness and ethicality.. Perceptions Halle (2013) defined 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. In addition, Kannan and Panimalar (2013) stated that an individual’s perception is not necessarily based on reality, but it is an outlook, an individual’s view of a situation. 5.

(16) Positive Union-Management Environment Union-management environment is defined as the setting in which management and the labor union, directly or indirectly, interact (Trebilcock, 2001). Angle and Perry (1986) supported this definition, stating that union-management environment is the ‘setting in which labor unions and management interact over time’. A positive union-management environment can be described as how positive employees perceive this interaction.. Perceived Employee Voice in Labor Unions Townsend, Wilkinson, and Burgess (2013) defined employee voice as an opportunity to ‘have a say’: a concept that is essential in most definitions of employee voice. Perceived employee voice in labor unions can be defined as employees’ perceptions of whether or not they ‘have a say’ in their respective labor unions.. Collective Bargaining The Department for Professional Employees (2011) defined Collective Bargaining as: “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). Satisfaction with Collective Bargaining Results Aydin and Ceylan (2009) defined 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.. 6.

(17) Employee Compliance Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000) defined employee compliance as 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.. 7.

(18) 8.

(19) CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW. 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 9.

(20) 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.. 10.

(21) 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 unionmanagement 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 workrelated 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. 11.

(22) 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) 12.

(23) 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 13.

(24) 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 14.

(25) 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 15.

(26) 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).. 16.

(27) 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).. 17.

(28) 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 negotiations; they’re more likely to be satisfied with collective bargaining results. Additionally, Spencer (1986) argued that positive perceptions of employee voice can directly relate to satisfaction in the workplace. Furthermore, perceived employee voice has also been found to be an antecedent of employee compliance. For instance, Potter (2006) suggested that perceived employee voice can increase fairness perceptions of the decision-making process and satisfaction with the outcomes. These perceptions of fairness will lead to acceptance of decisions and promote feelings of compliance. Furthermore, O’Hear (2008) argued that perceptions of having a voice in decision-making procedures will promote perceptions of fairness and acceptance of decisions and promote feelings of compliance. In addition, perceptions of having a voice can lead to positive perceptions of the union-environment, which in turn, can lead to compliance. Likewise, another benefit of perceived employee voice has been more positive perceptions of an organization’s environment. In fact, Yarrington, Townsend and Brown (2007) argued that organizations with mutual commitment, where genuine employee voice is encouraged, are associated with higher levels of trust and good communication, and in turn, this is associated with good management-union relationships. Moreover, 18.

(29) according to Pyman, Holland, Teicher and Cooper (2010) voice mechanisms have been found to have a positive association with more favorable perceptions of industrial relations climate. To investigate the influence of perceived employee voice in labor unions, the researcher assumes the following hypotheses:. Hypothesis 1: Perceived employee voice in labor unions will positively affect satisfaction with collective bargaining results.. Hypothesis 2: Perceived employee voice in labor unions will positively affect employee compliance.. Hypothesis 3: Perceived employee voice in labor unions will positively affect a positive union-management environment.. Positive Union-Management Environment Union-management environment is defined as the setting in which management and the labor union, directly or indirectly, interact (Trebilcock, 2001). Angle and Perry (1986) support this definition, stating that union-management environment is the ‘setting in which labor unions and management interact over time’. A positive union-management environment can be described as how positively employees perceive this interaction. In a globalized world, in response to heightened levels of competition, companies have been forced to revise the interaction between labor unions and management, and even to restructure their work practices (Deery & Iverson, 2005). According to Weinstein (2012) union-management relations and environment tend to be perceived as ‘adversarial’. However, this perceived tension between both parties can have negative impacts in the long run: for instance, it can erode trust, intensifying the division between management and the union. Because of this, more organizations are now trying to promote a positive, supportive union-management environment. However, how can a positive union-management environment be created and nurtured?. 19.

