Predictors of strike voting behavior: The case of university faculty

Ng, Ignace

doi:10.1007/bf02685377

Cited by 17 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Following Martin's (1986) argument, differences in these ®nd-ings may be related to differences in the potential strike situations. However, our hypotheses were developed in conjunction with literature on strikes and strike propensity in several other countries beyond the United States (e.g., Barling et al, 1992b;Cohen, 1992;Ingram et al, 1993;Klandermans, 1984Klandermans, , 1986Ng, 1991;Paldam and Pedersen, 1982). Moreover, for the most part, our ®ndings are consistent with individual level studies in other countries, suggesting that our results would generalize to other settings, particularly for contract negotiations.…”

Section: Strike Propensities 401supporting

confidence: 76%

“…Further, the contract rati®cation literature clearly indicates that employees who perceive few employment options are more likely to support contract rati®cation and oppose striking (Cappelli and Sterling, 1988;Kaufman and Martinez-Vazquez, 1988;Martin and Berthiaume, 1995). Ng (1991) did not ®nd a relationship between salary and strike support, but found a trend in which employees at higher salary levels were less likely to support the strike. Cohen (1992) found a negative relationship between strike propensity and pay satisfaction for lower paid employees.…”

Section: Economic Modelmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…For instance, many studies have considered the in¯uence of various job and organizational attitudes on strike propensity or actual strike behavior (Barling et al, 1992a,b;McClendon and Klaas, 1993;Ng, 1991;Martin, 1986). This research suggests that employees with more positive attitudes toward their employer are less willing to strike.…”

Section: Employer-relationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A multiple motive perspective on strike propensities

Martin

Sinclair

2001

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryStrike propensities refer to the extent to which union members are willing to engage in strikes. The present paper identi®es four motivational explanations for individual propensity to strike: social exchange relationships between member and union, and member and company, economic circumstances, and social status. These four models complement each other, and together permit substantial integration of previous literature as well as suggesting new antecedents of strike propensities. We evaluated each model using survey data from 2548 unionized retail employees. While the economic model explained the most variance in strike propensity, each model accounted for a signi®cant amount of unique variation in the members' strike propensities. Our organizational framework of the motivational explanations of strike propensity into four distinct but complementary motivational models and our addition of new predictor variables represent our study's major contributions. Implications for strike research and union member±union relations are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Strike Propensities 401supporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Economic Modelmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Employer-relationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A multiple motive perspective on strike propensities

Martin

Sinclair

2001

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Faculty members involved in decision making are more satisfied with their jobs and experience higher morale than faculty not involved in university governance (Baldridge et al 1978;Watkins 1986, as cited in Dayal 1989, and as was previously mentioned, lower levels of job satisfaction are related to the increased likelihood of voting in favor of a labor strike (McClendon and Klaas 1993;Ng 1991). Thus, by disallowing faculty participation in institutional decision-making, the administration may be negatively impacting job satisfaction and increasing the likelihood of a call to strike.…”

Section: University Governancementioning

confidence: 84%

“…The purported decline in job satisfaction among faculty can further aggravate labor relations on university campuses. For instance, lower levels of job satisfaction have been associated with greater union sympathies (Baldridge et al 1978;Feuille and Blandin 1974;Ponak and Thompson 1984) and an increased likelihood of voting in favor of a labor strike (McClendon and Klaas 1993;Ng 1991).…”

Section: Job Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The organizational impact of university labor unions

Wickens

2008

High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current review presents both postulated and empirically tested consequences of university unionization and labor strikes on the North American institution's administration, faculty, and students. The review explores the impact of collective bargaining on employee working conditions including job security, academic freedom, university governance, and due process. More importantly, this review examines the much neglected issue of organizational work relationships in a unionized academic environment. The relationships discussed include those between faculty members, between the faculty and administration, between the faculty and the university as an institution, and between the faculty and their union. The threat of unionization and labor strikes to the professorstudent or mentor-mentee relationship has been a central concern of those opposed to graduate student unions, and this issue is also addressed here. The text concludes with the identification of potential areas for future research.

show abstract

The dynamics of strike votes: Perceived justice during collective bargaining

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryWhy do workers decide to go on strike or change their mind during a strike? This field study aims to determine to what extent employees' perceptions of justice formed during the collective bargaining process influence their strike vote. Data were collected from a North American university faculty that went on strike 21 months after the expiration of its collective agreement. The results show that perceived justice about collective bargaining is a determinant of the strike vote. The role played by the employer and the union as a source of (in)justice and the importance of the four types of justice perceptions (procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational) vary depending on the context of ballots (initiate, continue, or end the strike). This suggests that the reduction of uncertainty leads to the activation of three different mechanisms: judgmental heuristics (salience), social comparison, and cognitive dissonance. The results also suggest that employees attempt to be as rational as possible when they decide to go on strike. Nevertheless, the decision to join strikers and to continue the strike is partly based on an emotional process: employees use the strike to punish the employer.

show abstract

Predictors of strike voting behavior: The case of university faculty

Cited by 17 publications

References 24 publications

A multiple motive perspective on strike propensities

A multiple motive perspective on strike propensities

The organizational impact of university labor unions

The dynamics of strike votes: Perceived justice during collective bargaining

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About