Content uploaded by Hans De Witte
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hans De Witte
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
The past decades have witnessed a growth of the number of
employees who are confronted with (periods of) job insecurity.
The 1980s saw many large scale reorganisations and downsizing
efforts that meant mass layoffs in many firms in the
industrialized countries. In the 1990s the need for more
(internal) flexibility of firms resulted in a growth of temporary
or contingent contracts (e.g. Purcell & Purcell, 1998). Job
insecurity, often defined as the perceived threat of job loss or the
loss of valued aspects of a job, is generally viewed as a highly
stressful experience for employees (Hartley, Jacobson,
Klandermans & Van Vuuren, 1991).
Research shows that job insecurity has detrimental effects for
both employees and (the productivity and efficiency of)
organisations (see also Sverke, Hellgren & Näswall, 2002 for a
review). Job insecurity is, first of all, related to several work
related attit udes and behaviours of employees. Relationships
have been found between job insecurity and reduced job
satisfaction (Ashford, Lee & Bobko, 1989; De Witte & Näswall,
2003; Hellgren, Sverke & Isaksson, 1999; Kerkhof, Winder,
Tamis, Te Brake & Klandermans, 2000; Lim, 1996; Van Vuuren,
Klandermans, Jacobson & Hartley, 1991; Van Vuuren, Van
Gastel & Klandermans, 1988), reduced organisational
commitment (Ashford et al., 1989; Chirumbolo & Hellgren,
SJOERD GOSLINGA
s.goslinga@belastingdienst.nl
Research Department
Belastingdienst/FIOD-ECD
Haarlem, The Netherlands
JOHNNY HELLGREN
Department of Psychology
Stockholm University
Stockholm, Sweden
ANTONIO CHIRUMBOLO
Department of Psychology
University of Rome “La Sapienza”
Rome, Italy
HANS DE WITTE
Department of Psychology
Catholic University of Leuven
Leuven, Belgium
KATHARINA NÄSWALL
MAGNUS SVERKE
Department of Psychology
Stockholm University
Stockholm, Sweden
Acknowledgements: The research reported here comes from a European project (“European unions in the wake of flexible
production: how can the negative effects of job insecurity for employee attitudes and well-being be mitigated?”), financed by
a grant to Magnus Sverke from the Swedish National Institute for Working Life through the Joint Programme for Working Life
Research in Europe (SALTSA). Data collections in the participating countries were made possible through financial support as
follows: Italy: CGIL-Natzionale, The Netherlands: the National Christian Trade Union Federation (CNV), Sweden: the Swedish
Council for Work Life Research, the KF Group, the Salaried Employees’ Union, and the Cooperative Employees Association.
An earlier version of the manuscript was presented at the XXVII International Congress of Psychology, July 2000, Stockholm,
Sweden.
ABSTRACT
The present study examines the potential moderating role of union support in the relationship between job
insecurity and work-related attitudes and well-being of unionised employees. Survey data collected among union
members from three European countries (The Netherlands, Italy and Sweden) indicate that job insecurity is
associated with reduced levels of job satisfaction, well-being and organisational commitment. Contrary to
expectations, union support moderated neither the effect of job insecurity on job satisfaction nor its effect on well-
being. However, in two countries a moderating effect of union support on relation bet ween the job insecurity and
organisational commitment was found.
OPSOMMING
Die huidige studie ondersoek die potensiële modererende rol van vakbond ondersteuning in die verhouding tussen
werksonsekerheid en werksverwante houdings en welstand van werknemers wat aan ’n, vakbond behoort. Opname
data wat ingesamel is tussen vakbond lede van drie Europese lande (Nederland, Italië en Swede) toon dat
werksonsekerheid geassosieer word met verlaagde vlakke van werkstevredenheid, welstand en
organisasieverbondenheid. Teen verwagting, het vakbond ondersteuning nie die effek van werksonsekerheid op
wekstevredenheid of welstand gemodereer nie. Daar is egter in twee lande ’n, moderende effek van vakbond
ondersteuning op die verwantskap tussen werksonsekerheid en organisasie gebondenheid gevind.
