Employee Well-Being and Morale During Collective Bargaining Negotiations

Employee well-being and morale represent critical organizational outcomes that are significantly affected by collective bargaining negotiations processes and outcomes. This article examines the multifaceted relationship between labor-management negotiations and employee psychological, physical, and social well-being indicators. Research demonstrates that uncertainty, prolonged negotiations, and adversarial dynamics during collective bargaining negotiations can substantially impact job satisfaction, stress levels, organizational commitment, and work performance. The effects extend beyond direct negotiation participants to influence broader organizational climate and employee relations. This comprehensive review synthesizes empirical findings on well-being outcomes during different phases of collective bargaining processes while identifying protective factors and intervention strategies that can mitigate negative impacts. Understanding these dynamics is essential for organizational leaders, union representatives, and human resource professionals seeking to maintain employee well-being while pursuing effective labor relations outcomes.

Introduction

The relationship between collective bargaining negotiations and employee well-being represents a complex intersection of organizational psychology, labor relations, and occupational health research. While collective bargaining serves the essential function of establishing fair working conditions and compensation, the negotiation process itself can create significant stressors that impact employee psychological and physical well-being (Blanchflower & Bryson, 2022). These effects are particularly pronounced during contentious negotiations, work stoppages, or when fundamental aspects of job security are at stake.

Research in occupational health psychology has increasingly recognized that organizational change processes, including labor negotiations, can function as critical incidents that either enhance or undermine employee well-being depending on how they are managed. The uncertainty inherent in collective bargaining negotiations creates conditions that can trigger stress responses, reduce job satisfaction, and impact organizational commitment among both union and non-union employees (Hammer & Avgar, 2005). Understanding these dynamics is crucial for developing strategies that protect employee well-being while maintaining effective negotiation processes.

The significance of employee well-being during collective bargaining negotiations extends beyond immediate health outcomes to encompass broader organizational effectiveness and long-term labor-management relationships. When negotiation processes severely damage employee morale or well-being, the resulting effects can persist long after agreements are reached, influencing productivity, turnover, and future labor relations (Freeman & Medoff, 1984). This makes it essential for both management and labor representatives to consider well-being impacts as they design and implement negotiation strategies.

Theoretical Frameworks for Understanding Well-Being in Labor Relations

Stress and Coping Theory Applications

The transactional model of stress and coping developed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) provides a valuable framework for understanding how employees experience and respond to stressors during collective bargaining negotiations. This model emphasizes that stress results from transactions between individuals and their environment, with outcomes depending on both the objective characteristics of stressful events and individuals’ appraisals of those events. During collective bargaining negotiations, employees must appraise the potential threat to their job security, working conditions, and economic well-being while simultaneously evaluating their ability to cope with potential negative outcomes.

Primary appraisal processes during collective bargaining negotiations involve employees’ assessments of whether negotiations pose threats to their personal well-being, goals, or values. When employees perceive negotiations as threatening their job security or working conditions, this triggers stress responses that can manifest in various psychological and physical symptoms. Secondary appraisal involves evaluating available coping resources, including union support, personal financial reserves, alternative employment opportunities, and social support systems (Cooper et al., 2001).

The coping strategies that employees adopt during collective bargaining negotiations significantly influence their well-being outcomes. Problem-focused coping strategies, such as seeking information about negotiation progress or participating in union activities, may help employees feel more in control and reduce anxiety. Emotion-focused coping strategies, including social support seeking or cognitive reappraisal of threats, can help manage distress when direct action is not possible. However, maladaptive coping strategies such as substance use or avoidance may exacerbate well-being problems during prolonged negotiations (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988).

Job Demands-Resources Model

The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model offers another theoretical lens for understanding employee well-being during collective bargaining negotiations. Demerouti et al. (2001) propose that well-being outcomes result from the balance between job demands that require sustained effort and job resources that help employees meet demands or achieve goals. Collective bargaining negotiations can simultaneously increase job demands through uncertainty and stress while potentially reducing job resources through damaged relationships or unclear policies.

