Skip to main content
Log in

Discriminating characteristics of union members’ attitudes toward drug testing in the workplace

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Labor Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study of the acceptance by union members of drug testing in the workplace, 919 union members from 13 major unions were asked what drug-testing policy, if any, they preferred. Respondents evaluated particular aspects of a hypothetical drug-testing program. The results show that a large majority of union members agree with a limited drug-testing policy. Five theoretical models of union member attitudes were extrapolated to the drug-testing context and were examined by using discriminant function analysis. No support was found for the individual demographics theory, but empirical support was found for some elements of instrumental union, bargaining outcomes, general normative attitude, and workplace conditions theory. The discriminant function was 80.56 percent successful in classifying union members who accept drug testing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, Robert E., and Timothy J. Keaveny.Contemporary Labor Relations. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereleson, Bernard R., Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and William N. McPhee.Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigoness, Williasm J., and Henry L. Tosi. “Correlates of Voting Behavior in a Union Decertification Election.”Academy of Management Journal 27 (1984): 654–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borjas, George. “Job Satisfaction, Wages, and Unions.”Journal of Human Resources 14 (1979): 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brett, Jeanne M., “Behavioral Research on Unions and Union Management,” inResearch in Organizational Behavior. B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings, ed. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of National Affairs.Alcohol and Drugs in the Workplace: Costs, Controls, and Controversies. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, Stephen. “A Study of the Conversion of Predisposition into Action.”American Journal of Sociology 74 (1969): 506–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeCotiis, Thomas A., and Jean-Yves LeLouarn. “A Predictive Study of Voting Behavior in a Representation Election Using Instrumentality and Work Perceptions.”Organizational Performance and Human Performance 27 (1981): 103–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, Greg J., and Frank P. Stafford. “Do Union Members Receive Compensation Wage Differentials?”American Economic Review 70 (1980): 355–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, William S., and Michael H. Wince. “The Structure and Determinants of Occupational Militancy Among Public School Teachers.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review 30 (1976): 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, Richard B. “The Exit-Voice Tradeoff in the Labor Market: Unionism, Job Tenure, Quits, and Separations.”Quarterly Journal of Economics 94 (1980): 643–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullagar, Clive, and Julian Barling. “A Longitudinal Test of a Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Union Loyalty.”Journal of Applied Psychology 74 (1989): 213–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, Michael E., John W. Philpot, Robert E. Burt, Cynthia Thompson, and William E. Spiller. “Commitment to the Union: Development of a Measure and an Examination of Its Correlates.”Journal of Applied Psychology 65 (1980): 479–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hills, Stephen M. “The Attitudes of Union and Nonunion Male Workers Toward Union Representation.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review 38 (1985): 179–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juris, Hervey A., and Peter Feuille.Police Unionism: Power and Impact in Public Sector Bargaining. Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochan, Thomas. “How American Workers View Labor Unions.”Monthly Labor Review 102 (1978): 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____.Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relations: From Theory to Policy and Practice. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____ and Richard N. Block. “An Interindustry Analysis of Bargaining Outcomes: An IR Approach.”Industrial Relations 18 (Spring 1979): 127–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornhauser, Arthur W., Harold L. Sheppard, and Albert J. Mayer.When Labor Votes: A Study of Auto Workers. New York: University Books, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, Paul J. “Are Unionized Blue Collar Jobs More Hazardous than Nonunionized Blue Collar Jobs?”Journal of Labor Research 3 (Summer 1982): 349–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeRoy, Michael H. “Drug Testing in the Unionized Workplace: Union Member and Union Leader Attitudes.” Ms., September, University of Illinois, 1989.

  • Martin, James E. “Predictors of Individual Propensity to Strike.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review 39 (1986): 214–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, B. Ruth. “The Influence of Attitudes and Normative Pressures on Voting Decisions in a Union Certification Election.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review 42 (1989): 262–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, James C. “Workplace Hazards and Workers’ Desires for Union Representation.”Journal of Labor Research 9 (1988): 237–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwochau, Susan. “Union Effects on Job Attitudes.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review 40 (January 1987): 209–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeber, Ronald L., and Mary Lehman. “The Union Response to Employer Initiated Drug Testing Programs.”Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal 2 (Spring 1989): 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidman, Joel I., Jack London, Bernard Karsh, and Daisy L. Tagliacozzo.The Worker Views His Union. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shutt, Russell. “Models of Militancy: Support for Strikes and Work Actions Among Public Employees.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review 35:3 (1982): 406–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, David T.Managing Local Government Under Union Pressure. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thacker, James W., Mitchell W. Fields, and Lois Tetrick. “The Factor Structure of Union Commitment: An Application of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.”Journal of Applied Psychology 74 (1989): 228–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse.National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: 1985 Population Estimates. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worrall, John D., and Richard J. Butler. “Health Conditions and Job Hazards: Union and Nonunion Jobs.”Journal of Labor Research 4 (1983): 339–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youngblood, Stuart A., Angelo S. DiNisi, Julie L. Molleston, and William H. Mobley. “The Impact of Work Environment, Instrumentality Beliefs, Perceived Labor Union Image, and Subjective Norms on Union Voting Intentions.”Academy of Management Journal 27 (1984): 576–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

LeRoy, M.H. Discriminating characteristics of union members’ attitudes toward drug testing in the workplace. Journal of Labor Research 12, 453–466 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02685441

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02685441

Keywords

Navigation