THE ROLE OF UNION SUPPORT IN COPING WITH JOB
INSECURITY: A STUDY AMONG UNION MEMBERS FROM
THREE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
Requests for copies should be addressed to: A Chirumbolo, a.chirumbolo@unich.it
72
SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 2005, 31 (4), 72-78
SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 2005, 31 (4), 72-78
2003; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996; Rosenblatt, Talmud & Ruvio,
1999;), reduced organisational trust (Ashford et al., 1989;
Kerkhof et al., 2000), the intention to leave the organisation
(Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Hellgren et al., 1999; Sverke &
Goslinga, 2003), and pro-active job search and non-
cooperative behaviour at work (Lim, 1996). Furthermore, job
insecurity is negatively related to employees’ well-being and
health (De Witte, 1999). Several studies show that job insecure
employees report lower levels of psychological well-being
than secure employees (Burchell, 1994; Büssing, 1999; De
Witte, 1999; Hellgren et al., 1999; Lim, 1996; Roskies & Louis-
Guerin, 1990; Van Vuuren et al., 1991). Feelings of mental,
emotional and physical exhaustion (burnout) have also been
found to be related to job insecurity (Dekker & Schaufeli,
1995; Kinnunen, Mauno, Nätti & Happonen, 1999;
Landsbergis, 1988) and a number of studies indicate that
employees who are insecure about their job report physical
health complaints more often than employees who feel secure
about the future of their job (Burchell, 1994; Heaney, Israel &
House, 1994; Hellgren et al., 1999). Most of the research on the
relationship between job insecurity and its outcomes is
correlational or cross-sectional. However, all longitudinal
studies that have been conducted so far, although limited in
number, provide support for the causal direction between job
insecurity and the work and health related variables (Burchell,
1994; Hellgren & Sverke, 2003; Van Vuuren, 1990).
Research has also focussed on the ways in which employees
cope with job insecurity and on factors that possibly protect or
buffer against the negative consequences of job insecurity. The
studies aimed at identif ying moderators in the relationship
between job insecurity and its consequences are still relatively
scarce, especially given the number of studies in which the
detrimental effects of job insecurity have been demonstrated.
Three factors distinguished by Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt
(1984) have guided this line of research. The first moderator
Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) put forward was individual
differences. The idea here is that certain personal or
personality characteristics determine whether, or how
effectively, people cope with job insecurity. However, the
studies in which attention has explicitly been devoted to the
influence of these characteristics on the way people cope with
job insecurity show far from unequivocal results (Hellgren et
al., 1999; Roskies, Louis-Guerin & Fournier, 1993).
The second moderator suggested by Greenhalgh and
Rosenblatt (1984) is the extent to which people perceive
themselves to be dependent on their job for the fulfilment of
important needs. The reasoning here is that the (anticipated)
loss of a job or certain job features will have more severe
effects when there is more at stake. Several factors are
deemed important in this respect, such as the proportion of
the family income provided by the job and the available
alternatives on the job market. One study that indirectly
investigated this question, however, provided no support for
the assumption that available alternatives on the job market
mitigate the negative effects of job insecurity. That is, no
significant interaction effect of perceived alternatives on the
job market and job insecurity on employee behaviour was
found (Kerkhof et al., 2000).
The third factor Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) expected to
have a moderating effect is the support from others in the
social environment. The literature on other sources of stress at
work (for example role conflict and role ambiguity) provides
evidence of a moderating effect of social support on the
relation between stress and stress reactions. Based on this,
Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) hypothesized a buffering
effect of social support on the relation between job insecurity
and the negative consequences for individual employees. In
line with this, Lim (1996) found evidence for moderating
effects of both work-based social support (support from
colleagues and supervisors) and non work-based social support
(support from family and friends) on the relationship between
job insecurity and several outcome variables. Lim’s (1996)
study shows that support provided by others at work
contributes to buffering insecure employees against job
dissatisfaction, proactive job search and noncompliant
behaviours at work. Additionally, support derived from family
and friends can buffer insecure employees against negative
effects such as life dissatisfaction. Büssing (1999) reports
similar results. His study shows that support from friends has
a (stronger) moderating effect on indicators of well-being and
health, while support from supervisor and colleagues has a
moderating effect on job (dis-)satisfaction. Thus, support
seems to provide a powerful moderator of the associations
between job insecurity and different outcome variables.
Like previous research, the present study also examines the
role of support in the relation between job insecurity and
negative outcomes for employees. The researchers will
investigate whether support from one’s labour union has an
effect on the relationship between job insecurity and two
work-related attit udes (job satisfaction and organisational
commitment), and well-being. The researchers are not aware of
any studies examining the role labour unions play or might
play for employees who have to cope with job insecurity.
Attention has been given to the impact of job insecurity on the
process of joining a labour union (Bender & Sloane, 1999) and
to the effect of job insecurity on union members’ contacts and
experiences with the union and participation in union
activities (Goslinga, 2000; Van Vuuren et al., 1991).
Potentially, the researchers believe, labour unions could be an
important source of information and support for members (and
perhaps for employees in general) who are faced with job
insecurity. A first reason is that unions are not responsible for the
threat of job loss but are usually informed about developments
and (planned) changes in organisations and often involved in
organisational change processes. Research on information search
behaviours of employees in firms that undergo restructuring or
downsizing suggests that workers tend to avoid parties
responsible for the caused anxieties. Rather, they seek out reliable
third parties for information, because interaction with colleagues
and supervisors may in itself be stressful (Casey, Miller &
Johnson, 1997). Labour unions might function as a third party
that members can approach when they are confronted with job
insecurity and in need of reliable information and support.