Job demands during collective bargaining negotiations include emotional demands related to uncertainty about outcomes, cognitive demands associated with processing complex information about potential changes, and social demands resulting from tensions between different stakeholder groups. These demands can be particularly intense when negotiations involve fundamental changes to work organization, benefit structures, or job security provisions. The cumulative effect of these demands can lead to exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced performance if not balanced by adequate resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).

Job resources that can help employees maintain well-being during collective bargaining negotiations include social support from colleagues and supervisors, autonomy in how work is performed, clear communication about negotiation progress, and confidence in organizational leadership. Union representation itself can function as a job resource by providing employees with voice mechanisms and collective support. However, adversarial negotiation processes may reduce some traditional job resources while creating new demands, making resource management a critical consideration for organizational leaders (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).

Psychological Well-Being Impacts During Negotiations

Anxiety and Uncertainty Effects

Uncertainty represents one of the most consistent predictors of psychological distress during collective bargaining negotiations, as employees face potential changes to fundamental aspects of their work lives without knowing when or how issues will be resolved. Research by Milliken (1987) identifies three types of uncertainty that are particularly relevant during labor negotiations: state uncertainty about current organizational conditions, effect uncertainty about the impact of changes, and response uncertainty about available coping options. All three types can be elevated during collective bargaining processes.

The psychological impact of uncertainty during collective bargaining negotiations is compounded by the typically extended timeframes involved in labor-management negotiations. Unlike acute stressors that resolve quickly, negotiation-related uncertainty can persist for months, creating chronic stress conditions that are particularly damaging to psychological well-being. Longitudinal studies have found that prolonged uncertainty can lead to learned helplessness, depression, and anxiety disorders among affected employees (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991).

Individual differences in uncertainty tolerance significantly moderate the relationship between collective bargaining processes and psychological well-being outcomes. Employees with higher tolerance for ambiguity and stronger internal locus of control tend to experience less distress during negotiations, while those with external locus of control or high uncertainty avoidance may be particularly vulnerable to negative psychological effects. These individual differences have important implications for identifying employees who may need additional support during negotiation periods (Sorrentino & Roney, 2000).

Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment

Job satisfaction during collective bargaining negotiations reflects employees’ evaluative responses to their work experiences in the context of potential changes and ongoing uncertainty. Research consistently demonstrates that job satisfaction tends to decline during contentious labor negotiations, particularly when employees perceive management as unresponsive to their concerns or when negotiations involve potential job losses. However, satisfaction may remain stable or even improve when employees perceive negotiations as likely to result in meaningful improvements to their working conditions (Hammer & Avgar, 2005).

The relationship between collective bargaining negotiations and job satisfaction is mediated by several factors including perceived fairness of negotiation processes, trust in organizational leadership, and confidence in union representation. When employees perceive negotiation processes as fair and transparent, they are more likely to maintain positive attitudes even when specific outcomes are uncertain. Conversely, perceptions of unfairness or manipulation can severely damage job satisfaction and create lasting negative attitudes toward the organization (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998).

Organizational commitment during collective bargaining negotiations reflects employees’ psychological attachment to their organizations and their intentions to remain employed. Affective commitment, based on emotional attachment, may be particularly vulnerable during adversarial negotiations that damage trust between employees and management. Continuance commitment, based on perceived costs of leaving, may actually increase during negotiations if employees feel trapped by economic circumstances or limited alternatives. Normative commitment, based on felt obligations, may be influenced by perceptions of organizational support and fair treatment during negotiation processes (Meyer & Allen, 1991).

Emotional Exhaustion and Burnout Risk

Emotional exhaustion represents a core component of burnout that can be significantly elevated during collective bargaining negotiations, particularly for employees who are directly involved in negotiation processes or who work in highly affected areas. The emotional demands of managing uncertainty, processing conflicting information, and maintaining work performance under stressful conditions can deplete psychological resources and lead to feelings of being emotionally drained and overwhelmed (Maslach & Leiter, 2016).

