Solidarity II

In my last column, I wondered if the job satisfaction among American physicians had dipped so low that unionizing might have become a reasonable option. Much to my surprise when I opened the op-ed section of the Jan. 14, 2015, New York Times I discovered an article (Want to Be Happy? Join a Union) that added a bit of kindling to the spark I had hoped to ignite in my column.

Columnist John Guida interviewed two political scientists who had recently completed a study on labor union membership and life satisfaction in the United States (it appears to be unpublished at this point – but there is a link in the Times article to an October 2014 draft). Using data from a multiyear World Values Survey, these researchers discovered that union members are more satisfied than workers who were not in a union. This positive boost to life satisfaction was demonstrable across a broad selection of demographic groups: rich/poor, male/female, old/young, and disparate levels of education.

These political scientists found that being a union member generated a bigger boost of life satisfaction than that achieved by an increase in income. In an interview for the New York Times column, the authors postulated that the effect that they were observing could be occurring along four channels. One was a greater satisfaction in work experiences. The second was a feeling of greater job security. Do you think either of those benefits might sound appealing to some dissatisfied physicians? The other two were an increase in the number of opportunities for social intervention, and a positive feeling that can accompany participation in what they called democratic citizenship.

Although this study casts a warm glow over joining a union, unionization has an image problem here in the United States. Membership is down, and a study referred to in the Times article suggests that Americans have less confidence in unions than they do in banks.

As I suggested in my previous column, I sense that most physicians are not primarily troubled by their income. However, it is frustrating work environments and the lack of control or what these authors called “democratic citizenship” that is most frustrating. From a purely public relations standpoint, unionizing and going on strike for more money has the potential of creating a negative impression of the physicians who have organized. However, a work action with the aim of improving work conditions has a much more savory sound to it. And, as these political scientists have demonstrated, it is life satisfaction and not an increase in income that is the true benefit of unionization.

I have moved out of the workforce and am just sitting here on the sidelines watching with interest. But it seems to me that more of you who are still working should be looking outside the box for ways in which to improve your job (and life) satisfaction. If you are 50 years old and trying to calculate how many years it will be until you can retire, you have a problem. Unionization may be an answer. As the political scientists noted at the end of this column, their study “can give new meaning to the adage, ‘don’t mourn, organize.’ ”

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “Coping with a Picky Eater.” E-mail him at [email protected].

In my last column, I wondered if the job satisfaction among American physicians had dipped so low that unionizing might have become a reasonable option. Much to my surprise when I opened the op-ed section of the Jan. 14, 2015, New York Times I discovered an article (Want to Be Happy? Join a Union) that added a bit of kindling to the spark I had hoped to ignite in my column.

Columnist John Guida interviewed two political scientists who had recently completed a study on labor union membership and life satisfaction in the United States (it appears to be unpublished at this point – but there is a link in the Times article to an October 2014 draft). Using data from a multiyear World Values Survey, these researchers discovered that union members are more satisfied than workers who were not in a union. This positive boost to life satisfaction was demonstrable across a broad selection of demographic groups: rich/poor, male/female, old/young, and disparate levels of education.

These political scientists found that being a union member generated a bigger boost of life satisfaction than that achieved by an increase in income. In an interview for the New York Times column, the authors postulated that the effect that they were observing could be occurring along four channels. One was a greater satisfaction in work experiences. The second was a feeling of greater job security. Do you think either of those benefits might sound appealing to some dissatisfied physicians? The other two were an increase in the number of opportunities for social intervention, and a positive feeling that can accompany participation in what they called democratic citizenship.

Although this study casts a warm glow over joining a union, unionization has an image problem here in the United States. Membership is down, and a study referred to in the Times article suggests that Americans have less confidence in unions than they do in banks.

As I suggested in my previous column, I sense that most physicians are not primarily troubled by their income. However, it is frustrating work environments and the lack of control or what these authors called “democratic citizenship” that is most frustrating. From a purely public relations standpoint, unionizing and going on strike for more money has the potential of creating a negative impression of the physicians who have organized. However, a work action with the aim of improving work conditions has a much more savory sound to it. And, as these political scientists have demonstrated, it is life satisfaction and not an increase in income that is the true benefit of unionization.

I have moved out of the workforce and am just sitting here on the sidelines watching with interest. But it seems to me that more of you who are still working should be looking outside the box for ways in which to improve your job (and life) satisfaction. If you are 50 years old and trying to calculate how many years it will be until you can retire, you have a problem. Unionization may be an answer. As the political scientists noted at the end of this column, their study “can give new meaning to the adage, ‘don’t mourn, organize.’ ”

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “Coping with a Picky Eater.” E-mail him at [email protected].

In my last column, I wondered if the job satisfaction among American physicians had dipped so low that unionizing might have become a reasonable option. Much to my surprise when I opened the op-ed section of the Jan. 14, 2015, New York Times I discovered an article (Want to Be Happy? Join a Union) that added a bit of kindling to the spark I had hoped to ignite in my column.

Columnist John Guida interviewed two political scientists who had recently completed a study on labor union membership and life satisfaction in the United States (it appears to be unpublished at this point – but there is a link in the Times article to an October 2014 draft). Using data from a multiyear World Values Survey, these researchers discovered that union members are more satisfied than workers who were not in a union. This positive boost to life satisfaction was demonstrable across a broad selection of demographic groups: rich/poor, male/female, old/young, and disparate levels of education.

These political scientists found that being a union member generated a bigger boost of life satisfaction than that achieved by an increase in income. In an interview for the New York Times column, the authors postulated that the effect that they were observing could be occurring along four channels. One was a greater satisfaction in work experiences. The second was a feeling of greater job security. Do you think either of those benefits might sound appealing to some dissatisfied physicians? The other two were an increase in the number of opportunities for social intervention, and a positive feeling that can accompany participation in what they called democratic citizenship.

Although this study casts a warm glow over joining a union, unionization has an image problem here in the United States. Membership is down, and a study referred to in the Times article suggests that Americans have less confidence in unions than they do in banks.

As I suggested in my previous column, I sense that most physicians are not primarily troubled by their income. However, it is frustrating work environments and the lack of control or what these authors called “democratic citizenship” that is most frustrating. From a purely public relations standpoint, unionizing and going on strike for more money has the potential of creating a negative impression of the physicians who have organized. However, a work action with the aim of improving work conditions has a much more savory sound to it. And, as these political scientists have demonstrated, it is life satisfaction and not an increase in income that is the true benefit of unionization.

I have moved out of the workforce and am just sitting here on the sidelines watching with interest. But it seems to me that more of you who are still working should be looking outside the box for ways in which to improve your job (and life) satisfaction. If you are 50 years old and trying to calculate how many years it will be until you can retire, you have a problem. Unionization may be an answer. As the political scientists noted at the end of this column, their study “can give new meaning to the adage, ‘don’t mourn, organize.’ ”

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “Coping with a Picky Eater.” E-mail him at [email protected].