Secondly, labour unions have the resources and knowledge to
actually help their members, for instance, by providing
information about and assistance with legal matters.
The present study utilises a measure of union support that was
developed by Shore, Tetrick, Sinclair & Newton (1994). Their
work, in turn, was based on Eisenberger, Huntington,
Hutchinson and Sowa’s (1986) theory of perceived
organisational support. This conceptualisation of support is
somewhat different from social support as used in previous
job insecurity studies. The idea of perceived organisational
support is based on social exchange theory. Perceived
organisational support reflects employees’ general beliefs
concerning the extent to which the organisation values the
employees’ contributions and cares about their well-being.
Similarly, perceived union support reflects the member’s
perception that the union is supportive and committed to its
members. The purpose of the present study is to examine
whether perceived union support moderates the relationship
between job insecurity and its outcomes.
To sum up, the hypotheses for the present study are: 1)
job insecurity has a negative effect on job satisfaction,
organisational commitment, and well-being; 2) perceived
support from the union buffers or moderates the
relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction,
organisational commitment, and well-being. In other
words, job insecurity will have less detrimental effects for
JOB INSECURITY AND UNION SUPPORT 73
job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and well-being
when perceived support from the union is high. These
hypotheses will be tested in three samples of union members
from three different countries (The Netherlands, Italy and
Sweden). The researchers do not specify hypotheses regarding
differences between countries. Rather, the reasearchers expect
similar results in the different countries.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Participants and procedures
The dataset used in this study was composed for a
broader European project focusing on the role of labour
unions in the new flexible labour market (see Sverke,
Hellgren, Näswall, Chirumbolo, De Witte & Goslinga,
2001). Questionnaire data were collected either before
(The Netherlands) or after (Italy, Sweden) initiation of the
project. Effort was made to obtain comparable data
from all countries. However, the fact that not all data
collections were specifically tailored for the project explains
why there are small differences in operationalisations
between countries.
The Netherlands
For this study the researchers used data collected within a
longitudinal panel-survey among members of the largest
trade unions affiliated with the National Christian Trade
Union Federation, the CNV. Among these unions are six
public sector unions and three private sector unions. Data
came from one wave of the panel survey, and were collected
in the summer of 1999. Members were interviewed by
telephone. The response rate was 50%. The sample was limited
to members with a paid job (N= 611). The majority of the
respondents were male (72,5%). The mean age was 42,8 years,
ranging between 16 and 79 years, and the average length of
union membership 14,3 years, ranging between 0 and 50
years. Most members had a full-time job (79,7%) and 10,5%
were temporary workers.
Italy
For this study data were collected from May to July 2000.
Questionnaires were administered to 476 workers, mainly in
small groups and at their workplace. For the present study the
sample was limited to union members (N= 296). The majority
of respondents were males (68,7%), and their age ranged
rom 22 to 59 years (M = 40,6). The majority had a full time
job (93,5%) and 7,5% had a temporary job. On average,
participants had their current job for 14,9 years (ranging from
less than a year to 37 years).
Sweden
Data were taken from a national sample of blue-collar
workers from the Swedish Municipal Workers Union (SKAF)
affiliated with the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO).
The sample was randomly selected from a total population of
370,590 members. Questionnaires were sent out to 2,564
workers, and a total of 1,923 usable questionnaires were
returned (a response rate of 75%). Cases with one or more
missing values in the dataset were excluded, resulting in a
sample size of 1829 union members. The mean age of the
respondents was 45 years, ranging between 19 and 75 years.
Average length of membership in the union ranged from 1 to
45 years (M= 16,4). The majority of the sample were female
(78,0%). All respondents had a paid job. Half of them were
employed full time (46,9%) and 7,3% were temporary
workers. Organisational tenure ranged from 1 to 45 years
(M = 14,3).
Measures
Job insecurity
Job insecurity was assessed with five items in all three data sets.
Three of these items were based on the measurement scale used
by Ashford et al. (1989), and two further items were developed
by De Witte (2000) (e.g., “I am afraid I will get fired”, “I think I
might get fired in the near future”). The response alternatives
ranged from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). A high score on any of the
items indicates high perceived job insecurity.
Perceived Union Support
This variable was measured using a five-item scale in all
samples, which is adapted from Shore et al. (1994) (e.g., “I
can always call upon my union with questions or problems”,
“My union appreciates my opinion”). Response alternatives
range from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree), so that a high score
indicates high perceived union support. Previous research
with this measure in The Netherlands yielded a good
reliability for the scale (Goslinga, 1996; 2004). In Sweden,
union support was measured with four of the five items used
in Italy and the Netherlands.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured using various numbers of items
in the different data sets. Five items were used in Italy and
three of these were used in the Swedish and Dutch data sets
(e.g., “I am satisfied with my job”, “I enjoy being at my job”).