The risk of emotional exhaustion during collective bargaining negotiations is increased by several factors including role conflict between loyalty to the organization and support for union positions, role ambiguity about how to behave during negotiations, and role overload when employees must maintain normal work responsibilities while dealing with negotiation-related demands. These role stressors are particularly pronounced for supervisors and middle managers who may be caught between upper management directives and employee concerns (Rizzo et al., 1970).

Burnout prevention during collective bargaining negotiations requires proactive attention to employee psychological resources and support systems. This may include providing clear communication about negotiation progress, maintaining normal work routines where possible, offering employee assistance programs, and training managers to recognize and respond to signs of employee distress. Organizations that fail to address these issues may experience long-term increases in turnover, absenteeism, and reduced performance (Bakker et al., 2005).

Physical Health and Behavioral Outcomes

Stress-Related Health Symptoms

The physiological stress response triggered by collective bargaining negotiations can manifest in various physical health symptoms that impact employee well-being and organizational productivity. Research has documented increased rates of cardiovascular problems, gastrointestinal issues, sleep disturbances, and immune system dysfunction among employees experiencing chronic work-related stress. These health impacts are particularly pronounced during prolonged or highly contentious labor negotiations (Kivimäki et al., 2006).

Sleep disturbances represent one of the most common physical health impacts of collective bargaining-related stress, with employees reporting difficulty falling asleep, frequent awakening, and non-restorative sleep patterns. Sleep problems can create cascading effects on cognitive performance, emotional regulation, and physical health, making them a particularly important indicator of negotiation-related stress. The cyclical nature of sleep problems and daytime stress can create self-reinforcing patterns that are difficult to break without intervention (Åkerstedt, 2006).

Headaches and musculoskeletal symptoms also show increased prevalence during stressful collective bargaining periods, often reflecting the physical tension and postural changes associated with chronic stress responses. These symptoms can be particularly problematic for employees whose jobs require physical performance or fine motor skills. The economic costs of these health impacts extend beyond immediate medical expenses to include lost productivity, increased absenteeism, and workers’ compensation claims (Sauter et al., 1999).

Absenteeism and Presenteeism Patterns

Absenteeism rates often increase during collective bargaining negotiations as employees experience increased stress, health problems, and reduced motivation to attend work regularly. However, absenteeism patterns during negotiations can be complex, with some employees increasing their attendance to demonstrate commitment while others withdraw from work environments they perceive as threatening or unpleasant. The overall pattern typically shows modest increases in unscheduled absences, particularly for stress-related illness (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998).

Presenteeism, defined as attending work while experiencing health problems that should warrant absence, may be more common during collective bargaining negotiations than actual absenteeism. Employees may feel pressure to maintain perfect attendance records during negotiations to avoid appearing uncommitted or to preserve their standing with either management or union representatives. This can lead to reduced productivity and potentially worsen health problems by preventing adequate rest and recovery (Hemp, 2004).

The costs of both absenteeism and presenteeism during collective bargaining negotiations can be substantial, particularly when they occur among key employees or during critical operational periods. These behavioral outcomes often persist beyond the resolution of negotiations, suggesting that the impacts of negotiation stress on attendance patterns may have longer-term organizational consequences than immediately apparent (Burton et al., 2006).

Workplace Safety and Accident Rates

Workplace safety represents a critical concern during collective bargaining negotiations, as stress and distraction can increase accident risk while potentially creating incentives to under-report safety problems. Research has documented increased injury rates during periods of organizational uncertainty and change, with effects attributed to reduced attention, increased risk-taking behavior, and compromised decision-making under stress. These safety impacts are particularly concerning in high-risk work environments (Probst & Brubaker, 2001).