(30) Research suggests that there is one major antecedent to a positive unionmanagement environment: attitudes (Deery & Iverson, 2005). Employees’ attitudes in the workplace can have a major impact on their work environment, and even a drastic impact on the success and productivity of an organization (Ray, 2013). Not surprisingly, employees’ attitudes can have a significant impact on a positive union-management environment. McShane and Glinow (2003) defined attitudes as a cluster of beliefs, feelings, and behavioral intentions towards a person, object, or event. Moreover, psychologists state that attitudes are a learned tendency to evaluate things in a certain way (Cherry, 2013). In other words, attitudes are judgments, which tend to be stable over time. Attitudes are affected by the person’s beliefs about an object or situation. Employees have attitudes about many aspects of their jobs, their careers, and of course, the organizations they work for. The attitudes that employees have towards each other can affect how they perceive the union-management environment. Angle and Perry (1986) argued that as labor and management interact with each other, they will interpret the perceptions, intentions, attitudes, and motivations that underlie in the other party’s actions, and engage in “sense-making behaviors”. In fact, scholars state that they can characterize union-management relations by the relative amount of conflict or cooperation that resides in the two parties’ orientation towards one another (Angle & Perry, 1986). Moreover, Voos (1989) argues that a positive union-management environment has been associated with particular “managerial attitudes”. Some attitudes, such as ‘willingness to communicate in an open and fair way with the labor union’, ‘acceptance to include union input into the company’s decisions’ and even a ‘reluctance to weaken the employees’ alliance to the company’s labor union’ can all lead to a positive unionmanagement environment in the organization. In other words, the first step towards having a positive union-management environment can start by management and their attitudes and willingness to communicate more openly and fairly with the union workers. A positive union-management environment can also be affected by the union’s attitudes. Researchers argue that if labor union workers adopt a more “problem-solving” or “integrative” attitude emphasizing the common interests of both parties, then this will 20.

(31) lead to a more supportive environment between both parties (Deery & Iverson, 2005). Moreover, if union members perceive these positive attitudes from their perspective union leaders, and they perceive that this attitude will lead in achieving valued goals for all the union’s members, then they too will have positive perceptions and attitudes towards management (Deery & Iverson, 2005). A perception of a positive relationship between the two will not be achieved without positive attitudes; without the support and commitment of both management and the labor unions. Moreover, Deery and Iverson (2005) argue that if both parties have positive attitudes towards each other, this will lead to a willingness to support jointproblem solving. However, Deery and Iverson (2005) argue that not only positive attitudes from both parties can affect a positive union-management environment; negative attitudes can also negatively affect this relationship. For example, if management is perceived as having negative attitudes toward the unions, then this will diminish the willingness of labor union employees to collaborate with management. Likewise, if the labor union employees are perceived as having a negative attitude towards management, this will also reduce management’s willingness to cooperate with labor unions. In the long run, a positive union-management environment might lead to what organizations call a “win-win” collective bargaining, a new approach to bargaining in which both parties have equal need for a good settlement and are equally committed to continuing a relationship with one another (Till-Retz, Holub & Clements, 2000). If both parties, through consensus decision-making, are content with the results of collective bargaining, then it might bring numerous benefits to the organization (Purcell, 2010). In fact, Deery and Iverson (2005) argue that if management and labor work together instead of against each other, both parties will feel responsibility to have an effective and cooperative relationship (Deery & Iverson, 2005). A positive union-management environment has been associated with gains for an organization. In fact, research suggests that perceived positive management-union relationships are constantly associated with good communication, increased employee participation, and increased trust in an organization (Yarrington et al., 2007). Moreover, the researchers argue that having a positive union-management environment can also 21.

