Success in multiple union elections: Exclusive jurisdiction vs. competition

Dworkin, James B.; Fain, James R.

doi:10.1007/bf02685519

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the election outcomes themselves may be dissimilar, the factors which determine these outcomes are surprisingly the same. The previous findings of Odewahn and Scott (1989) and Dworkin and Fain (1989) that unions are more likely to win a multi-union than a single-union election are well supported by the data analysis reported here.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…In contrast, unions won 78.6 percent of the multi-union certifications over the same time period. Differential win rates for single versus multiple-union elections has been noted previously in the literature and been documented by Dworkin and Fain (1989).…”

Section: Note Inmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Unfortunately, Odewahn and Scott's results were only descriptive --no multivariate analysis of their data was provided. Dworkin and Fain (1989) developed a theoretical argument to explain why unions are much more successful in winning multiple versus single-union elections. Their major conclusion was that unions compete with each other in elections where the pre-election probability of success is expected to be high.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Trends in and determinants of outcomes in multi-union certification elections

Sandver

Ready

1998

J Labor Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Note Inmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trends in and determinants of outcomes in multi-union certification elections

Sandver

Ready

1998

J Labor Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Behav, 22, 569-591 (2001) elections, a study conducted at the election level alludes to the fact that voting instrumentality plays a role in the decision of whether or not to vote. Dworkin and Fain (1989) found that turnout was less in multi-union elections than in single union elections and that the number of voters turning out to vote against representation was reduced as the number of competing unions increase. They suggest that these findings indicate that anti-union employees are discouraged, believe that casting a ballot will not be worth the effort, and, therefore, choose not to vote.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

To vote or not to vote: abstaining from voting in union representation elections

Hepburn

Barling

2001

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryWe conducted two studies addressing abstaining from voting in union representation elections. In Study 1 of a faculty representation election, we showed that compared to voters abstainers possessed less extreme work and union attitudes, believed less in the ability of their vote to affect the election outcomes, and were less involved in the election (e.g., less interested, felt less responsibility to vote). To assess the practical utility of these findings. Study 2 used vignettes in a 2 (traditional bread-and-butter issues) 2 (emerging issues related to fairness) X 2 (voting instrumentality) x 2 (responsibility to vote) experimental manipulation.Results showed that the likelihood of abstaining is reduced when efforts to emphasize the responsibility to vote are presented together with information on both traditional and emerging issues. The two studies show why people abstain from voting in union representation elections, and suggest how abstaining might be reduced. Conceptual implications, practical interventions and research directions raised by the two studies are discussed.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the frequency of a union win remains high. Dworkin and Fain's (1989) work is the most theoretical treatment of multiunion elections. They saw raiding as counterproductive because (a) competition among unions for the same employees is a wasteful use of resources, and (b) unions have greater bargaining power when their organizations are more cohesive.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Discriminant Analysis of Employee Choice in a Multiunion Representation Election

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of union certification elections is well advanced in the academic literature. There is, however, little research on determinants of union certification when more than one union is on the ballot. The work on multiunion elections that does exist is primarily descriptive and conducted at the macro level. This paper presents a micro‐level study of a multiunion election. Three sets of variables derived from expectancy theory, the investments model, and the theory of reasoned action, were posited to influence employee choice in a multiunion election. Data were collected via a mail survey of 270 employees who recently participated in a multiunion election. The data were analyzed using multiple analysis of variance and discriminant analysis. The results provide strong evidence that the employee vote in a multiunion election is correlated with (a) an evaluation of the efficacy of a raiding union, (b) employee behavioural investments, and (c) the attitudes of others in the immediate work group. Implications for labour practitioners centre on increasing employee involvement, identifying the union with important others, and delivering desired results. Future researchers may wish to extend this framework to other settings. Résumé L'analyse des élections pour Vaccréditation syndicale est un sujet souvent traité dans les revues savantes. Cependant, on n'a que peu etudié les facteurs qui déterminent Vaccréditation en cas de syndicats multiples dans un scrutin. II existe surtout jusqu'à ce jour des descriptions ou des macroanalyses. Cet article présente une microanalyse d'une élection multisyndicale, prenant pour principe que trois ensembles de variables influencent le choix des employés: des variables inspirées par la Théorie des attentes (Expectancy Theory), par le Modèle des investisse‐ments et par la Théorie de Vaction raisonnée (Reasoned Action Theory). Un sondage par correspondence de 270 employés, qui avaient récemment participé à une élection à syndicats multiples, a foumi les données qui ont servi de base pour une analyse de variance et de discrimination. Les resultats indiquent clairement une corrélation entre le vote de l'employé et (1) l'évaluation de l'éfficacité d'un syndicat agresseur (raiding union), (2) les investissements com‐portementaux de l'employé, et (3) les attitudes des col‐lègues dans le groupe de travail. Pour qu'un syndicat puisse préserver son accréditation, ces résultats lui sug‐gèrent d'augmenter la participation des employés qu'il représente, d'encourager la loyauté des employés ay ant une influence sur leurs collègues, et d'améliorer la performance des services de base pour employés. De futures recherches pourront éStendre ce cadre á d'autres contextes.

show abstract

Success in multiple union elections: Exclusive jurisdiction vs. competition

Cited by 12 publications

References 5 publications

Trends in and determinants of outcomes in multi-union certification elections

Trends in and determinants of outcomes in multi-union certification elections

To vote or not to vote: abstaining from voting in union representation elections

A Discriminant Analysis of Employee Choice in a Multiunion Representation Election

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About