The relationship between collective bargaining negotiations and workplace safety is complicated by potential changes in safety reporting patterns. Employees may be more likely to report safety concerns during negotiations to strengthen their bargaining position, or they may under-report problems to avoid appearing to undermine the organization. Management may also alter safety enforcement patterns in response to negotiation dynamics, potentially creating additional risks (Weil, 1991).

Safety training and communication become particularly important during collective bargaining negotiations to counteract the potentially negative effects of stress and distraction on safety performance. Organizations that maintain strong safety cultures and communication during negotiations are more likely to prevent increases in accident rates and may actually improve safety outcomes by demonstrating genuine concern for employee welfare (DeJoy et al., 2004).

Organizational Climate and Social Dynamics

Trust and Communication Patterns

Trust between employees and management represents a fundamental factor influencing well-being outcomes during collective bargaining negotiations, with research consistently demonstrating that high-trust relationships buffer the negative effects of negotiation stress. When employees trust that management will negotiate in good faith and consider their interests, they experience less anxiety and maintain better psychological well-being throughout negotiation processes. Conversely, low trust amplifies the negative effects of uncertainty and creates additional stress through suspicion and defensive behavior (Robinson, 1996).

Communication patterns during collective bargaining negotiations significantly influence both trust levels and employee well-being outcomes. Transparent, frequent communication about negotiation progress and organizational constraints helps reduce uncertainty and maintain employee confidence in organizational leadership. However, communication must be perceived as honest and complete to be effective, as employees are typically sensitive to attempts at manipulation or selective information sharing during high-stakes negotiations (Miller & Monge, 1985).

The quality of communication between union representatives and members also influences member well-being during collective bargaining negotiations. Union members who feel well-informed about negotiation strategies and progress typically experience less stress and maintain higher confidence in eventual outcomes. However, internal union conflicts or unclear communication can create additional stressors that compound the challenges of dealing with management negotiations (Fiorito et al., 1988).

Social Support Systems and Peer Relations

Social support from colleagues represents one of the most important protective factors for employee well-being during collective bargaining negotiations. Coworkers can provide emotional support through empathy and understanding, informational support through sharing knowledge and perspectives, and instrumental support through practical assistance with work tasks or personal needs. The effectiveness of peer support depends on the quality of workplace relationships and the extent to which employees feel comfortable discussing their concerns (House, 1981).

However, collective bargaining negotiations can also strain peer relationships, particularly when employees have different views about union representation, negotiation strategies, or desired outcomes. These tensions can reduce the availability of social support and create additional stressors through interpersonal conflict. The polarization that sometimes occurs during contentious negotiations can damage long-term workplace relationships and reduce team cohesion (Cohen & Wills, 1985).

Organizations can help maintain supportive peer relationships during collective bargaining negotiations by providing forums for employee discussion, training supervisors to recognize and address interpersonal tensions, and emphasizing shared organizational goals that transcend negotiation positions. Union organizations can similarly promote supportive relationships among members while managing disagreements about negotiation strategies or priorities (Beehr et al., 2003).

Work Environment and Culture Changes

The work environment and organizational culture often undergo significant changes during collective bargaining negotiations, with effects that can persist long after agreements are reached. Formal policies and procedures may be suspended or altered during negotiations, creating uncertainty about appropriate behavior and performance expectations. These changes can be particularly stressful for employees who value predictability and clear guidelines (Schein & Schein, 2017).

Cultural changes during collective bargaining negotiations may include increased formality in employee-management interactions, reduced flexibility in work arrangements, and heightened attention to contractual obligations rather than informal cooperation. These cultural shifts can reduce job satisfaction and organizational commitment, particularly among employees who value collaborative relationships and informal problem-solving approaches (O’Reilly et al., 1991).