(32) bring workers many benefits, by preventing wage reductions and employee cuts. In the long run, these potential economic benefits and a higher quality of work life can increase effort and loyalty in the organization’s employees (Deery & Iverson, 2005). Furthermore, Voos (1989) states that a positively perceived labor-management environment can lead to greater employee commitment, which in turn will lead to higher firm profitability, not only by a reduction of absenteeism and employee turnover, but also by increased productivity. Furthermore, research stated that a positive union-management environment might lead to what organizations call a “win-win” collective bargaining, a new approach to bargaining in which both parties have equal need for a good settlement and are equally committed to continuing a relationship with one another (Till-Retz, Holub & Clements, 2000). Furthermore, research states that perceptions of a cooperative labor relations climate, was found to be associated with an integrative, encouraging bargaining approach (Deery & Iverson, 2005). In addition, research stated that the environment and atmosphere can be directly related to satisfaction (DeSantis & Durst, 1996). In fact, according to Tansel and Gaziogly (2013), management-employee relations seemed to have an effect on the employees’ satisfaction. Ahmed, Rasheed and Jehanzeb (2012) echo this statement and argued that positive organizational climates forecast positive work attitudes and higher satisfaction in the organization. In addition, research stated that different organizational climate characteristics can have an effect on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB), including employee compliance. In fact, Yulianti (2014) stated that the environment in an organization is closely related to the organizational and psychological processes of employees in an organization, including organizational citizenship behaviors. Likewise, Ahmed, Rasheed and Jehanzeb (2012) argued that an organization’s positive environment leads to positive and favorable OCB behaviors, including organizational compliance. To understand the influence of a positive union-management environment, the researcher assumes the following hypotheses:. Hypothesis 4: A positive union-management environment will positively affect satisfaction with collective bargaining results. 22.

(33) Hypothesis 5: A positive union-management environment will positively affect employee compliance.. Hypothesis 6: A positive union-management environment will mediate the relationship between perceived employee voice in labor unions and satisfaction with collective bargaining results.. Hypothesis 7: A positive union-management environment will mediate the relationship between perceived employee voice in labor unions and employee compliance.. 23.

(34) 24.

(35) CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This chapter provides information on the methodology used to conduct this research. It will start by presenting the framework and the hypotheses tested. Furthermore, it provides information about the sample, data collection methods and the questionnaires utilized to develop the research.. Research Framework The following framework illustrates the relationships tested throughout this study.. H1+. H6+. Perceived Employee Voice. H3+. H4+. Satisfaction with Collective Bargaining Results. Positive Union-Management Environment. H7+. H5+. Employee Compliance. H2+. Figure 3.1. Research Framework. This framework shows the relationship between perceived employee voice in labor unions and satisfaction with collective bargaining results and employee compliance. Moreover, it shows the relationship between perceived employee voice and a positive union-management environment. Moreover, it demonstrates the effect of on satisfaction of collective bargaining results and employee compliance. Furthermore, it shows the 25.

(36) mediating effect a positive union-management environment has on the relationship between perceived employee voice in labor unions and satisfaction with collective bargaining results and the mediating role of a positive union-management environment between perceived employee voice in labor unions and employee compliance.. Hypotheses The following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 1: Perceived employee voice in labor unions will positively affect satisfaction with collective bargaining results.. Hypothesis 2: Perceived employee voice in labor unions will positively affect employee compliance.. Hypothesis 3: Perceived employee voice in labor unions will positively affect a positive union-management environment.. Hypothesis 4: A positive union-management environment will positively affect satisfaction with collective bargaining results.. Hypothesis 5: A positive union-management environment will positively affect employee compliance.. Hypothesis 6: A positive union-management environment will mediate the relationship between perceived employee voice in labor unions and satisfaction with collective bargaining results.. Hypothesis 7: A positive union-management environment will mediate the relationship between perceived employee voice in labor unions and employee compliance.. 26.

(37) Research Design Given the importance of labor unions in Honduras, an empirical study was designed to test perceptions of union workers’ of union-management environment in their organization. Moreover, it tested employees’ perceptions of voice in their labor unions and whether these perceptions might provide benefits for both the organization and the union workers themselves. A quantitative study was designed to test the hypotheses proposed, and union workers were asked to complete a questionnaire related to their perceptions about unionmanagement environment, employee voice in labor unions, satisfaction of collective bargaining results, social desirability and employee compliance. Later, statistical analysis was applied to test the hypotheses and to draw the conclusions.. Research Procedure The research procedure consists of all the steps that the researcher followed to complete the study. Figure 3.2 provides a description of all the steps that were followed in order to conduct this research. Literature review was one of the most important steps in the research procedure, as it allowed the researcher to develop a research topic. After the development of the topic, the researcher designed the framework and developed the related hypotheses. After this, investigation on the instruments to be used was made. However, no validated instruments to measure perceptions of employee voice in labor unions, satisfaction of collective bargaining results and employee compliance were found. Because of this, the researcher developed and adapted the instrument to measure the above-mentioned. A pilot test was conducted to ensure the validity and reliability of the instruments. After the instruments were tested, the data was collected, and after this, analyzed. Moreover, the researcher presented the findings and provided recommendations for future research.. 27.

