Job characteristics: Union-nonunion differences

Maloney, W F and McFillen, J M (1995) Job characteristics: Union-nonunion differences. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(1), pp. 43-54. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

One of the reasons for the development of nonunion construction was to allow management the flexibility of designing jobs without the constraints of jurisdictional and collective-bargaining agreements. The job-characteristics model was developed to identify differences in jobs and the motivational potential of a job. This paper reports the results of studies of a large sample of unionized construction workers and of a large sample of nonunion construction workers. Six hypotheses were formulated based on expected differences between union and nonunion environments and tested. In terms of the job-characteristics model, there is no difference in the perceptions of union and nonunion construction workers for task variety, task significance, and feedback. Union workers perceive greater task identity, while nonunion workers perceive greater autonomy. The implications of these findings are discussed and recommendations made for improving the motivational potential of jobs. The results of the study indicate that there is considerable opportunity for redesigning jobs in the construction industry.

Item Type: Article
Index terms: agreements, construction worker, construction industry, identity, bargaining
Subjects: economics, sociology, industry analysis, practitioner, contract formation
Topics: Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Supply Chain Management, Contract Administration
Descriptive scope: 3 PCT

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here