ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY (Scholarly work required) I DISPUTE bad work!!
DO NOT BID IF YOU CANT PROVIDE QUALITY WORK AND FOLLOW DIRECTIONS. I WILL DISPUTE FOR REFUND IF BAD WORK IS PROVIDED!!
– Topic- Why Labor Unions are Important in Today’s Workforce (United States)
– Essay can only speak on United States
– 4-5 pages in length
– APA 7th Ed.
– Must use provided references only and utilize minimum (8) citations from them
– Must use appropriate Headings in APA 7th Ed format
– Must have Opening Thesis statement clearly defined
– Must have supporting statements
– Must have counter argument
– Must have Clear conclusion supporting topic of why labors unions are important
** See attachments for additional information and reference/research material
References
Supporting Points:
a. Collective Voice
Lott, B. (2014). Social Class Myopia: The Case of Psychology and Labor Unions.Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy,14(1), 261280. https://doiorg.nuls.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/asap.12029
b. Equality
Cho, D., & Cho, J. (2011). How do labor unions influence the gender earnings gap?: A comparative study of the US and Korea. Feminist Economics, 17(3), 133157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2011.582472
Flavin, P. (2018). Labor Union Strength and the Equality of Political Representation. British Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 10751091. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000302
Macdonald, D. (2019). Labor Unions and Support for Redistribution in an Era of Inequality. Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), 100(4), 11971214. https://doi-org.nuls.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/ssqu.12627
c. Sense of belonging
Dawkins, C. (2016). A Test of Labor Union Social Responsibility: Effects on Union Member Attachment. Business & Society, 55(2), 214245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650312464925
Counter Arguments:
Clawson, D., & Clawson, M. A. (1999). What has happened to the US labor movement? union decline and renewal. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 95-119. Retrieved from https://nuls.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.nuls.idm.oclc.org/docview/199590715?accountid=25320
Raymo, J., Warren, J., Sweeney, M., Hauser, R., & Ho, J. (2011). Precarious employment, bad jobs, labor unions, and early retirement.The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences,66(2), 249259. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbq106 1
Outline for Argument Essay
Title: The Need for Labor Unions in Todays Workforce.
A 4 to 5-page argument paper that requires the use of scholarly, trade journal and textbook sources.
I. Introduction of the Essay
A. Hook: State your position and give an interesting angle to support your view.
B. End this section with a thesis sentence see common student mistakes for help.
II. Body of the Paper
A. General Background on Topic (Choose at least three topics and ensure you are not only using one sided argument. What does the other side say? Make sure you counter this argument):
B. General Background on Topic B:
C. Identify similarities between Topic A and Topic B
D. Identify differences between Topic A and Topic B
E. Analysis of the topict: There are (few, many, several) similarities and (few, many, several) differences between _____________________________________ and _______________discuss your final outcome by giving evidence to support your point of view_______.
III. Conclusion
A. Restatement of main points.
B. Insights into the issues.
C. Strong Ending: Which side are you on? By the end, there should be overwhelming evidence to support your selection. This includes countering the other sides arguments too. Business & Society
2016, Vol. 55(2) 214 245
The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0007650312464925
bas.sagepub.com
464925BASXXX10.1177/0007650
312464925Business & SocietyDawkins
2011 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
1California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Cedric E. Dawkins, Rowe School of Business, Dalhousie University, 6100 University Avenue,
Halifax, NS B2Y0C1 Canada.
Email: [emailprotected]
The article was accepted during the editorship of Duane Windsor.
A Test of Labor Union
Social Responsibility:
Effects on Union Member
Attachment
Cedric E. Dawkins1
Abstract
Social responsibility is addressed to corporations, but can also be applied
to other powerful organizations. This study tests the impact of labor union
social responsibility on key measures of labor union attachment. After devel-
oping a scale of labor union social responsibility, craft union apprentice work-
ers were surveyed and their responses analyzed with structural equation
modeling. Labor union social responsibility was directly and positively related
to union commitment and job satisfaction. Union commitment and job sat-
isfaction fully mediated the negative relationship between labor union social
responsibility and propensity to withdraw from the union, and the positive
relationship between labor union social responsibility and union participa-
tion. The results suggest that labor union social responsibility can enhance
union attachment and inform union strategy.