The long-term cultural impacts of collective bargaining negotiations depend significantly on how the process is conducted and resolved. Negotiations that are conducted respectfully and result in mutually acceptable agreements may actually strengthen organizational culture by demonstrating effective conflict resolution capabilities. However, adversarial negotiations that damage relationships may create lasting cultural problems that affect future labor-management cooperation (Kochan et al., 1986).

Protective Factors and Resilience Building

Individual Coping Strategies and Resources

Individual differences in coping capabilities significantly influence how employees respond to collective bargaining-related stress, with some individuals demonstrating remarkable resilience while others experience severe well-being impacts. Effective individual coping strategies include problem-focused approaches such as seeking information, participating in decision-making processes where possible, and developing contingency plans for various negotiation outcomes. These strategies help employees maintain a sense of control and active engagement rather than passive victimization (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988).

Emotional regulation skills represent another crucial individual resource for maintaining well-being during collective bargaining negotiations. Employees who can effectively manage anxiety, anger, and other negative emotions are better able to maintain performance and relationships during stressful periods. These skills can be developed through training programs, counseling, or self-directed learning approaches that teach specific techniques for emotional management (Gross, 2002).

Personal financial resources and alternative employment options also function as important protective factors by reducing the perceived threat associated with negative negotiation outcomes. Employees with adequate savings, marketable skills, or other employment opportunities may experience less stress because they have viable alternatives if negotiations fail. Organizations and unions can help employees develop these resources through financial education programs, skills training, and career development opportunities (Hobfoll, 2001).

Organizational Support Interventions

Organizational support interventions can significantly reduce the negative impact of collective bargaining negotiations on employee well-being by addressing both the sources of stress and employees’ capacity to cope effectively. Employee assistance programs (EAPs) represent one important intervention that can provide counseling, stress management training, and referral services for employees experiencing negotiation-related difficulties. The effectiveness of EAPs depends on employee awareness, accessibility, and perceived confidentiality (Cooper & Cartwright, 1994).

Communication interventions that provide regular updates about negotiation progress, explain organizational constraints and priorities, and address employee concerns can help reduce uncertainty and maintain trust during collective bargaining processes. These interventions should be carefully designed to avoid appearing manipulative while providing genuinely useful information that helps employees understand and cope with the negotiation situation (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991).

Flexible work arrangements and modified performance expectations during collective bargaining negotiations can help reduce the cumulative stress experienced by employees who must manage both normal work demands and negotiation-related concerns. These accommodations may include adjusted deadlines, modified performance standards, or temporary changes in job assignments to reduce pressure during particularly stressful negotiation periods (Allen et al., 2013).

Union Support and Advocacy

Union support systems play a crucial role in maintaining member well-being during collective bargaining negotiations by providing information, advocacy, and solidarity that can buffer the stress of uncertain outcomes. Effective union communication helps members understand negotiation progress, strategy decisions, and the rationale for various positions, reducing anxiety associated with uncertainty about union effectiveness and commitment (Freeman & Medoff, 1984).

Peer support networks within union organizations provide members with opportunities to share concerns, receive emotional support, and participate in collective problem-solving activities. These networks can be particularly important for employees who feel isolated or powerless in their individual work situations. However, union support systems must be managed carefully to avoid creating additional pressure or guilt for members who may have concerns about union positions (Fiorito et al., 1988).

Union advocacy for member well-being extends beyond immediate negotiation issues to encompass broader concerns about working conditions, stress management, and work-life balance. Unions that effectively advocate for comprehensive employee well-being during negotiations may achieve better long-term outcomes for members while strengthening their own organizational effectiveness and member loyalty (Hammer & Avgar, 2005).

Intervention Strategies and Best Practices

Proactive Communication and Transparency

Proactive communication strategies represent one of the most effective approaches for maintaining employee well-being during collective bargaining negotiations. Research consistently demonstrates that employees who receive regular, honest communication about negotiation progress experience less stress and maintain higher levels of organizational trust. Effective communication programs typically include regular updates through multiple channels, opportunities for employee questions and feedback, and clear explanations of organizational constraints and priorities (Miller & Monge, 1985).

