Undermining mobilization? The effect of job flexibility and job instability on the willingness to strike

Abstract

This article addresses the question of whether, and to what extent job flexibility is detrimental to mobilization with regard to the willingness to take part in industrial action. The authors examine the influence of job flexibility (‘standard’ versus ‘non-standard’ work) and job instability (changes from one job to another) on employees’ willingness to strike. Based on Dutch survey data it is shown that only minor differences exist between ‘standard’ and ‘non-standard’ employees in their willingness to participate in a strike. While this study did not establish a major direct effect of job flexibility on strike participation, tests of interaction effects reveal that job flexibility moderates other mobilizing factors, such as union membership and job dissatisfaction. Job instability, on average, has no effect on strike participation.

Collective action and provider classification in the sharing economy

“…From an economic angle, it is also expected that collective identity is dependent on attachment to the labour force, which decreases in instances of part‐time or flexible work (Jansen et al ., ). With flexibility touted as a cornerstone of the sharing economy, many people are attracted to the sharing economy for the flexibility it offers and engaging only on an occasional basis (Eurobarometer, ; Huws et al ., ).…”

The oppressive boss and workers’ authoritarianism: effect of voice suppression by supervisors on employees’ authoritarian political attitudes

“…Traditional vehicles for collective expressions of discontent, e.g. union representation or works councils, are less suitable for these flexible workers (Jansen et al, 2017;Jansen & Akkerman, 2014). Therefore, these workers must rely on individual voice, which makes them vulnerable to suppression (Sluiter et al, 2020).…”

Are strikes still a tool for union action? A qualitative investigation into the private sector in Quebec, Canada

“…Collective mobilization is also restrained when companies require greater flexibility from employees, increase the number of temporary workers, and use employment agencies. Although some recent studies have qualified the effects of job flexibility and job insecurity on the propensity of workers to strike (Jansen et al, 2014), these labour management methods are nevertheless seen as destabilizing work teams, making it more difficult for them to voice their interests (Weil, 2014). Lastly, union action is sometimes hampered when employers require subjective employee involvement and establish individualized human resource management practices that weaken cohesion among professional groups and their capacity for collective mobilization (Fiorito, 2001; Machin and Wood, 2005).…”