Keywords
labor unions, social responsibility, union member attachment
In the global economy the notion of social responsibility, defined as actions
that further some social good beyond self-interest and what is required by law
Article
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F0007650312464925&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2012-11-01
Dawkins 215
(McWilliams & Siegel, 2001), has gained currency among stakeholders (Doh
& Guay, 2006; Matten & Crane, 2005) and academics (Margolis & Walsh,
2003). Consumers expect social responsibility (Mohr & Webb, 2005; Mohr,
Webb, & Harris, 2001), and the public rewards socially responsible compa-
nies with enhanced reputation (Fombrun, Gardberg, & Barnett, 2000) and
employee recruiting preferences (Turban & Greening, 1997). Social respon-
sibility expectations have been primarily directed toward businesses, but
labor unions are also very powerful organizations with broad societal influ-
ence. As providers of essential goods and services, unions have profound and
widespread impact on consumers (e.g., education, public transportation,
health care, first responder services, and trucking), and play a major role in
the economic well being of their members, communities, and countries.
Hence, there is little reason for unions to escape the imperative to operate in
a socially responsible manner.
To date, labor unions have been somewhat conflicted about corporate
social responsibility (CSR). Despite historically striving for what many
would argue are key tenets of corporate social responsibilityan equitable
wage, humane working conditions, due process for workers, and rights for
marginalized communities1some union leaders fear that social responsibil-
ity will undermine their preferred structure of contracts and regulation
(Justice, 2003; Preuss, 2008). Others contend that a broad, socially conscious
labor movement that is genuinely concerned about social justice is better
positioned for the future (FNV Mondiaal, 2004; Wheeler, 2001), and that a
more favorable view of unions by members and potential members is a req-
uisite for union revitalization (Freeman & Rogers, 1999). Amid this reti-
cence, U.S. labor unions are beset with the public perception that they
selfishly pursue the interests of their members (Panagopoulos & Francia,
2008), and skepticism about their purpose and power (Pew Research Center,
2010). This article espouses the view that social responsibility is itself a valu-
able end. If, however, there are connections between labor union social
responsibility (LUSR) and key measures of union attachment, then identify-
ing the nature of those connections can inform discussion of union revitaliza-
tion, strategy, and tactics.
There is a paucity of research that explores the nexus of labor unions and
social responsibility, but LUSR has potentially important implications for
union members and the societies to which they belong. This study focuses on
union members perceptions of LUSR and the extent to which those percep-
tions impact union attachment. The first section describes why labor union
social responsibility is warranted, its benefactors, and how labor unions can
discharge social responsibility. The second section presents hypotheses
216 Business & Society 55(2)
regarding the extent to which perception of LUSR positively impacts key
measures of union attachment such as union commitment, job satisfaction,
propensity to participate, and propensity to withdraw. The third section pro-
vides an explanation of the methodology of the study, participants and proce-
dure; measures, and the analytic strategy for structural equation modeling
and hypothesis testing. After presenting the results of hypothesis tests, the
article concludes with discussion of the implications of LUSR for business
ethics and labor relations research and practice.
Labor Union Social Responsibility
Dawkins (2010) describes socially responsible labor unions as those that
pursue economic equity, workplace democracy, and social justice in ways
that are consistent with general expectations of organizational conduct, con-
sider the interests of their stakeholders, and benefit society. A discussion of
LUSR can begin with three basic questions: Why is labor union social
responsibility warranted, to whom are labor unions responsible, and how can
labor unions discharge their responsibility?
Why labor union social responsibility is warranted. Concerning the first ques-
tion, labor union social responsibility is warranted because the actions of labor
unions can, and often do, affect or put at risk the interests of others. Social
responsibility implies that powerful organizations occupy a role that extends
beyond laws and regulations to encompass a wide range of societal norms,
values, and expectations (Carroll, 1991). Support for this supposition is derived
from institutional theory, deontological ethics, and social contract theory.
According to institutional theory, organizations whose actions are consis-
tent with the normative values of society are deemed legitimate and receive
preference in transacting business (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Suchman,
1995). That preference is, however, constrained by responsibility because it
might otherwise produce negative externalities (Valasquez, 1996). The iron
law of responsibility states that businesses are social institutions that must use
their power responsibly, or risk losing that power altogether (Davis &
Blomstrom, 1971). Through collective bargaining labor unions play a major
role in domestic economic health, function as the sole representative of their
members workplace interests,2 and provide essential goods and services for
consumers. It follows that if labor unions operate in a manner that is incon-
sistent with the goals and values of society they are also likely to lose their
societal preferences.