Three of the five items were developed by Hellgren, Sjöberg &
Sverke (1997), based on Brayfield and Roth (1951); the
remaining two were developed by De Witte (2000). There
were five response alternatives ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5
(agree), and a high score on any item represents satisfaction
with the job.
Organisational Commitment
The same five items were used in all three data sets, reflecting
affective organisational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990;
Meyer, Allen & Smith, 1993) (e.g., “I feel a strong sense of
belonging to my organisation”, “This organisation has a great
deal of personal meaning to me”). The response scale ranged
from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree).
TABLE 1
MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND INTERCORRELATIONS
M S.D. aCorrelations
The Netherlands (N = 611) 1 2 3 4
1. Job insecurity 1,85 0,70 0,91
2. Job satisfaction 3,79 0,64 0,67 -0,23***
3. Organisational 3,52 0,65 0,78 -0,17*** 0,65***
commitment
4. Well-being 1,62 0,42 0,82 0,14** 0,33*** -0,17***
5. Perceived union 3,67 0,47 0,71 -0,03 0,13** 0,13** -0,08
support -
Italy (N = 290)
1. Job insecurity 2,63 0,92 0,78
2. Job satisfaction 3,50 0,95 0,87 -0,25***
3. Organisational 3,09 1,05 0,88 -0,16** 0,71***
commitment
4. Well-being 2,09 0,37 0,73 0,32*** -0 ,33*** -0,24***
5. Perceived union 3,39 0,74 0,60 -0,19** 0,18** 0,05 -0,16**
support
Sweden (N = 1829)
1. Job insecurity 2,08 1,06 0,89
2. Job satisfaction 3,68 0,88 0,82 -0,11***
3. Organisational 2,53 0,93 0,86 0,05 0,41***
commitment
4. Well-being 1,98 0,46 0,84 0,20*** -0,35*** --0,12***
5. Perceived union 3,19 0,82 0,71 -0,05 0,18*** 0,29*** -0,12***
support
* p < 0,05; ** p < 0,01; *** p < 0,001
GOSLINGA, HELLGREN, CHIRUMBOLO, DE WITTE, NÄSWALL, SVERKE
74
Well-being
The 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire
(GHQ; Goldberg, 1979) was used in all three countries. Answers
were scored on 4-point scales and a higher score indicates lower
well-being.
Scale reliabilities
Scale reliabilities were acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha above
0,70) in almost all cases (Table 1). Exceptions were the job
satisfaction measure in The Netherlands and the perceived
union support measure in Italy. However, in both cases scale
reliabilities did not improve when one or more items were
removed from the scale. For that reason, as well as in order to
secure comparability between the different samples, the scales
were not changed.
RESULTS
The pattern of correlations was similar for the three samples
(Table 1). In line with our first hypothesis, we found that job
insecurity was negatively related to job satisfaction and well-
being in all three countries. In both the Dutch and Italian
samples, job insecurity was also negatively related to
organisational commitment. In the Swedish sample however,
the relationship between job insecurity and organisational
commitment failed to reach significance. For the Italian
sample job insecurity was also negatively related to perceived
union support, indicating that higher levels of perceived
union support were associated with lower levels of job
insecurity. The correlation between perceived union support
and job insecurity was not significant in the Dutch and
Swedish samples.
Correlations between job satisfaction and organisational
commitment were significant in all three samples, ranging
from 0,41 (Sweden) to 0,71 (Italy) (p < 0,001). In each sample
both job satisfaction and organisational commitment were
significantly related to well-being, indicating that higher
levels of job satisfaction and organisational commitment
were associated with higher well-being. The correlations
between job satisfaction and well-being were very consistent,
as they ranged between -0,33 (The Netherlands and Italy) and
-0,35 (Sweden) (p < 0,001); while the correlations between
organisational commitment and well-being ranged between -
0,12 (Sweden) and -0,24 (Italy) (p < 0,001). Perceived union
support was positively related to both job satisfaction and
organisational commitment in the Dutch and Swedish
samples. In other words, when members perceived more
support from the union, higher levels of job satisfaction and
organisational commitment were reported. In the Italian
sample results were slightly different: perceived union
support was positively related to job satisfaction, but not to
organisational commitment. The correlations between
perceived union support and well-being were significant in
the Italian as well as the Swedish sample, indicating that
more support from the union was associated with higher
levels of well-being. However, this relationship was absent in
the Dutch sample (Table 1).
