Workplace Flexibilities, Job Satisfaction and Union Membership in the US Workforce
| Author | Chad D. Cotti,Laurie A. Miller,M. Ryan Haley |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12025 |
| Published date | 01 September 2014 |
| Date | 01 September 2014 |
Workplace Flexibilities, Job Satisfaction
and Union Membership in
the US Workforce
Chad D. Cotti, M. Ryan Haley and
Laurie A. Miller
Abstract
Using individual-level data from the 2008 National Study of the Changing
Workforce, we quantify how workers’ job satisfaction levels correlate with five
schedule-based workplace flexibilities. The data permit us to control for numer-
ous variables that might otherwise explain variation in the probability of job
satisfaction, including, but not limited to, income, benefits, stress, depression,
job control and individual preferences over flexibilities. Conditional on this
control set, we find that workplace flexibilities correlate with an 8.1 per cent
increase in job satisfaction. The relationship between job satisfaction and work-
place flexibilities prevails through several sensitivity analyses, bias assessments
and a propensity score matching analysis. We also explore how job satisfaction,
union membership and workplace flexibilities intermix; we find that workplace
flexibilities may function as a partial substitute for union membership.
1. Introduction
Self-reported job satisfaction is thought to be a bellwether for turnover rates,
productivity, absenteeism and workforce health, among other variables of
managerial interest. All these factors have potential profit implications for
firms and are likewise of interest to workers. Thus, quantifying how these
factors intermix with job satisfaction has been studied at some length. Impor-
tantly, workplace flexibilities (or flexible working arrangements) can function
as a catalyst for these desirable conditions. For this reason, assessing the
impact that workplace flexibilities have on job satisfaction constitutes a very
practical inquiry and is the focus of this article.
Chad D. Cotti and M. Ryan Haley are at the Department of Economics, University of
Wisconsin Oshkosh. Laurie A. Miller is at the Department of Economics, University of
Nebraska — Lincoln.
bs_bs_banner
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/bjir.12025
52:3 September 2014 0007–1080 pp. 403–425
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2013. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Within this general focus we seek to answer an additional and more specific
question: How do job satisfaction, workplace flexibilities and union mem-
bership intermix? Our hypothesis is that workplace flexibilities may be able to
serve as a partial substitute for union membership, which derives from
the intuitively appealing idea that either apparatus is potentially capable of
procuring the unmet needs and desires (e.g. regarding working conditions) of
workers. Accordingly, workplace flexibilities offered by the establishment
may obviate a union, which may be a favorable outcome for workers or
management.
We are interested in studying workplace flexibilities for several reasons.
First, workplace flexibilities can potentially increase productivity while
decreasing turnover, absenteeism and work–family conflicts, suggesting them
to be attractive policies to workers and establishments alike. Second, some
research suggests that workplace flexibilities are not yet broadly used in the
USA, and are underutilized in the USA relative to other countries. Third,
unlike covariates such as age, gender and many others, flexible working
arrangements constitute a tangible workplace policy that can be actively
cultivated. Fourth, the policy brief prepared by the Council of Economic
Advisors (2010) for the recent ‘flexibility summit’ held by the Obama Admin-
istration advocates that employers implement policies that provide workers
with hours flexibility, varying start and end times, and the ability to work
from home; thus, evincing the potential impact on job satisfaction is an
important and timely contribution to this ongoing policy effort.
In the subsequent sections of the article, we use detailed individual-level
data from the 2008 National Study of the Changing Workforce (NSCW) to
estimate how workplace flexibilities influence the probability workers report
high job satisfaction. We subject our baseline specification to bias assess-
ments, propensity score analysis and several sensitivity analyses, and then we
investigate the union versus flexibilities question.
2. Motivation and background
There is a substantial literature on how productivity, turnover, absenteeism
and work–family conflicts relate to workplace flexibilities. For example,
Baltes et al. (1999) find evidence that flextime and compressed work weeks
improve productivity and reduce absenteeism. Prutchno et al. (2000) find
that daily flextime improves productivity. Scott and Taylor (1985) find that
absenteeism and job satisfaction are negatively related. Bloom and van
Reenen (2006) find that workplace flexibilities can increase productivity
(prior to controlling for management quality), and Bloom et al. (2011) note
that ‘. . . although providing FFWP [family friendly workplace practices]
may not increase profits, they at least pay for themselves.’ Baughman et al.
(2003) find a reduction in turnover in the presence of flexible sick leave and
childcare assistance policies. Ameliorating work–family conflict can result in
better performance and less absenteeism according to Kossek and Ozeki
404 British Journal of Industrial Relations
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2013.
To continue reading
Request your trial