Moral duty has also been an enduring aspect of the labor movement ethos,
and is still evident as institutions akin to the Catholic Church and the United
Dawkins 217
Nations endorse labor unions as vehicles for improving working conditions
and recognizing human potential (Pope Paul XXIII, 1991; Thomas 2009;
United Nations, 2008), but it also implies ethical behavior by labor unions.
Social contract theory, which is derived from the writings of philosophers
such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, details an
implicit moral and ethical agreement between society and an organization
whereby society authorizes the organization in return for its contributions to
important societal goals. Hasnas (1998) states that the social contract is
essentially comprised of social provisions or stipulations that require busi-
nesses to benefit: (a) consumers through economic efficiency; (b) workers
through employment opportunities and workplace dignity; and (c) society by
avoiding practices that degrade a given group or entity (e.g., worker exploita-
tion, environmental ruin). In order to warrant continued authorization, the
advantages an organization provides to society must outweigh any disadvan-
tages it poses (Donaldson, 1982). Because they are economic and social orga-
nizations authorized by society, the provisions of the social contract apply to
labor unions as well. Thus, in addition to the imperative of responsible opera-
tion to maintain legitimacy, and the ethical duty to advance workplace pro-
tections and human potential, LUSR is warranted because it is the means
through which labor unions discharge their social contract obligation to pro-
vide economic, workplace, and social benefits to society.
To whom are labor unions responsible. With regard to the second question,
labor unions are responsible to stakeholders. Freeman (1984, p. 46) defined a
stakeholder as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the
achievement of the organizations objectives. The essence of stakeholder
theory is that managers should create and sustain moral relationships, and
make good on the affirmative obligation to fairly distribute the harms and
benefits of their organizations activities (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Free-
man, 1994).3 According to Evan and Freeman (1993) the obligation to stake-
holders is derived from Kants principle of respect for persons, which holds
that persons are entitled to be treated not merely as a means to the achieve-
ment of the ends of others, but as valuable ends in themselves. Thus, organi-
zations are morally obligated to address the interests of their stakeholders and
direct resources and activities to their benefit.
According to Dawkins (2010), labor union stakeholders can be placed in
economic, workplace, and social categories, which correspond to the stipula-
tions of the social contract. Economic stakeholders include (a) union mem-
bers who need competitive wages and benefits, (b) consumers that desire
consistent delivery of products and services, and (c) management and share-
holders who call for economic efficiency. Workplace stakeholders include (a)
218 Business & Society 55(2)
union members who desire equitable treatment, (b) nonunion workers who
constitute an opportunity for union growth and derive a collateral benefit
from labor union initiatives, and (c) managers who desire a stable, orderly
workplace. Finally, social stakeholders include (a) disenfranchised persons
(domestic and international) who desire freedom of association, freedom
from forced and child labor and employment discrimination, and nonexploit-
ative wage levels, (b) workers who desire an adequate social safety net and
safe work conditions, and (c) environmental entities that lack dedicated
representation.
The respect for persons underpinnings of stakeholder theory help leaders
to broaden their view of the organizations responsibilities to include interests
of less prevalent groups and entities, but provides no clear direction for rec-
onciling the competing interests of stakeholders. While assessing the relative
standing of stakeholder interests remains a considerable challenge for organi-
zational leaders, the LUSR model provides a means with which to systemati-
cally examine those interests and determine a suitable response.
Components of Discharging Labor Union Social
Responsibility
Thus far, it has been argued that labor unions have institutional, ethical, and
social contract obligations to return benefits to the societies within which
they operate, and stakeholder theory has been employed to specify those to
whom labor unions are responsible. As McWilliams and Siegel (2001) have
noted, social responsibility does not necessarily require a radical departure
from organizational activities, but rather an extension of those activities
beyond narrow self-interest. It follows that a socially responsible labor union
will discharge its obligations to society by, not only addressing its members,
but also the economic, workplace, and social interests of their other stake-
holders.
The economic component addresses the traditional business unionism
(Dubofsky & Dulles, 1993; Hattum, 1993) role of bargaining for better
wages, benefits, and job security. As the exclusive bargaining agent and stew-
ard of union dues, a labor unions primary responsibility is to assure that its
members receive an equitable share of the economic rewards they help to
produce. All other labor union roles are premised on this fundamental duty.