The timing and content of communication during collective bargaining negotiations require careful consideration to balance transparency with strategic negotiation needs. Organizations must avoid sharing information that could compromise negotiation positions while providing sufficient detail to help employees understand the situation and make informed personal decisions. This balance can be achieved through structured communication protocols that specify what information will be shared at different stages of negotiations (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991).

Communication effectiveness during collective bargaining negotiations is enhanced by using multiple channels and formats to accommodate different employee preferences and information needs. This may include written updates, group meetings, individual discussions with supervisors, and electronic communication systems. The key is ensuring that all employees have access to consistent, accurate information regardless of their communication preferences or work schedules (Grunig, 1992).

Stress Management and Wellness Programs

Comprehensive stress management programs can help employees develop coping skills and maintain well-being during collective bargaining negotiations. These programs typically include education about stress recognition and management, training in specific coping techniques such as relaxation and cognitive restructuring, and ongoing support through counseling or peer support groups. The effectiveness of these programs depends on voluntary participation and perceived relevance to employees’ actual experiences (Murphy & Sauter, 2003).

Wellness programs that address physical health, mental health, and work-life balance can provide important resources for employees dealing with collective bargaining-related stress. These programs may include fitness facilities, health screenings, counseling services, and flexible work arrangements that help employees maintain their well-being while managing negotiation-related demands. The key is ensuring that programs are accessible and relevant to employee needs during stressful periods (Goetzel & Ozminkowski, 2008).

The integration of stress management and wellness programs with broader organizational support systems can enhance their effectiveness during collective bargaining negotiations. This integration may involve training supervisors to recognize signs of employee distress, coordinating with employee assistance programs, and ensuring that program resources are adequately promoted and accessible during high-stress periods (Cooper & Cartwright, 1994).

Leadership Development and Training

Leadership development programs that prepare managers and supervisors to support employee well-being during collective bargaining negotiations can significantly improve organizational outcomes. These programs typically focus on developing skills in communication, conflict resolution, stress recognition, and employee support. Effective programs also address the unique challenges that managers face during negotiations, including role conflicts and their own stress management needs (Yukl, 2010).

Training programs for union leaders and representatives can similarly enhance their ability to support member well-being during collective bargaining processes. These programs may focus on communication skills, stress management, conflict resolution, and strategies for maintaining member engagement and morale during difficult negotiations. The goal is developing leadership capabilities that serve members’ well-being interests while advancing collective bargaining objectives (Fiorito et al., 1988).

Joint training programs that bring together management and union representatives to develop shared understanding of well-being issues and collaborative approaches to addressing them can be particularly effective. These programs can help build relationships and communication patterns that support employee well-being before, during, and after collective bargaining negotiations while also improving the overall effectiveness of labor-management cooperation (Kochan et al., 1986).

Conclusion

The relationship between collective bargaining negotiations and employee well-being represents a critical intersection of organizational psychology and labor relations that has significant implications for individual health, organizational effectiveness, and social welfare. Research consistently demonstrates that negotiation processes can substantially impact psychological well-being, physical health, and behavioral outcomes among both direct participants and broader employee populations. These effects are mediated by factors including uncertainty, trust, communication quality, and available support resources.

Understanding the mechanisms through which collective bargaining negotiations influence employee well-being is essential for developing effective intervention strategies that protect individual health while maintaining effective labor relations processes. The theoretical frameworks of stress and coping theory and the job demands-resources model provide valuable guidance for identifying risk factors and protective resources that can be targeted through organizational interventions. These frameworks emphasize the importance of balancing negotiation demands with adequate support resources and effective coping strategies.

The evidence reviewed in this article suggests that proactive attention to employee well-being during collective bargaining negotiations can benefit all stakeholders by reducing health care costs, maintaining productivity, and preserving the long-term relationships necessary for effective labor-management cooperation. Organizations and unions that invest in well-being support systems demonstrate genuine concern for employee welfare while potentially improving negotiation outcomes through reduced stress and enhanced cooperation.