In order to examine the expected moderating effect of
perceived union support on the relationship bet ween job
insecurity and the three outcome variables, hierarchical
regression analyses were performed. The variables were entered
in three steps: first, job insecurity was entered, then perceived
union support was added to the equations and, finally, the
interaction between perceived union support and job insecurity
was entered. Before conducting the analyses, both job
JOB INSECURITY AND UNION SUPPORT 75
TABLE 2
RESULTS OF HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSES OF JOB SATISFACTION, ORGANIATIONAL COMMITMENT AND WELL BEING ON ANTECEDENTS
(STANDARDISED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS)
Job satisfaction Organisational commitment Well-being
The Netherlands
JI -0,23*** -0,22*** -0,22*** -0,17*** -0,17*** -0,17*** 0,014** 0,14** 0,13**
PU 0,13** 0,14* 0,12** 0,13** -0,07 -0,08
JI * PU 0,08 0,01 -0,04
F 33,29*** 22,09*** 16,00*** 18,77*** 14,43*** 9,65*** 12,19** 7,70*** 5,46**
d.f. 1,609 2,608 3,607 1,609 2,608 3,607 1,609 2,608 3,607
R20,05 0,07 0,07 0,03 0,05 0,05 0,02 0,03 0,03
Italy
JI -0,25*** -0,23*** -0,23*** -0,16** -0,16** -0,16** 0,32*** 0,30*** 0,30***
PU 0,14* 0,14* 0,02 0,01 -0,11 -0,11
JI * PU -0,06 -0,14* -0,02
F 19,87*** 12,95*** 9,07*** 7,68** 3,86* 4,44* 31,97*** 17,90*** 11,96***
d.f. 1,287 2,286 3,285 1,287 2,286 3,285 1,287 2,286 3,285
R20,06 0,08 0,09 0,03 0,03 0,04 0,10 0,11 0,11
Sweden
JI -0,11*** -0,10*** -0,10*** 0,05* 0,06** 0,06** 0,20*** 0,20*** 0,19***
PU 0,18*** 0,18*** 0,29*** 0,29*** -0,11*** -0,11***
JI * PU 0,04 0,05* -0,03
F 21,99*** 41,15*** 28,20*** 4,27* 87,49* 60,04*** 75,52** 49,64*** 33,86***
d.f. 1,1806 2,1805 3,1804 1,1806 2,1805 3,1804 *1,1806 2,1805 3,1804
R20,01 0,04 0,05 0,00 0,09 0,09 0,04 0,05 0,05
* p < 0,05; ** p < 0,01; *** p < 0,001
JI = Job insecurity PU = Perceived union support
insecurity and perceived union support were first centred (that
is, the mean was set to zero without affecting the standard
deviation). Next, the two centred predictor variables were
multiplied to form the interaction term (see Aiken & West, 1991,
for more information on this procedure). This was done
separately for each sample (Table 2).
In the first step, a significant main effect of job insecurity on all
three outcome variables in all three samples was found. As
expected, an increase in job insecurity predicted reduced levels
of job satisfaction, reduced levels of organisational
commitment, and reduced levels of well-being. However, in the
Swedish sample the effect of job insecurity on organisational
commitment was positive, indicating that an increase in job
insecurity predicted higher levels of organisational
commitment. Adding perceived union support to the regression
equations showed significant main effects of perceived union
support on both job satisfaction and organisational
commitment in the Dutch as well as the Swedish sample. For the
Italian sample, we found a significant main effect of perceived
union support on job satisfaction, but not on organisational
commitment. Only in the Swedish sample a significant main
effect of perceived union support on well-being emerged (Table
2). In all cases, the main effect of job insecurity on the
dependent variables was unaffected after inclusion of perceived
union support in the regression equations.
Next, the cross-product term representing the interaction
between job insecurity and perceived union support was entered
in the regression equations. The interaction term had no
significant beta-weight in the models predicting job satisfaction
nor the models predicting well-being in any of the samples.
Thus, contrary to our expectations, the effect of job insecurity
on job satisfaction and on well-being was not moderated by
perceived union support. The interaction term was significant in
both the Italian and Swedish sample in the model predicting
differences in organisational commitment, but failed to reach
significance in the Dutch sample. Thus, the effect of job
insecurity on organisational commitment was moderated by
perceived union support in the Italian and Swedish samples.
To examine the nature of the interaction effects, predicted values
for participants who scored one standard deviation above or
below the mean on each variable were calculated. Figure 1 depicts
the results for the Italian sample and Figure 2 for the Swedish
sample. We expected that increased feelings of job insecurity
would only negatively affect organisational commitment for
union members whose perceived union support was low, whereas
for union members who experienced high support from their
union, increased feelings of job insecurity would not affect
organisational commitment (i.e., the union’s support would have
a buffering effect). Contrary to our expectations, however, a
different pattern emerged in both countries.