(38) Review Literature. Develop research topic. Design framework and develop hypotheses. Develop and adapt the instrument. Expert review and pilot test. Data Collection. Data Analysis. Present findings, conclusions and recommendations. Figure 3.2. Research Procedure. Sample Initial contact was made with an agricultural multinational organization in Honduras. In order to be granted access to potential respondents, the researcher agreed not to disclose the name of the company. The company was founded in the northern coasts of Honduras, in 1899. The Honduran labor movement started in 1954, when employees from the company went on a strike that lasted around three months. Nowadays, the company has some of the largest and strongest labor unions in the country (Sanchez, 2012). The company employs around 10,000 people in Honduras, of which 2,110 are permanent union workers.. 28.

(39) The population of main interest is targeted at permanent union workers. However, the different labor unions from the company are dispersed along the northern coast of the country. Because of this geographic isolation, the researcher only has access to one of the labor unions. Created in 1955, this labor union is the oldest and largest labor union in the company, with 795 permanent union workers.. Sample Profile For the purpose of this study, a total of 205 questionnaires were distributed, completed and returned by the permanent union workers of SUTRASFCO. From the 205 respondents, there were 51 (24.9%) females and 154 (75.1%) males, and the ages ranging from 31 – 40 years old had the highest frequency (81 respondents, or 39.5%). Moreover, the majority of the respondents (134, or 65.4%) have a High School Degree education. In this sample, 61 respondents have been working in the company for more than 10-15 years (29.8%) and 61 respondents have been working in the company for more than 15 years (29.8%). In addition, the majority of the respondents have been part of the union for 7 -9 years (32.7%). Regarding their union participation, 88 of the respondents reported attending union meetings frequently (42.9%) and 90 of the respondents reported voting on union elections frequently (43.9%). However, when it comes to serving on union committees, 78 respondents (or 38.0%) reported only serving occasionally. Moreover, 83 respondents (40.5%) reported having held union office only occasionally.. Table 3.2 lists detailed information on the descriptive statistics of the sample for this study.. 29.

(40) Table 3.1. Descriptive Statistics of the Sample (N=205) Variable Gender Age. Education Company Tenure. Union Tenure. Attendance to Labor Union Meetings. Voted on Labor Union Elections. Served on Labor Union Committees. Held Union Office. Category Female Male 20 – 30 31 – 40 41 – 50 51 – 60 61 or more Elementary School Degree High School Degree. Frequency 51 154 12 81 76 32 4 71 134. Percentage (%) 24.9 75.1 5.9 39.5 37.1 15.6 2.0 34.6 65.4. 4 – 6 years 7 – 9 years 10 – 15 years More than 15 years 1 – 3 years 4 – 6 years 7 – 9 years 10 – 15 years More than 15 years Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very Frequently. 28 55 61 61 8 41 67 45 44 15 27 88 75. 13.7 26.8 29.8 29.8 3.9 20.0 32.7 22.0 21.5 7.3 13.2 42.9 36.6. Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very Frequently Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very Frequently Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very Frequently. 3 15 25 90 72 29 24 78 45 29 37 29 83 27 29. 1.5 7.3 12.2 43.9 35.1 14.1 11.7 38.0 22.0 14.1 18.0 14.1 40.5 13.2 14.1. 30.