Consequently, it is to be expected that the majority of labor union activities
will be directed toward economic equity. The pursuit of economic equity is,
however, bounded by the financial constraints of corporations and the needs
of consumers for consistent delivery of important goods and services.
Dawkins 219
The workplace component entails providing union members with a means
of workplace democracy by which to influence the tenor of their work lives.
However, just as corporations cannot focus solely on shareholders, the focus
of socially responsible labor unions extends beyond the interests of union
members. Workplace democracy also includes the interests of supervisors,
the management and union hierarchies that jointly administer the collective
bargaining agreement, and all workers. Suitable activities include addressing
management needs for flexible scheduling and problem-solving contribu-
tions from workers, prohibitions of child and sweatshop labor, and broad
advocacy for a workplace that is both humane and efficient.
The social component pursues the objective of social justice, particularly
for the community of workers and marginalized sectors of society to whom
labor unions have historically appealed (Cornfield, 1991). Social justice per-
tains to the distribution of benefits and burdens in the economic, political,
and environmental systems and entails involvement in the political process to
influence outcomes in those areas. Lastly, the social component involves
advocacy on issues of broad concern such as the impact of globalization on
human and worker rights around the world. Injustices in the broader social
environment make it less likely that workers and less powerful stakeholders
will achieve economic equity and workplace democracy. The economic,
workplace, and social components are not mutually exclusive or cumulative.
That is, activities in each area constitute only part of LUSR and can be pur-
sued simultaneously. Labor unions in varying degrees have pursued objec-
tives in each of these areas, and continue to do so. This LUSR model serves
to facilitate analysis of labor union activities and call attention to all aspects
of social responsibility.
Labor Union Social Responsibility and Union
Member Attachment
In addition to LUSRs normative value, the extent to which perception of
LUSR positively impacts key measures of union attachment such as union
commitment, job satisfaction, propensity to participate, and propensity to
withdraw, make LUSR a potentially useful construct. Gordon, Philpot, Burt,
Thompson, and Spiller (1980) describe union commitment as containing four
major constructs; an attitude of loyalty to the union, a feeling of responsibility
to the union, a willingness to exert strong effort on behalf of the union, and
a belief in the goals of unionism. Labor union social responsibility has the
potential to impact union commitment because, although it is related to the
societal impact of union activity, it is likely to parallel pro-union attitudes.
220 Business & Society 55(2)
There is evidence that pro-union attitudes and ideology are foundations for
the development and maintenance of union commitment (Bacharach,
Bamberger, & Sonnenstuhl, 2001; Gordon et al., 1980). Consequently,
Tetrick and Barling (1995) and Newton and Shore (1992) have argued that
unions must make a greater investment in developing prounion attitudes as a
source of union commitment.
Labor union social responsibility also has the potential to influence com-
mitment through perceived external prestige, what relevant others think
about an organization (also called construed external image and organiza-
tional prestige; see Smidts, Pruyn, & Van Reil, 2001). Organizational com-
mitment was influenced by perceived external prestige (Carmeli, 2005), and
socially responsible companies are more attractive to potential workers and
tend to have more committed workers (Brammer, Millington, & Rayton,
2007; Turban & Greening, 1997). There is also evidence that persons like to
be associated with socially responsible voluntary organizations (Boezeman
& Ellemers, 2007). In the same way, union members perceptions of unions
improve when unions are diverse (Bacharach & Bamberger, 2004), or engage
in altruistic activities (Fiorito, 1992), and positive perception of unions pre-
cede other measures of union attachment such as union participation (Gordon,
Barling, & Tetrick, 1995).
Hypothesis 1: Labor union social responsibility is positively related to
union commitment.
Labor union social responsibility can enhance job satisfaction by improv-
ing external aspects of job satisfaction and the labor relations climate in the
workplace. Job satisfaction is an evaluative judgment workers make about
their job and is derived from the extrinsic rewards, or the intrinsic tasks and
responsibilities of the job itself (Weiss, 2002). Union members view the
internal aspects of job satisfaction such as task complexity, degree of auton-
omy, and opportunities for promotion less favorably than do nonunion work-
ers (Freeman & Medoff, 1984), and it is difficult for labor unions to influence
these factors. Labor unions can; however, favorably impact extrinsic factors
of job satisfaction such as pay, and work rules and procedures (Bryson,
Cappellari, & Lucifora, 2003; Farber & Western, 2002; Renaud, 2002) and
socially responsible unions will attempt to do so. Socially responsible labor
unions also have the capacity to improve the labor relations climate. A poor
labor relations climate reduces job satisfaction (Artz, 2010), and thus it is
reasonable to infer that a good labor relations climate will increase job
satisfaction.
