Reconsidering Union Activism and Its Meaning
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12054 |
| Date | 01 September 2015 |
| Published date | 01 September 2015 |
Reconsidering Union Activism and
Its Meaning
Jack Fiorito, Irene Padavic and
Philip S. DeOrtentiis
Abstract
Membership mobilization is widely regarded as critical for union revitalization.
Estimates of the level of activism vary widely, and studies reveal puzzling
inconsistencies between union members’ beliefs and intentions. Drawing from
Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour, we address both issues using a sample of
faculty union members. Results show both consistency and discrepancy between
summary self-reports of activism and specific participation behaviours, helping
account for the widely varying estimates of activism levels found in other
studies. Results also indicate an important role for perceived control, a factor
rarely examined in prior research on activism.
Are you an active member, the kind who would be missed?
Or are you just contented, that your name is on the list?
— Attributed to anonymous union member (Barling et al. 1992: 95)
1. Introduction
Whether they call it union participation, union citizenship behaviours or
union activism, scholars and union leaders generally agree that the unpaid
volunteer efforts of lay members are critical for labour union effectiveness
and vitality. This observation is reflected in references to activism as the ‘very
fabric of unions’ (Gordon et al. 1980), as a union’s ‘soul’ (Budd 2010), and as
essential ‘for their survival and their ability to meet members’ needs’ (Tetrick
et al. 2007: 820; see also Barling et al. 1992; Clark 2009; Gall and Fiorito
2012). Fosh (1993: 577) observed: ‘The possibility for union renewal comes
through building up the base level of participation by careful local leadership
so that members can more easily be encouraged to take part in collective
Jack Fiorito is at Florida State University and the University of Hertfordshire. Irene Padavic
and Philip S. DeOrtentiis are at Florida State University.
© John Wiley & Sons Ltd/London School of Economics 2014. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
British Journal of Industrial Relations
53:3 September 2015 0007–1080 pp. 556–579 doi: 10.1111/bjir.12054
activities in times of necessity’. Hickey et al. (2010) reported that activism
played a critical role in the vast majority (83 per cent) of successful union
renewal cases that they studied (Hickey et al. 2010).
Many areas of uncertainty remain. Although particular incidents, such as
a lock-out or the threat of a facility closing, may trigger activism, underlying
factors, such as attitudes and beliefs, likely determine the readiness of
members to become activists when triggering events occur (Fosh 1993). On
an ongoing basis, union leaders struggle to inspire greater activism, avoid
burnout and guide activism for greatest effect (de Turberville 2004; Heery
2003), but many reports suggest that apathy and passivity prevail, and none
has found excess volunteerism! Scholars continue to examine alternative
models and evidence in the hope of advancing the understanding of activ-
ism’s nature (e.g. along dimensions of intentions/behaviour or passive/active
forms of participation), causes (e.g. union attitudes) and consequences (e.g.
union renewal) for the sake of the knowledge itself and in order to provide
advice to practitioners (e.g. Clark 2009).
In this article, we contribute to the activism literature in three specific ways.
First, we apply Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour (TPB) to union
activism. This theory points to the possible influence of perceived control, or
what might be called ‘activism efficacy’: the belief that personal activism will
make a difference. Our analysis allows us to assess its importance. Second, we
offer evidence on the influence of a key contextual factor, the workplace
attitudinal context in which activism occurs. Do the attitudes and activities of
fellow workers influence personal activism? Notions of subjective norms as
specified in TPB, social networks (Jarley 2005) and similar concepts certainly
suggest that the attitudinal context matters, but evidence is sparse. Finally,
we shed light on the meaning of activism self-reports derived from conven-
tional Likert-style scale questions, asking what it means when a respondent
reports being ‘very active’ in a union. By comparing responses to such ques-
tions with responses from behaviourally oriented indicators of union partici-
pation, we offer some insight on the sources of conflicting findings regarding
the levels of union member activism.
2. Theoretical perspectives, previous research and hypotheses
We draw upon Ajzen’s (1991) TPB as a conceptual framework for linking
perceptions regarding a union to a union member’s willingness to engage in
future activism. Although our model does not incorporate the full richness of
TPB, it includes elements relating to each of its three key antecedent types,
along with outcomes relating to intentions and behaviours. This framework
provides the theoretical foundation for the relationship between individuals’
beliefs — broadly defined to include attitudes, affect and predispositions to
act — and behaviour. Ajzen’s theory proposes that the relationship between
beliefs and behaviours is mediated by an individual’s intention to perform the
behaviour. This focus on intention differentiates TPB from other theories of
motivation and behaviour.
© John Wiley & Sons Ltd/London School of Economics 2014.
Reconsidering Union Activism 557
To continue reading
Request your trial