(41) Data Collection Data was collected through the distribution of paper-and-pencil questionnaires. A labor relations expert, who collaborated with this research, personally contacted the union workers to ask them to fill the questionnaire. Union workers filled the questionnaire during their free time, and the labor relations expert was always near to answer any questions about the questionnaire. The questionnaires were translated by a qualified expert with a TOEIC score of 990 into Spanish, the native language of the union workers. Later on, expert review was conducted by a qualified Labor Relations expert in Honduras. After this, back translation was conducted, by a qualified expert with a TOEIC score of 925 to make sure that the original meaning from the English version was kept when translated into Spanish. Data collection was conducted throughout the months of March and April, 2014. Because the questionnaire used to collect data was designed by the researcher based on literature, a pilot test was designed to ensure the validity and reliability of the questionnaires. The pilot test was conducted on 42 union workers. The study conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to test validity of the measures and Cronbach’s Alpha to measure internal consistency of the measures.. Data Analysis This study utilized SPSS and SmartPLS as the statistical tools. SPSS was used for descriptive analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), reliability, and correlation. SmartPLS was used for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and model testing. Descriptive analysis was conducted to analyze the demographics of the respondents in order to reveal the sample profile. Moreover, descriptive analysis was utilized to check for errors, outliers and the distribution of the data. Descriptive Analysis was also used to examine the means and standard deviations of the research variables in this study. EFA was applied to the data collected in order to determine the factor structure of each research construct to ensure construct validity. EFA was also used to run Harman’s one factor test to detect whether the final data had a serious CMV problem. In order to measure the reliability of the scales, the scales’ Cronbach’s Alpha was tested. Moreover, this study utilized correlation to find initial relationships on the hypotheses 31.

(42) and any patterns among the variables. Correlation was also performed to understand the strength of the relationship between the variables. EFA and CFA were conducted through Measurement Model Validation using the SmartPLS software. CFA was conducted to ensure construct validity of the data. Model testing through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using the SmartPLS software was utilized to test the research framework and the relationship among the variables. SEM allows simultaneous testing of all relationships in the research framework. Moreover, SEM allows a better test on mediation.. Instruments and Measurement A survey questionnaire was designed to collect the data for this research. The questionnaire was adapted from reference literature and questionnaires that were used for similar topics. The questionnaire will be organized into the following parts: demographics, positive union-management environment, perceived employee voice, satisfaction of collective bargaining results, employee compliance, social desirability and control variables.. Demographics Participants were asked to provide their age, education, gender, tenure in the organization, tenure in their respective labor union, and level of participation in the labor union in order to better understand the respondents’ profile and the impact these have on the study variables.. Positive Union-Management Environment Union-management environment is defined by Angle & Perry (1986) as the “setting in which labor unions and management interact over time”. Positive unionmanagement environment can be defined as how positively employees perceive this interaction. To measure positive union-management environment, this study will utilize Angle & Perry’s ‘Labor-Management Relationship Climate’. The instrument has a reliability of .95, which shows a high-level of reliability. Some items include “management is reasonable when dealing with unions” and “the union and management 32.

(43) are natural enemies”. In total, 25 items are utilized using a 5-point Likert Scale. The respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A high score represents a positive unionmanagement environment. A low score represents a negative union-management environment. Because the measurement was very long, some items that were not appropriate for the research context were eliminated. The researcher got permission beforehand from the one of the scale’s original authors to delete some of the items. Originally, the scale was described as a uni-dimensional scale. However, Romero and Yeh (2014) did a research of a sample of 92 respondents, and utilized the SPSS software to conduct exploratory factor analysis, it revealed to be multidimensional. So in order to ensure construct validity, EFA was conducted on the original scale. The items with communalities lower than 0.6 were deleted. Another factor analysis was conducted, and after checking the rotated matrix, items with a factor loading below 0.6 were also deleted. The final factor analysis revealed 2 dimensions with 10 remaining items in the positive union-management environment scale (as shown in Table 3.1).. Table 3.2. Rotated Component Matrix of Positive Union-Management Environment. Component PUME 2 PUME 8 PUME 12 PUME 10 PUME 4 PUME 6 PUME 14 PUME 9 PUME 7 PUME 19. 1 .944 .909 .893 .865 .855 .778. 2. .769 .816 .798 .731. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. 33.

(44) Perceived Employee Voice in Labor Unions Employee voice is defined as an opportunity to ‘have a say’ (Townsend et al., 2013, p.4). Perceived employee voice can be defined as employees’ perceptions of whether or not they ‘have a say’ in their work environment. Moreover, literature states most union workers are concerned with issues related to their wages, pension, health benefits, work conditions, working hours, job responsibilities and safety (Budd, Warino, & Patton, 2004). Utilizing this definition and literature as reference, 7 items were developed to evaluate employees’ perceptions of their voice, utilizing a 5-point Likert scale. Some items include “the labor union provides an opportunity for me to give voice to wage related issues” and “the labor unions provides an opportunity for me to give voice to safety related issues”. The respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A high score represents a higher level of perceived employee voice. A low score represents a lower level of perceived employee voice.. Satisfaction with Collective Bargaining Results 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 the definition above, 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. Utilizing this definition and literature as reference, 7 items were developed to evaluate satisfaction of collective bargaining results, utilizing a 5-point Likert scale. Some items include “I am satisfied with the wage agreements reached during collective bargaining negotiations” and “I am satisfied with the safety issues reached through collective bargaining negotiations”. The respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A high score represents a higher level of satisfaction with collective bargaining results. A low score represents a lower level of satisfaction with collective bargaining results.. 34.

(45) Employee Compliance Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000) define employee compliance as employees’ internalization and acceptance of the organization’s rules, regulations and procedures. Acceptance will result in a conscientious adherence to these regulations and procedures, even when no one is observing or monitoring the employee. Utilizing this definition and literature as reference, 5 items were developed to evaluate employee compliance, utilizing a 7-point Likert scale. Some items include “I usually comply with the organization’s regulations” and “I generally conform with the organization’s regulations”. The respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A high score represents a higher level of employee compliance. A low score represents a lower level of employee compliance.. Social Desirability Because the researcher feared a social desirability bias related to employee compliance, a validated scale measuring social desirability was added. Social desirable responding is defined as the tendency for participants to present a favorable image of themselves (Van de Mortel, 2008). Moreover, the author argues that socially desirable responding is most likely to occur in responses to socially sensitive questions and that social desirability response bias can affect the validity of an instrument. The social desirability measure was taken from Strahan and Gerbasi (1972), with a Cronbach’s alpha of .85. It is a short version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale consisting of ten true or false items. The items are either socially desirable but untrue for most people, for instance “I am always willing to admit when I make a mistake”; or very socially undesirable but very common, for instance “I have never being annoyed when people express ideas very different from my own”. To compute a person’s score, the number of true responses was counted after reversing the negatively keyed items. A high score represents high social desirability while a low score represents low social desirability.. 35.

(46) Control Variables The demographic variables included in this study were also utilized as control variables: age, education, gender, tenure in the organization, tenure in their respective labor union, and level of participation in the labor union. Research states that there is a strong relationship between age and satisfaction. According to DeSantis and Durst (1996), there are two general theories that have been put forth in regards to this relationship. The first theory is that the relationship is best represented by a U-shaped curved. First, satisfaction decreases, however, satisfaction then increases with age. The second theory, well-documented in literature, is that job satisfaction increases with age. Older employees may have a stronger sense of achievement, and might gain esteem just by the virtue of time on the job. As age might affect satisfaction with collective bargaining results, the researcher decided to hold it as a control variable. Moreover, Bedeian, Ferris and Kacmar (1992) argue that tenure is a consistent and stable predictor of satisfaction. In fact, Lee and Wilbur (1985) argue that as tenure increases, workers are better able to adjust their expectations to the returns that can be provided by their jobs, or in this case, the returns that can be provided by collective bargaining. Because of this, the researcher decided to hold tenure in the organization and tenure in their respective labor unions as control variables. In addition, there is evidence that gender might affect satisfaction. Numerous studies report a ‘masculinity culture’ well-within labor unions (Cooper, 2006). In fact, Reilly (2013) argues that in order to gain acceptance and avoid marginalization, women might be forced to play ‘accepted’ feminine supporting roles. For instance, Jung, Moon and Hahm (2007) state that women tend to have lower expectations and are generally more satisfied than men. As such, gender might affect satisfaction with collective bargaining results, so the researcher decided to hold it as a control variable. Likewise, education can have an influence on workers’ satisfaction. DeSantis and Durst (1996) argued that the effects of education on satisfaction are negative. The younger generation, especially those workers who have more formal education, may have lower levels of satisfaction. Since education can have an effect on satisfaction, the researcher decided to hold it as a control variable. 36.