Figure 1: Organisational commitment as a function of
perceived union support and job insecurity for the
Italian sample
Figure 2: Organisational commitment as a function of
perceived union support and job insecurity for the
Swedish sample.
For both the Italian and Swedish sample, we found that levels of
organisational commitment were stable when job insecurity
increased for participants who perceived low support from their
union. In the Italian sample, organisational commitment
decreased when job insecurity increased among participants
who perceived high union support (Figure 1). In contrast, in the
Swedish sample, organisational commitment increased when job
insecurity increased among participants who perceived high
union support (Figure 2).
DISCUSSION
The results of this study first of all replicate previous research
and confirm job insecurity to be an important source of stress
for employees (cf. Hartley et al., 1991). In our data, union
members who experienced high levels of job insecurity
reported reduced levels of job satisfaction, organisational
commitment (except for the Swedish sample), and well-being.
Given that job insecurity appears to have detrimental
consequences, the major purpose of this study was to
investigate whether the support union members perceive to
get from their union has a moderating effect on the
relationships between job insecurity on the one hand and job
satisfaction, organisational commitment and well-being on
the other hand. Previous research found that personal work-
based social support (support from colleagues or supervisor)
moderates the relationship between job insecurity and job
satisfaction, and that non work-based social support (support
from family and friends) moderates the relationship between
job insecurity and indicators of well-being (cf. Lim, 1996). The
question whether social support also moderates the
relationship bet ween job insecurity and organisational
commitment had not been addressed previously. However,
Lim (1996) reports a moderating effect of work-based social
support on the relationship between job insecurity and pro-
active job search. Since organisational commitment and
organisational turnover intentions are closely related
(Mathieu & Zajac, 1990), a moderating effect of social support
on the association between job insecurity and organisational
commitment might be expected.
However, in the present study, no buffering effects of
perceived union support were found; neither on the
relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction, nor
on the relationship between job insecurity and well-being.
This held true for all three samples. While the researchers
obtained small moderating effects of perceived union
support on the relationship between job insecurity and
organisational commitment in t wo of the samples (Italy and
Sweden), nothing was found in the third sample (The
Netherlands). Closer examination of the interaction effects,
GOSLINGA, HELLGREN, CHIRUMBOLO, DE WITTE, NÄSWALL, SVERKE
76
however, revealed that the effects do not support the expected
buffering effect. Rather, in both the Italian and Swedish
samples, organisational commitment was relatively stable
when job insecurity increased and support from the union
was low, when a decrease in commitment levels was expected.
Moreover, in the Italian sample, organisational commitment
decreased, while in the Swedish sample organisational
commitment increased, when job insecurity was higher
among those members who perceived high support from the
union. Perhaps these results reflect differences in industrial
relations systems and the meaning of labour unions and
labour union membership between countries. Italy is a
country with a fairly low union density rate compared to
other European countries, with approximately 39% union
members in the labour force. Moreover, Italian industrial
relations are, more than the other two countries in this study,
characterized by conflicts and disputes (Regalia & Regini,
1998). Faced with the threat of losing jobs, supported union
members might psychologically withdraw from the
organisation, which could explain the decrease in
organisational commitment. If the union opposes the
decisions made by the organisation’s management and is in
conflict with management, reduced commitment to the
organisation is what we would expect from committed union
members (Angle & Perry, 1986). According to the social
exchange perspective, union commitment is reflected in the
level of perceived union support (Shore et al., 1994). In
contrast, in Sweden union density is very high
(approximately 83% in 1995) and industrial relations in
Sweden often serve as an example of successful cooperative
industrial relations (Kjellberg, 1998). Being a committed
union member faced with the threat of job loss appears to
result in increased organisational commitment. This might
be reflective of increased effort to help the organisation to
overcome difficult times.
The fact that the reseachers did not find the expected
buffering effect of perceived union support might be
attributed to the type of support we assessed with the
measure used in our study. Perceived union support, like
perceived organisational support, taps a general feeling of
support provided by the organisation. This measure does not
directly concern personal support from other individuals,
such as other union members, union officials or union
representatives. Cohen and Wills (1985) concluded after
reviewing the literature on the role of support in the relation
between stress and well-being, that with more general
measures of support generally no moderating effects are
obtained, rather, main effects are. That is, a general feeling
that one is supported or integrated in a large social net work
appears to have a positive main effect on well-being, but does
not reduce the negative effects of stress. Evidence for a
buffering effect is typically obtained when the support
measure captures interpersonal resources that are responsive
to the needs elicited by the stressful event (Cohen & Wills,
1985). Previous studies on the role of support in the relation
between job insecurity and its outcomes used the latter type
of measures. In these studies, evidence for a buffering effect
of social support was found (Lim, 1996). In addition, feeling
supported by a union shop steward appears to have a
buffering effect on the relation between other stressors (role
conflict and role ambiguity) and strains (Fried & Tiegs, 1993).