Dawkins 221
Hypothesis 2: Labor union social responsibility is positively related to
job satisfaction.
According to Barling, Fullagar, Kelloway, & McElvie (1992) there are a
number of variables that predict union commitment, but job satisfaction is
among the most prevalent. How job satisfaction affects union commitment is
not entirely clear. One view proposed by Newton and Shore (1992) and
Iverson and Kuruvilla (1995) is that the impact of job satisfaction on organi-
zational commitment is mediated by other attitudes. Barling et al. (1992)
have argued that job satisfaction has a direct and independent effect on union
commitment. Finally, Bamberger, Kluger, and Suchard (1999) conducted a
meta-analytic study of job satisfaction and union commitment research and
found that models proposing direct and mediated effects of union commit-
ment on job satisfaction fit better than models positing direct or mediated
effects alone. One conclusion that can be drawn from this group of studies is
that job satisfaction regularly mediates the relationship between attitudinal
variables and union commitment.
Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between labor union social
responsibility and union commitment is mediated by job satisfaction.
Union participation is a behavioral expression of union commitment
(Parks, Gallagher, & Fullagar, 1995) involving activities such as attendance
at union meetings, talking up the union, volunteering time and effort to ben-
efit the union, and voting in union-sponsored elections (Shore & Newton,
1995). Organizational withdrawal entails the intent to reduce job inputs and
work-role inclusion (Hanisch, Hulin, & Roznowski, 1998), but is demon-
strated in the union context by diminished involvement in voting, recruiting,
and other activities, or disassociating with the union altogether.4 Participation
in local union activities has been a consistent and positive consequence of
union commitment (Bamberger et al., 1999; Tan & Aryee, 2002). Moreover,
Fullagar, Clark, Gallagher, & Carroll (2004) have demonstrated that the
impact of union commitment on union participation persists over time. Snape
and Chan (2000) add that commitment precedes participation in union activi-
ties because commitment provides the motivation to participate. Besides
being the inverse of participation, union withdrawal is likely to have a nega-
tive association with union commitment because there is no motivation to
participate.
222 Business & Society 55(2)
Hypothesis 4a: Union commitment is positively related to union
participation.
Hypothesis 4b: Union commitment is negatively related to propensity
for union withdrawal.
As noted by Hammer, Bayazit, and Wazeter (2009), meta-analytic studies
of union commitment and participation show that job satisfaction has direct
or indirect influence that, in turn, contributes to union participation.
Withdrawal indicators such as intent to quit are often explained as conse-
quences of two mediating variables, organizational commitment and job sat-
isfaction, both of which are proposed to have a negative effect on turnover
cognitions (Price, 2001; Somers, 1995). Because job satisfaction coincides
with favorable activity such as organizational citizenship behaviors and is
negatively associated with intentions to quit, it is likely to mediate the rela-
tionship between LUSR and union participation and propensity to withdraw
from the union. Commitment is also likely to mediate the relationship
between LUSR and union participation and propensity to withdraw from the
union because it mediates the impact of attitudes on withdrawal intentions
and cooperative intent (Boezeman & Ellemers, 2007).
Hypothesis 5a: Job satisfaction and union commitment will mediate the
positive relationship between labor union social responsibility and
union participation.
Hypothesis 5b: Job satisfaction and union commitment will mediate
the negative relationship between labor union social responsibility
and propensity to withdraw from the union.
Method
This section explains the methodology of the study: Participants and proce-
dure; measures; and the analytic strategy for structural equation modeling.
