At a time when the generational renewal of trade union forces is a key issue and workers from Generation Y, or “millennials,” are entering the labour market, recent studies have revived interest in the relationship between young workers and unions (Hodder, 2015; Smitt et al., 2019; Tapia and Turner, 2018; Vandaele, 2018). This article extends that research by shedding light on the main determinants of and barriers to union commitment among young workers. Whereas the relationship between young workers and unions has been mainly examined in terms of the union density differential between younger and older workers (Gomez et al., 2002; Haynes et al., 2005; Waddington and Kerr, 2002), much less attention has been paid to union commitment among young workers (Laroche and Dufour-Poirier, 2013). Thus, by shifting the focus from youth unionization, most often mandatory in the Canadian context when a union is already present in a workplace,[1] to young members’ involvement in union bodies, our study will contribute to the literature on union representation and the generational renewal of the labour movement’s activist base. By drawing on an extensive empirical survey of young union members in a Canadian public service, we seek to identify and compare the main factors that explain union commitment among young unionized workers. The literature has identified various explanatory factors that fall mainly within four theoretical perspectives, which suggest the existence of an attitudinal, instrumental, psychological and relational basis for this commitment. However, to our knowledge, no study has attempted to empirically demonstrate the specific and relative contribution of these theoretical perspectives and explanatory factors. In this context, our study shows the multifaceted nature of union commitment among young workers. It also shows that, in order to foster this commitment, unions should enhance personalized contact between local union representatives and young members.

The first part of this article will cover the previous literature on the relationship between young workers and unionism and present the study’s conceptual framework. The second part will present the study’s specific context and its methodology, which is both quantitative and qualitative. The third part will present the main results, while the fourth and final parts will cover, in practical terms, the organizational measures that unions can take to support union commitment among young workers.

The relationship between young workers and unionism has been examined mainly in terms of the challenges of access to unionization that confront young workers, a group generally underrepresented in union memberships (Booth et al., 2010; Simms et al., 2018). The literature has relatively little to say about union commitment among young workers once they have become unionized (Tapia and Turner, 2018). By improving our understanding of the main determinants and barriers of union commitment among these workers, it should become easier to identify union strategies to help young members become more actively involved. Beyond union membership, youth involvement in union life ensures a better integration of their interests and points of view within the union (Dufour-Poirier and Laroche, 2015), and ultimately helps secure leadership succession within union bodies, a key issue for many unions (Waddington and Kerr, 2002).

Young workers can manifest this commitment through their willingness to work for the union, for example by participating in meetings and committees, by becoming a union representative or, less tangibly, by feeling loyal and responsible to the union (Kelloway et al., 1992). Although few studies have investigated union commitment among young workers, some have offered various theoretical perspectives to explain such commitment (Serrano Pascual and Waddington, 2000; Tailby and Pollert, 2011).

The most frequent explanation is that low union commitment among young workers is due to their growing individualism and growing attitudinal and cultural alienation from unionism (Allvin and Sverke, 2000). This perspective, which is in line with sociological studies on modernity and individualization (Giddens, 1990; Inglehart, 2008), attributes the decline in union commitment among young workers to their changing values or changing attitudes toward the labour movement and its actors. For some scholars, this change has gone farther in Generation Y (1980-1995)—often described as resistant to any form of authority and as expressing a need for independence and autonomy (Cates, 2014; Swerhun et al. 2014). Despite the debate about how young workers’ values have evolved in recent years, the literature on determinants of union commitment has emphasized the role of the attitudinal perspective (i.e., pro-union attitudes and value congruence with the union) as an explanatory factor (Bamberger, Kluger and Suchard, 1999; Deery et al., 2014; McShane, 1986). Two hypotheses can thus be formulated:

• Hypothesis 1a: The more positive the “pro-union attitudes” of young workers, the more likely it is that they will become involved in their union.

• Hypothesis 1b: The more young workers perceive that their values are congruent with those of their union, the more likely it is that they will become involved in their union.

A second hypothesis attributes the low union commitment among young workers to the pragmatic nature of their commitment and their negative perception of union instrumentality. This hypothesis is from an economic perspective, which postulates that activist commitment is inspired by essentially utilitarian motivations (Farber, 2001). Some studies indicate that young workers now appear to have a more “bourgeois” mentality than do older age groups and attach more importance to the economic dimensions of their job, their career advancement and their financial security (Akkermans et al., 1991). In this sense, they are committed to the union to the extent that they see potential benefits from this commitment, thus reinforcing the instrumental aspect of their relationship with unionism (Paquet, 2005). Based on these studies, which suggest an instrumental basis for union commitment among young workers, the following hypothesis can be formulated:

• Hypothesis 2:The more young workers have a positive perception of the instrumentality of their union, the more likely it is that they will become involved in the union.

Several studies also emphasize that job satisfaction can be an important determinant of union commitment (Bamberger et al., 1999), an assumption based on a psychological approach toward an individual’s experience at work. Although some studies have pointed to a positive relationship between job satisfaction and union commitment (Dong-One, 2009), most have shown that employees are more inclined to become involved in their union if they are dissatisfied with their job (Fullagar and Barling, 1989). We thus formulated Hypothesis 3a, which is particularly relevant to young workers. As some studies have shown, such workers are more likely to resolve their dissatisfaction by leaving their organization (Tailby and Pollert, 2011). Studies showing this type of “exit strategy,” however, are mainly based on samples of young non-unionized or precarious workers, leaving open the question of the effects of job dissatisfaction on union commitment among young workers who are already unionized.

• Hypothesis 3a: The more young workers are satisfied at work, the less likely it is that they will become involved in their union.

A second psychological approach refers to organizational commitment. While union commitment is often viewed as being in opposition to organizational commitment because of the duality of interests inherent in the employment relationship, an alternative perspective suggests that workers can be simultaneously committed both to their organization and to their union (Redman and Snape, 2016; Magenau et al., 1988). In fact, studies from this perspective have demonstrated that workers can be dually committed to their union and their organization (e.g. Ezirim et al., 2011; Robinson et al., 2012; Redman and Snape, 2016). Moreover, some studies have shown organizational commitment to be an explanatory factor for union commitment (Monnot et al., 2011). Because these studies have rarely been based specifically on young workers, this explanatory factor should be empirically validated with them. Following this reasoning, we formulated Hypothesis 3b.

• Hypothesis 3b: The more young workers are involved in their organization, the more likely it is that they will become involved in their union.

Some studies have explained union commitment among young workers from a relational perspective, focusing on the importance of the relationship between union representatives and their members. The hypothesis most often put forward suggests that low union commitment among young workers could be explained by a lack of direct and personalized contact with their union representatives at the local level. Some studies have associated the main barriers to union commitment among young workers with their deficient socialization, the difficult integration of their concerns into union agendas and the lack of leadership from local union representatives (Freeman and Diamond, 2003). Studies have also revealed that members develop a stronger sense of attachment to their union when they identify with the values it promotes and its local actors (Deery et al., 2014; Twigg et al., 2007). Moreover, value congruence between the union’s representative and its members has been identified as particularly important in building a positive and engaging relationship between the union and its members (Fortin-Bergeron et al., 2017). This kind of value sharing appears to be a determining factor in explaining why the level of union commitment among young members differs from that of their older counterparts (Allvin and Sverke, 2000). We thus formulated the following hypothesis:

• Hypothesis 4a: The more young workers perceive that their values are congruent with those of their local union representative, the more likely it is that they will become involved in their union.

Recent literature on union leadership has shown that local union representatives, through the behaviours they adopt, can contribute significantly to developing a sense of belonging and union commitment among members (Twigg et al., 2007; Metochi, 2002). Commitment appears to be particularly fostered by behaviours associated with transformational leadership theory—which refers to leaders with an inspiring vision who act in the collective interest, who question the ways of doing things and who provide their members with support (Cregan et al., 2009; Plimmer and Blumenfeld, 2012). Conversely, commitment appears to be undermined by union representatives with a laissez-faire leadership style—who are absent and avoid making decisions (Fortin-Bergeron et al., 2018). To our knowledge, the effect of this union leadership variable on union commitment has not been specifically tested among young unionized workers. We thus formulated the following two hypotheses:

• Hypothesis 4b: The more young workers are in contact with a union representative who demonstrates transformational leadership, the more likely it is that they will become involved in their union.

• Hypothesis 4c: The more young workers are in contact with a union representative who demonstrates laissez-faire leadership, the less likely it is that they will become involved in their union.

This section presents an overview of the level of union commitment among young workers in the Quebec public service, followed by commentary on the factors that explain this commitment and the barriers to it.

Although our study had the aim of identifying the factors that explain union commitment among young workers, the qualitative phase also had the aim of giving young union members a chance to speak about organizational measures that could facilitate their commitment.

Numerous studies have shed light on the recent actions taken by some unions to review their image, agenda, practices and structures so as to give their young members a voice and to echo their concerns (Bailey et al., 2010; Hodder et al., 2018). The most common initiatives are in line with a logic of participatory democracy. The focus is on developing union training specifically for young members, on increasing the use of new digital communications, on implementing personalized processes to welcome young members, on simplifying the procedural rules of union life, on moving assemblies and meetings to times that facilitate work-family balance, and on implementing mentoring programs. Other measures are more in line with a logic of representative democracy and aim to reform the unions’ structures and governance system to ensure better representation of young workers. Some unions have adopted the following measures: reserving a discussion period during union forums (meetings, conventions, conferences) for subjects that concern young members; guaranteeing proportional representation when leaders are elected and when positions are reserved for young activists on the union executive and on decision-making bodies; and creating youth committees to provide them with their own space for formulating demands (Hodder, 2015; Vandaele, 2013).

Although the comments of the respondents in our study echoed the diverse measures identified in the literature (Table 7), two relevant findings emerged. First, one particular initiative stood out, namely the importance of putting in place a process of organizational socialization (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979) (i.e., a process to welcome new young members, communicate with them and socialize them at the local level). Our qualitative data show that young members lacked information on how their unions operated and the goals they pursued. In this regard, as shown by the “experience good” model (Bryson and Gomez, 2003), if workers are welcomed into a union and experience a positive relationship with one of its local representatives, particularly in their early career, they will subsequently adopt a positive attitude toward unionism, thus becoming fertile ground for future commitment (Freeman and Diamond, 2003; Oliver, 2010).

Second, although our respondents referred to logistical and structural measures that could be adopted by unions (e.g., creating youth committees, reserving positions for young members on decision-making bodies), they emphasized the importance of unions reviewing their image, practices and orientations so as to stimulate greater interest among young members. Many respondents suggested that the unions use communication technologies more extensively, improve the efficiency of traditional labour relations practices (collective bargaining, grievance handling, etc.), ensure a more constructive relationship with employers, review the services they offer, make participation in union bodies more accessible and adopt a more positive public discourse that goes beyond simply diagnosing problems and focuses more on proposing projects and solutions.

The perceptions of the young workers we met are both good and bad news for trade unions. Starting with the good news, our respondents did not question the raison d’être of these organizations, and all of them recognized the legitimacy of unions and their role in the workplace. However, the perceptions of our respondents showed a significant gap between their organizational ideal and the real modus operandi of their unions. In this regard, the changes desired by our respondents cannot be considered superficial or purely cosmetic, as they imply major transformations in union practices and union leadership. More particularly, our respondents’ comments show that although unions can take initiatives to foster union commitment among young members, structural measures often adopted by trade unions (e.g., youth committees) can provide only a partial response to the challenge of integrating young members into unions. In this sense, the lesson is clear: fostering youth commitment cannot be pursued successfully unless union leaders recognize the importance of this goal and the necessary changes it implies. Integrating this point into their strategic agenda would definitely be a good way to start.

Our study’s aim was to shed light on the determinants of and barriers to union commitment among young workers. Based on quantitative and qualitative data from a large empirical survey of young unionized workers in a Canadian public service, the results show the multifaceted nature of union commitment among young workers and reveal the specific importance of its attitudinal, instrumental and relational underpinnings. Three observations stand out from our study.

First, when we analysed the influence of the four main determinants previously identified in the literature on union commitment (i.e., union instrumentality, pro-union attitude, organizational commitment and job satisfaction—see Bamberger et al., 1999), we found that only union instrumentality and pro-union attitude appear to have had an influence on young workers’ commitment. In this regard, our findings on their instrumental and attitudinal perspectives concur with the literature, showing that union instrumentality (H2) and pro-union attitude (H1a) were the second or third most important factor for each of the commitment dimensions. Our qualitative findings likewise showed two major barriers to union commitment: perception of a limited capacity to influence the union agenda, and the sometimes negative image of unionism. Both of these barriers are associated with instrumental and attitudinal perspectives. However, contrary to findings for union commitment among unionized workers in general, the psychological perspective (H3a and H3b on job satisfaction and organizational commitment) marginally explained the dynamics of union commitment among young workers.

Second, our study shows the relative importance of novel explanatory factors in union commitment among young workers. In this respect, union commitment among young workers appeared to be largely influenced by congruence with the union’s values (H1a) and the leadership style of local representatives (H4b, H4c), variables that emphasize the importance of the attitudinal and relational underpinnings of union commitment among young workers. Our qualitative data are consistent with this finding: the major barriers to union commitment were the limited contact between young members and their union representatives, together with a perception of disconnect with the union’s discourse, values and culture.

Third, our study points to practical measures that unions could adopt if they wish to ensure the representativeness of their decision-making bodies and the generational renewal of their activist base. These measures should include a change in union discourse, practices and agendas, with an increase in personalized contact between union representatives and young members. Such measures have concrete implications for unions, and how they allocate their limited resources. Nonetheless, our study indicates that such investments at the local level are critical and, thus, any reform or measure aimed at encouraging union commitment among young workers should not be limited merely to structural aspects, which are most often confined to the senior hierarchical levels of unions.