Thus, a question that deserves further attention is whether
support provided by individual union representatives or shop
stewards has a buffering effect on the relation between job-
insecurity and its outcomes.
Taken together, evidence suggests that integration in a union,
as a supportive social network, has a positive effect on work-
related attitudes and well-being of employees. In our data,
general feelings of union support had positive main effects on
job satisfaction in all three samples, on organisational
commitment in two samples, and on well-being in one sample.
These results stress the importance of labour unions as a
supportive social network for union members. In previous
studies beneficial consequences of union presence have also
been observed. That is, union members were found to report
higher levels of organisational commitment and work intensity
and were less prone to leave the organisation than non-
members (cf. Sverke & Hellgren, 2001). The present study
expands these findings by showing that not only mere
integration in the union has positive effects on work-related
attitudes, but that the level of integration also matters.
To conclude, the results obtained in this study reveal that
general feelings of union support do not function as a buffer
between job insecurity and work-related and health-related
outcomes. These results are congruent with a study that
compared union members with non-members and found that
union membership itself does not buffer employees against
the negative outcomes of job insecurity for employee well-
being (Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995). Nevertheless, these results
add to our understanding of the role of the union by showing
that more general support from the union does have
beneficial effects, although it does not function as a buffer
against the negative consequences of job insecurity. Clearly, in
order to fully understand the role of the union for union
members faced with job insecurity more research is needed.
Further examination of the type and content of the support
employees need and value could yield information that might
help unions and management to design and provide a
supportive environment for employees in firms that undergo
restructuring or downsizing, or are otherwise confronted with
feelings of job insecurity.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L.S. & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple Regression: testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allen, N.J. & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and
antecedents of affective, continuance and normative
commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 63, 1-18.
Angle, H.L. & Perry, J.L. (1986). Dual commitment and labor-
management relationship climates. Academy of Management
Journal, 29, 31-50.
Ashford, S.J., Lee, C. & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes, and
consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and
substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 4, 803-829.
Bender, K.A. & Sloane, P.J. (1999). Trade union membership,
tenure and the level of job insecurity. Applied Economics, 31 ,
123-135.
Brayfield, A.H. & Rothe, H.F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307-311.
Burchell, B. (1994). The effects of labour market position, job
insecurity and unemployment on psychological health. In D.
Gallie, C. Marsh, & C. Vogler (Eds.). Social change and the
experience of unemployment. (pp. 188-212). Oxford:
University Press.
Büssing, A. (1999). Can control at work and social support
moderate psychological consequences of job insecurity?
Results from a quasi experimental study in the steel industry.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8,
219-242.
Casey, M.K., Miller, V.D. & Johnson, J.R. (1997). Survivors’
information seeking following a reduction in workforce.
Communication Research, 24, 755-781.
Chirumbolo, A. & Hellgren, J. (2003). Individual and
organizational consequences of job insecurity: a European
study. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24, 217-240.
Cohen, S. & Wills, T.A. (1985). Stress, social support and the
buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.
Dekker, S. & Schaufeli, W. (1995). The effects of job insecurity on
psychological health and withdrawal: a longitudinal study.
Australian Psychologist, 30, 57-63.
JOB INSECURITY AND UNION SUPPORT 77
De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being:
Review of the literature and exploration of some unresolved
issues. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 8, 155-177.
De Witte, H. (2000). Arbeidsethos en jobonzekerheid:
antecedenten en consequenties voor het welzijn, de
arbeidstevredenheid en de inzet van werknemers. In: R.
Bouwen, K. De Witte, H. De Witte, & T, Taillieu (Eds.).
Tussen groep en gemeenschap. Liber amicorum voor prof. dr.
L. Lagrou. (pp. 325-350). Leuven: Garant.
De Witte, H. & Näswall, K. (2003). ‘Objective’ versus ‘subjective’
job insecurity: consequences of temporary work for job
satisfaction and organizational commitment in four
European countries. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24,
149-188.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S. & Sowa, D.
(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71 , 500-507.
Fried, Y. & Tiegs, R.B. (1993). The main effect model versus
buffering model of shop steward support: A study of rank-
and-file auto workers in the U.S.A. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 14 , 481-493.
Goldberg, D. (1979). Manual of the General Health Questionnaire.
Windsor: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Goslinga, S. (1996). Voor wat hoort wat: een r uiltheoretische
benadering van vakbondsbinding. Paper presented at the
WESWA congress, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Goslinga, S. (2000). Arbeidsplaatsonzekerheid, vakbonds-
participatie en vakbondsdienstverlening. Tijdschr ift voor
Arbeidsvraagstukken, 16 , 164-175.
Goslinga, S. (2004). Betrokkenheid, participatie en ledenverloop in
vakbonden. Ph.D. thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Greenhalgh, L. & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: toward
conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9,
438-448.