Participants and Procedure
The respondents in this study were union carpentry apprentices enrolled in
an apprenticeship-training program jointly sponsored by a craft union and an
association of building contractors under terms of their collective bargaining
agreement. Apprenticeship programs are designed to equip full-time workers
(apprentices) with skills in all aspects of a particular craft through supervised
on-the-job training and related in-class theoretical instruction delivered by
certified union trainers (Bilginsoy, 2007). Craft unions organize workers on
Dawkins 223
the basis of common skill (e.g., electricians, plumbers), whereas industrial
unions tend to organize based on industry (e.g., steel, auto). The apprentices
are craft union apprentices, and will generally complete journey-level certi-
fication (one who has fully learned the trade) in 3 to 5 years.
With the help of union instructors who were blind to the purposes of the
study, two separate surveys were administered representing the independent
and dependent variables respectively to craft union apprentices in the south-
western United States. Participation was voluntary and confidentiality was
promised, but not anonymity, because the two-stage data collection required
respondents to identify themselves such that their surveys could be linked
together at the individual level. The first survey instrument was administered
containing the independent variables (Time 1) prior to the start of quarterly
classroom training and the second survey containing the mediating, and
dependent variables was administered three days later (Time 2).5 At Time 1,
325 respondents completed the survey, and approximately 96% of Time 1
respondents also completed surveys at Time 2 (312 of 325). The respondents
were all men with a mean age of 26 years and mean union tenure of approxi-
mately two years (standard deviation = 0.11). There are no controls for gen-
der, age, or occupation in the study because of the homogeneity of the group.
Measures
There were five variables: The independent variable LUSR; two mediating
variables, job satisfaction and union commitment; and two dependent vari-
ables, union participation and propensity for union withdrawal. All of the
items for the variables were scored using five-point (1 = strongly disagree,
5 = strongly agree) Likert-type scale items with higher values indicating
greater evidence of the underlying construct.6 In addition, language experts
were employed to perform forward and back translations of the survey such
that it could be administered in English and Spanish.7 A three-step process
was used to develop the LUSR scale. First, items were derived by reviewing
research on labor union roles (e.g., Godard, 1997) and posing questions based
on those studies to focus groups of union members and nonunion continuing
education students. Second, prominent corporate social responsibility scales
were reviewed (e.g., KLD Analytics Scale and Boston University Corporate
Citizenship Survey) and 12 items were developed by adapting questions from
those surveys to labor unions. Third, items were pilot tested with continuing
education students not previously involved in the focus groups.
Next factor analysis, a statistical method used to examine how underlying
constructs influence the responses on a measured variable, was employed.
224 Business & Society 55(2)
Confirmatory factor analysis seeks to determine if the number of factors and
the loadings (relation of measured item to underlying construct) conform to
what is expected on the basis of pre-established theory, model, or rationale.
Indicator variables are selected on the basis of prior theory and factor analy-
sis is used to see if they load as predicted on the expected number of factors.
The researchers a priori assumption was that each factor (the number and
labels of which may be specified) was associated with a specified subset of
indicator variables. In this case the factors were proposed components of
LUSR. Based on factor analysis of the pilot study results, three subscales of
LUSR were developed reflecting the economic, workplace, and social com-
ponents. The subscales included items such as labor unions improve wages
and benefits, labor unions help find positive solutions to workplace problems,
and labor unions care about consumers (composite reliabilities = 0.78, 0.86,
and 0.81 respectively), and were combined to comprise LUSR.8
Union commitment was assessed with an index derived from the Sverke
and Kuruvilla (1995) scale. The index was comprised of two subscales of
four items each for the value-rational and instrumental-rational components
of union commitment, and included items such as I feel that I am an impor-
tant part of my union and my unions chances of improving my work situ-
ation are good. The mean scores of each subscale were combined to represent
union commitment (composite reliability = 0.83 and 0.88 respectively). Job
satisfaction was measured with five-items derived from the Fricko and
Beeher (1992) scale and included items such as I enjoy coming to work each
day and I get a feeling of satisfaction from my work (composite reliability =
0.85). Union participation was measured with four items adapted from the
Shore and Newton (1995) scale and included items such as I am more likely
than other union members to vote in union elections (composite reliability =
0.89). Lastly, propensity for union withdrawal was measured with two items
adapted from the Hom, Griffeth, and Sellaro (1984) intention to quit ques-
tionnaire (composite reliability = 0.75), that included items such as if I could
get a similar job without a union, I would.
Analytic Strategy
In order to estimate models and test hypotheses, structural equation modeling
(SEM) was used with AMOS software (Arbuckle, 2003). Structural equation
modeling essentially combines factor analysis and mul
