Employer Behavior in the Face of Union Organizing Drives
The direct role of employers in union organizing has long been a neglected part of the union organizing literature. In this study we examine the determinants and consequences of employer behavior when faced with an organizing drive. Our principal substantive findings are: - that there is a substitution between high wages/benefits/good work conditions/supervisory practices and "tough" management opposition to unionism. - that a high innate propensity for a union victory deters management opposition, while some indicators of a low propensity also reduce opposition. - that "positive industrial relations" raise the chances the firm will defeat the union in an election, as does bringing in consultants and having supervisors campaign intensely against the union. - that the careers of managers whose wages/supervisory practices/ benefits lead to union organizing drives, much less to union victories, suffer as a result. In general we interpret our results as consistent with the notion that firms behave in a profit maximizing manner in opposing an organizing drive and with the basic proposition that management opposition, reflected in diverse forms of behavior, is a key component in the on-going decline in private sector unionism in the United States.
|Date of creation:||Dec 1988|
|Publication status:||published as Industrial & Labor Relations Review, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 351-365, (April 1990).|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.|
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Freeman, Richard B, 1988. "Contraction and Expansion: The Divergence of Private Sector and Public Sector Unionism in the United States," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 63-88, Spring.
- William T. Dickens, 1983. "The Effect of Company Campaigns on Certification Elections: Law and Reality Once Again," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 36(4), pages 560-575, July.
- Richard B. Freeman & Morris M. Kleiner, 1988. "The Impact Of New Unionization On Wages And Working Conditions: A Longitudinal Study Of Establishments Under NLRB Elections," NBER Working Papers 2563, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Clark, Kim B, 1984. "Unionization and Firm Performance: The Impact on Profits, Growth, and Productivity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 893-919, December.
- William T. Dickens & Jonathan S. Leonard, 1985. "Accounting for the Decline in Union Membership, 1950â€“1980," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 38(3), pages 323-334, April.
- Thomas A. Kochan & Robert B. McKersie & John Chalykoff, 1986. "The Effects of Corporate Strategy and Workplace Innovations on Union Representation," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 39(4), pages 487-501, July.
- Ashenfelter, Orley & Johnson, George E, 1969. "Bargaining Theory, Trade Unions, and Industrial Strike Activity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(1), pages 35-49, March.
- William N. Cooke, 1985. "The Failure to Negotiate First Contracts: Determinants and Policy Implications," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 38(2), pages 163-178, January.