Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T15:08:09.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Effects of District-Level Union Status on the Job Satisfaction of Teachers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

Mark Gius*
Affiliation:
Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT, USA

Abstract

It is the purpose of this study to examine the effects of the unionisation status of US school districts on teacher job satisfaction. Using an ordered probit analysis and a sample of public school teachers, results of the present study suggest that teachers working in unionised districts are, overall, less satisfied with their jobs than are teachers in non-unionised districts. However, teachers in unionised districts were less likely to leave for better pay and were more enthusiastic about teaching than teachers in non-unionised districts. Hence, even though teachers in unionised districts were generally less satisfied with their jobs, they were more satisfied with regards to certain specific aspects of their positions.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Artz, B. (2010) ‘The impact of union experience on job satisfaction’, Industrial Relations, 49(3), pp. 387405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, H., Donohue, H., Heywood, N. (2005) ‘Job satisfaction and gender segregation, Oxford Economic Papers, 57(3), pp. 479496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, C., Olson, C., Boudreau, J. (1983) ‘Effects of unions on job satisfaction: The role of work-related values and perceived rewards’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32(3), pp. 289324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borjas, G. (1979) ‘Job satisfaction, wages and unions’, Journal of Human Resources, 8(1), pp. 436455.Google Scholar
Bryson, A., Cappellari, L., Lucifora, C. (2004) ‘Does union membership really reduce job satisfaction?’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42(3), pp. 439459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, A., Cappellari, L., Lucifora, C. (2010) ‘Why so unhappy? The effects of unionisation on job satisfaction,’ Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(3), pp. 357380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, D., Lowther, M. (1982) ‘Teachers’ satisfaction with teaching’, The Journal of Educational Research, 75(4), pp. 241247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. (1998) ‘Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work?’, Labour Economics, 4(4), pp. 341372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, R. (1982) ‘Michigan teachers versus a national sample of workers on quality of work life’, Phi Delta Kappan, 63(9), pp. 636637.Google Scholar
Donohue, S., Heywood, J. (2004) ‘Job satisfaction and gender: An expanded specification from the NLSY’, International Journal of Manpower, 25(2), pp. 211234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, G., Stafford, F. (1980) ‘Do union members receive compensating differentials?’, American Economic Review, 70(3), pp. 355371.Google Scholar
Eberts, R. (1984) ‘Union effects on teacher productivity’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 37(3), pp. 346358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberts, R., Stone, J. (1984). Effect of Collective Bargaining on American Education, Heath, Lexington.Google Scholar
Farber, H. (2001) Notes on the Economics of Labor Unions, Industrial Relations Section Working Paper No. 452, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Freeman, R., Medoff, J. (1984) What Do Unions Do?, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Garcia-Serrano, C. (2009) ‘Job satisfaction, union membership, and collective bargaining’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 15(1), pp. 91111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazioglu, S., Aysit, T. (2006) ‘Job satisfaction in Britain: Individual and job related factors,’ Applied Economics, 38(10), pp. 11631171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez-Mejia, L., Balkin, D. (1984) ‘Faculty satisfaction with pay and other job dimensions under union and nonunion conditions’, The Academy of Management Journal, 27(3), pp. 591602.Google Scholar
Gordon, M., Denisi, A. (1995) ‘A re-examination of the relationship between union membership and job satisfaction’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(2), pp. 222236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackman, R., Oldham, G. (1980) Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
Hammer, T., Avgar, A. (2005) ‘The impact of unions on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover,’ Journal of Labor Research, 36(2), pp. 241266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heywood, J., Siebert, W., Wei, X. (2002) ‘Worker sorting and job satisfaction: The case of union and government jobs’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55(4), pp. 595609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochan, T., Helfman, D. (1981) ‘The effects of collective bargaining on economic and behaviorial job outcomes’ in Ehrenberg, R. (ed.) Research in Labor Economics, ILR Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Kowalczyk, R. (1982) Local teacher organizations: The relationship between teacher perceptions of their union and job satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Lillydahl, J., Singell, L. (1993) ‘Job satisfaction, salaries, and unions: The determination of university faculty compensation,’ Economics of Education Review, 12(3), pp. 233243.Google Scholar
Meng, R. (1990) ‘The relationship between unions and job satisfaction’, Applied Economics, 22(12), pp. 16351648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J., Davis-Blake, A. (1990) ‘Unions and job satisfaction’, Work and Occupations, 17(3), pp. 259283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Premack, S., Hunter, J. (1988) ‘Individual unionization decisions,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(2), pp. 223234.Google Scholar
Steele, R., Ovalle, N. (1984) ‘A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship between behavioral intentions and employee turnover’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(4), pp. 673686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Super, D., Hall, D. (1978) ‘Career development: Exploration and planning’, Annual Review of Psychology, 29, pp. 333372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed