Worker Voice to Political Voice: Quantitative Evidence from the Netherlands

• In Event: Shared Goals, Diverse Approaches: Methodological Pluralism in Labor Studies

Abstract

Currently, at least three important developments in labor relations pose vital challenges to employees’ voice at the work floor: (a) ongoing labor migration; (b) flexibilization of work contracts; and (c) a trend of restricting collective forms of labor voice and representation. These developments are radically changing traditional forms of employee participation and the ways people express discontent at work, making workers increasingly dependent upon individual voice to address problems at work. This is especially true for the increased numbers of workers with an insecure or marginalized position in the organization. Worker voice, which we define as any activity of individual employees, groups of employees or representatives of employees aimed at improving either personal work conditions or the work conditions of an entire group, is considered risky, as it is a highly visible act that makes people stand out from the crowd and vulnerable to retaliations. It is therefore to be expected that especially workers with an insecure or marginalized position in the organization will refrain from voicing issues at work. Furthermore, these workers may also be more prone to suppressive responses by the supervisor when voicing an issue at work. Anecdotal evidence does suggest such suppression of voice, however, systematic data on worker voice and supervisor responses to voice is lacking.

Next to insights in worker voice and supervisor responses to voice, we also lack insights on the broader societal impact of difficulties with voicing issues at work. The workplace is thought to be an important agent of civic and political socialization and an important sphere for generating social capital. Although political socialization theory acknowledges that the workplace is an important agent for training political skills, our knowledge of its effect on political behavior remains limited. Moreover, the empirical evidence for the proposed positive effect of workplace participation on political attitudes and behavior is moderate. Thus far, the political arena at work is (implicitly) considered to mimic an ideal liberal democracy. While this may be true in some organizations, the suggested positive effects are less likely when voice is suppressed. We thus argue that, in addition to the proposed positive effect of workplace participation on political participation, suppression of voice in work relations is likely to affect the articulation of voice in other parts of life, particularly with respect to political attitudes and behavior, leading, for example, to voting abstention, and support for non-traditional protests, populism and extreme parties. Furthermore, we argue that experiences with worker voice, and especially co-workers responses to voice, can affect social capital and (out-group) solidarity, which is reflected in political preferences such as egalitarian values and support for immigrant entitlements. We thus expect a spillover effect from experiences with voice at work to political attitudes and behavior, thereby giving the workplace center stage as one of the prime environments of adult political socialization.

In this paper we first give an overview of worker experiences with voice in the Netherlands. Next, we show how these spillover into political outcomes through three different studies. Study 1 focuses on how supervisor responses to voice affect political efficacy and in turn political participation. Study 2 focuses on how experiences with supervisor responses to voice affect populist (voting) preferences and voting. Study 3 focuses on interethnic interactions at work, including co-worker responses to voice, and support for immigrant entitlements. While using the same overarching spillover framework, we have different theories on how experiences with worker voice should affect each of these political outcomes. To address these questions we use a panel survey on worker voice, designed especially for this study. We developed a measurement instrument to systematically map worker voice, as well as co-worker and supervisor responses to voice. Furthermore, we gathered data on political participation, and a wide range of political preferences. These unique data enable us to systematically study experiences with worker voice and the political consequences thereof.

Authors

• Katerina Manevska, Radboud University

• Agnes Akkerman

• Bram Geurkink

• Roderick Sluiter, Radboud University Nijmegen

• Antonia Stanojevic