Hartley, J., Jacobson, D., Klandermans, B. & van Vuuren, T.
(1991). Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk. London: Sage.
Heaney, C., Israel, B. & House, J. (1994). Chronic job insecurity
among automobile workers: effects on job satisfaction and
health. Social Science and medicine, 38, 1431-1437.
Hellgren, J., Sjöberg, A. & Sverke, M. (1997). Intention to quit:
Effects of job satisfaction and job perceptions. In F. Avallone,
J. Arnold & K. de Witte (Eds.). Feelings work in Europe. (pp.
415-423). Milano: Guerini.
Hellgren, J. & Sverke, M. (2003). Does job insecurity lead to
impaired well-being or vice versa? Estimation of cross-lagged
effects using latent variable modeling. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24, 215-236.
Hellgren, J., Sverke, M. & Isaksson, K. (1999). A two-dimensional
approach to job insecurity: consequences for employee
attitudes and well-being. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psycholog y, 8, 179-195.
Kerkhof, P., Winder, A., Tamis, C., Te Brake, E. & Klandermans, B.
(2000). Arbeidsplaatsonzekerheid en participatie in de
ondernemingsraad. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 16,
150-163.
Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., Nätti, J. & Happonen, M. (1999).
Perceived job insecurity: a longitudinal study among Finnish
employees. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 8, 243-260.
Kjellberg, A. (1998). Sweden: restoring the model? In A. Ferner &
R. Hyman (Eds.). Changing Industrial Relations in Europe. (pp.
74-117). Oxford: Blackwell.
Landsbergis, P. (1988). Occupational stress among health care
workers: a test of the job demands-control model. Journal of
Occupational Behavior, 9, 217-239.
Lim, V. K. G. (1996). Job insecurity and its outcomes: Moderating
effects of work-based and nonwork-based social support.
Human Relations, 2, 171-194.
Mathieu, J.E. & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of
the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organi-
zational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to
organizations and occupations: Extenstion and test of a three
component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78, 538-551.
Purcell, K. & Purcell, J. (1998). In-sourcing, out-sourcing, and
the growth of contingent labour as evidence of flexible
employment strategies. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psycholog y, 7, 39-59.
Regalia, I. & Regini, M. (1998). Italy: the dual character of
industrial relations. In A. Ferner & R. Hyman (Eds.).
Changing Industrial Relations in Europe. (pp. 459-503).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Rosenblatt, Z. & Ruvio, A. (1996). A test of a multidimensional
model of job insecurity: the case of Israeli teachers. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 17, 587-605.
Rosenblatt, Z., Talmud, I. & Ruvio, A. (1999). A gender-based
framework of the experience of job insecurity and its effects
on work attit udes. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psycholog y, 8, 197-217.
Roskies, E. & Louis-Guerin, C. (1990). Job insecurity in
managers: antecedents and consequences. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 11, 345-359.
Roskies, E., Louis-Guerin & Fournier, C. (1993). Coping with job
insecurity: how does personality make a difference? Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 14, 617-630.
Shore, L.M., Tetrick, L.E., Sinclair, R.R. & Newton, L.A. (1994).
Validation of a measure of perceived union support. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 79 , 971-977.
Sverke, M. & Goslinga, S. (2003). The consequences of job
insecurity for employers and unions: exit, voice and loyalty.
Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24, 241-270.
Sverke, M. & Hellgren, J. (2001). Exit, voice, and loyalty
reactions to job insecurity in Sweden: Do unionized and
non-unionized employees differ? British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 2, 167-182.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J. & Näswall, K. (2002). No security: a
meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its
consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3,
242-264.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., Näswall, K., Chirumbolo, A., De Witte,
H. & Goslinga, S. (2001). European unions in the wake of
flexible production: technical report on the data sets used in
a SALTSA project. SALTSA report 2000:1. Stockholm: Ntional
Institute for Working Life and SALTSA.
Van Vuuren, C.V., Van Gastel, J.H.M. & Klandermans,
P.G. (1988). Banen in gevaar: de beleving van onzekerheid
over de arbeidsplaats. Gedrag & Organisatie, 1, 14-29.
Van Vuuren, T. (1990). Met ontslag bedreigd: werknemers in
onzekerheid over hun arbeidsplaats bij veranderingen in de
organisatie. Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij.
Van Vuuren, T., Klandermans, B., Jacobson, D. & Hartley,
J. (1991). Employees’ reactions to job insecurity. In J. Hartley,
D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans & T. van Vuuren. Job
insecurity: coping with jobs at risk. (pp. 79-103). London:
Sage publications.
GOSLINGA, HELLGREN, CHIRUMBOLO, DE WITTE, NÄSWALL, SVERKE
78
