Union Membership and Job‐Related Training: Incidence, Transferability, and Efficacy
| Published date | 01 December 2014 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2012.00909.x |
| Date | 01 December 2014 |
| Author | C. Jeffrey Waddoups |
Union Membership and Job-Related
Training: Incidence, Transferability,
and Efficacy
C. Jeffrey Waddoups
Abstract
This study examines the relationship between union membership and (i) the
incidence of training, (ii) the degree to which training is transferable to firms
other than the one providing the training and (iii) the degree to which workers
perceive that training improves job performance. Using data from the Austra-
lian Bureau of Statistics, I find that union members are more likely to receive
employer-sponsored training than their non-union counterparts. I also find that
male union members are more likely than non-members to report that training
improved job performance. Union membership was not related to transferability
of skills between employers.
1. Introduction
Employer-sponsored training is an important component of advanced
economies’ human capital stocks. To the extent that such skill formation
plays a significant role in determining an economy’s growth potential, it is
important to understand factors that underlie an economy’s commitment to
training. Against this backdrop, the present study focuses on the impact of
trade union membership on the three dimensions of training: first, whether
union membership is correlated with the incidence of training; second,
whether union membership affects the mix between transferable and firm-
specific training;1and third, whether union membership is related to workers’
perceptions about the efficacy of training, or the relationship between train-
ing and job performance.
The study is informed by theoretical literature on the impact of unions on
training incidence, beginning with standard human capital theory, which
C. Jeffrey Waddoups is at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The author also holds an
adjunct associate professor position with the Department of Management at Griffith University,
Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
bs_bs_banner
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8543.2012.00909.x
52:4 December 2014 0007–1080 pp. 753–778
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2012. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
predicts that union wage policies reduce incentives for firms to sponsor
training (e.g. Becker 1962). More recently, theoretical developments, which
account for imperfect competition, suggest that unionized environments may
increase incentives for firms to sponsor training (Acemoglu and Pischke 1999;
Booth and Chatterji 1998). Although the data are too limited for the present
analysis to definitively distinguish between competing theoretical predictions
about training incidence, they nevertheless are sufficient to provide addi-
tional evidence to the growing literature on union-training effects.
Besides the influence of unions on the incidence of training, the study also
addresses the relationship between unionism and whether workers receive
general or transferable skills in their training courses, and whether union
membership is related to workers’ perceptions about training and job
performance. Previous research suggests that a large majority (roughly 85
per cent) of firm-sponsored training is either general or transferable between
employers, while the remainder is firm-specific (Booth and Bryan 2005;
Booth and Katic 2011). The question about whether unionization affects the
mix between the two, however, has not been directly studied either theoreti-
cally or empirically.2In addition, there has been very little research on the
effectiveness of training from the standpoint of the trainee taking into
account union status. One may reasonably expect union membership to
enhance the effectiveness of firm-sponsored training to the extent that it
provides workers with more voice in determining the content of training
courses and how they are delivered. On the other hand, perhaps union
agreements, which often are in force for considerable lengths of time, insti-
tutionalize training programmes or practices that become progressively
inconsistent with the production process. In such cases, one may expect a
negative influence of unionism on the perception of effectiveness among
union members.
The remainder of the article is organized as follows. The next section
reviews the theoretical and empirical literature on union-training effects.
After the review, I will discuss the data, which come from the Survey of
Education and Training 2005 (SET), a cross-sectional, random sample of
Australian households gathered quadrennially by the Australian Bureau
of Statistics (ABS). Then, empirical models will be proposed, estimated and
discussed, emphasizing union effects on incidence, transferability and efficacy
of training. Finally, I conclude and draw implications for future research.
2. Theoretical background and previous empirical results
Training and Human Capital Theory
Previous studies have outlined a number of approaches to understanding the
relationship between unionism and firm-sponsored training.3Clear theoreti-
cal predictions about the incidence of training emerge from the standard
human capital model. The theory suggests that because unions install a floor
754 British Journal of Industrial Relations
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2012.
To continue reading
Request your trial