Final answer:
Positive HR practices such as job enrichment and employee involvement programs typically decrease nonunion workers' desire to vote for a union. In contrast, these initiatives aim to improve job satisfaction and reduce the need for union representation. Unions can also lead to higher productivity due to better training, longer job tenure, and investment in machinery.
Step-by-step explanation:
It is false that positive human resource management practices such as job enrichment or enlargement, internal promotions, learning opportunities, bonus and merit pay, and employee involvement programs increase nonunion workers' desire to vote for a union in a representation election. These practices actually have the opposite effect by enhancing job satisfaction and worker engagement, thereby reducing the perceived need for union representation.
Companies that engage in practices simulating aspects of unionization, such as soliciting workers' concerns without charging membership fees, can sometimes secure modest reforms or one-time bonuses for their employees. While these "company unions" have limited power and are often used by management strategically to undermine independent unions, they can temporarily make the official union seem less effective. Nevertheless, this is not a sustainable long-term substitute for genuine union representation.
When comparing union workers to nonunion workers, several factors suggest that union workers might exhibit higher productivity. For example, higher wages offered by unions may lead to greater productivity and union workers often have longer tenures with one company, lowering the company's costs for training and hiring. Furthermore, unions frequently provide job training and apprenticeship programs. If companies respond to union demands by investing more in machinery and physical capital, this can make union workers more productive. However, this also means that companies may hire fewer workers due to increased capital investment.