Future research should continue examining the long-term effects of collective bargaining processes on employee well-being, particularly focusing on how different negotiation strategies and intervention approaches influence health outcomes over time. Additionally, there is need for more systematic evaluation of well-being intervention programs and their effectiveness in collective bargaining contexts. As workplace demographics and labor relations continue to evolve, understanding and protecting employee well-being during collective bargaining negotiations will remain a critical priority for organizational psychology and labor relations practice.

References

1. Åkerstedt, T. (2006). Psychosocial stress and impaired sleep. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 32(6), 493-501. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1054
2. Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2013). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273
3. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
4. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 170-180. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170
5. Beehr, T. A., Bowling, N. A., & Bennett, M. M. (2010). Occupational stress and failures of social support: When helping hurts. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1), 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018234
6. Blanchflower, D. G., & Bryson, A. (2022). Union decline and well-being in the workplace. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 60(4), 757-784. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12668
7. Burton, W. N., Pransky, G., Conti, D. J., Chen, C. Y., & Edington, D. W. (2006). The association of medical conditions and presenteeism. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 48(11), 1152-1162. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.jom.0000235969.16059.b0
8. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310-357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310
9. Cooper, C. L., & Cartwright, S. (1994). Healthy mind; healthy organization—A proactive approach to occupational stress. Human Relations, 47(4), 455-471. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700405
10. Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2001). Organizational stress: A review and critique of theory, research, and applications. Sage Publications.
11. DeJoy, D. M., Schaffer, B. S., Wilson, M. G., Vandenberg, R. J., & Butts, M. M. (2004). Creating safer workplaces: Assessing the determinants and role of safety climate. Journal of Safety Research, 35(1), 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2003.09.018
12. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
13. Fiorito, J., Gallagher, D. G., & Fukami, C. V. (1988). Satisfaction with union representation. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 41(2), 294-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979398804100208
14. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Sage Publications.
15. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(3), 466-475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.3.466
16. Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. L. (1984). What do unions do? Basic Books.
17. Goetzel, R. Z., & Ozminkowski, R. J. (2008). The health and cost benefits of work site health-promotion programs. Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 303-323. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090930
18. Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39(3), 281-291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0048577201393198
19. Grunig, J. E. (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Hammer, T. H., & Avgar, A. (2005). The impact of unions on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover. Journal of Labor Research, 26(2), 241-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-005-1024-5
21. Harrison, D. A., & Martocchio, J. J. (1998). Time for absenteeism: A 20-year review of origins, offshoots, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24(3), 305-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400303
22. Hemp, P. (2004). Presenteeism: At work—but out of it. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 49-58.
23. Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337-421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
24. House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Addison-Wesley.
25. Kivimäki, M., Virtanen, M., Elovainio, M., Kouvonen, A., Väänänen, A., & Vahtera, J. (2006). Work stress in the etiology of coronary heart disease—A meta-analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 32(6), 431-442. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1049
26. Kochan, T. A., Katz, H. C., & McKersie, R. B. (1986). The transformation of American industrial relations. Basic Books.
27. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
28. Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). The burnout challenge: Managing people’s relationships with their jobs. Harvard Business Review Press.
29. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
30. Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1985). Social information and employee anxiety about organizational change. Human Communication Research, 11(3), 365-386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00054.x
31. Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 133-143. https://doi.org/10.2307/257999
32. Murphy, L. R., & Sauter, S. L. (2003). The USA perspective: Current issues and trends in the management of work stress. Australian Psychologist, 38(2), 151-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060310001707157
33. O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487-516. https://doi.org/10.2307/256404
34. Probst, T. M., & Brubaker, T. L. (2001). The effects of job insecurity on employee safety outcomes: Cross-sectional and longitudinal explorations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(2),