The Future for Union Learning

The Future for Union Learning

Tom Wilson

Š 2010. No part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted or stored in a retrieval system, in any form or by any means, without prior permission in writing from Unions 21.

Registered office: Unions 21 c/o ATL 7 Northumberland Street London WC2N 5RD www.unions21.org.uk Email: info@unions21.org.uk

Foreword - Debate

4

Acknowledgements

4

Summary

5

The Author

6

Introduction Why learning is a union issue

7

CHAPTER 1 The current state of Union Learning

11

CHAPTER 2 Union Learning - A soft activity?

16

CHAPTER 3 The Union vision for learning

21

CHAPTER 4 Future prospects

23

Appendix An agenda for skills policy

25

Contents

3

Debate

Unions 21 exists to provide an ‘open space’ for discussion on the future of the trade union movement and help build tomorrow’s unions in the UK. We are mainly resourced by contributions from trade unions and others who work with trade unions that recognise we need to keep the movement evolving in an ever changing world. We encourage discussion on tomorrow’s unions through publications, conferences, seminars and similar activities.

The Debate series of publications present opinions upon the challenges trade unions are facing, solutions they may consider and best practice they may adopt. These opinions are not endorsed by Unions 21, but are published by us to encourage the much needed, sensible and realistic debate that is required if the trade union movement is going to prosper.

Please read and consider this publication, forward it to others connected to the trade union movement and debate the content within your own organisation.

Sue Ferns Chair of the Steering Committee Unions 21 www.unions21.org.uk Email: info@unions21.org.uk

Acknowledgements Special thanks for advice and support are due to Bert Clough, Iain Murray, Liz Rees, Judith Swift, Frances Rafferty, Sue Ferns, Jenny Williams, Tom Beattie, Trevor Shanahan, Mary Bousted, Frances O’Grady, Chris Humphries, Liz Smith, Rod Kenyon, Pam Johnson, Tom Schuller, Paul Head, Paul Mackney and, from many years ago, Jim Sutherland.

Other titles in our Debate series: The EU - the next 50 years The future for unions Completing the revolution: the challenge trade unions face in tackling sex inequalities Public sector delivery through the third sector Organising workers globally: the need for public policy to regulate investment The generation game; does age matter?

4

•

Unions exist to fight poverty and unfairness; Learning and Skills are the key to a better job and a better life but are grossly unequally distributed

•

The UK economy must radically improve skills at all levels but can only improve skills for all by reducing skills inequality, so prosperity and equality arguments go hand in hand

•

Unions play a unique and crucial role in workplace learning, no other body can provide the essential trusted intermediary which employers and employees need

•

Unions have always been involved in learning , whether training reps and officers, wider learning for members, or campaigning for a better education and skills system; today more than ever

•

There is overwhelming evidence that union learning delivers, that is why there is strong union and employer support

•

Wider union campaigning and policy development is based on experience in the workplace, and vice versa; union learning should embrace both delivery and policy

•

Union learning supports organising (and vice versa), and unions are increasingly integrating learning and organising

•

Strategies for union growth and revitalisation must include union learning; it is popular with members and potential members, unions can win important member benefits, it can help build stronger (not more subservient) relations with employers, it demonstrably aids recruitment and is a source of fresh, more representative, activists

•

History shows there is an onward march of union learning, involving more direct union engagement, more involvement and funding from government, and more union influence and engagement in policy; today’s position is the natural progression of a long history

•

The evidence shows that union learning is not “soft” or “semi-detached”, nor that unions are subservient to government pressure; on the contrary there is a distinct union vision for learning which combines pragmatism and radicalism; involvement with government and external accreditation, audit and quality alongside independence and democratic member choice

•

Government funding is crucial, has been hard won, and is entirely legitimate as a recognition of unions’ role in civil society, the economy and the workplace; it should be celebrated not criticised, its loss would do real damage

•

Union learning has already become strongly integrated within union structures, it is here to stay and will steadily grow

•

The next major step for unions is to go further down the road of bargaining on learning, which will be necessarily complex but could well be a source of substantial achievements

•

learning will always be distinctive within unions but there will be fewer complaints that it is seen as semi-detached; distinctive but equal, it is taking its place at the heart of union activity, making a powerful contribution to the fight against poverty and unfairness.

•

Learning is humanising; it helps reassert human values above material values, the value of thinking, listening and working together - the key to well-being and happiness.

Summary

5

The Author

Tom Wilson Tom was appointed Director of Unionlearn, the learning and skills arm of the TUC, in July 2009; he first joined the TUC as Head of the Organisation and Services Dept in 2003. Prior to that he worked as Head of the Higher Education Dept of Natfhe and Assistant General Secretary of AUT - both of which have now merged to form the UCU. From 1986 to 1988 he was trade union liaison officer with the Labour party and from 1980 to 1986 was a researcher with the GMB. Tom is a board member of Niace, Learndirect, Foundation Degree Forward and City and Guilds and is involved in many other bodies aiming to improve learning and skills.

He has written widely on a range of skills and union issues, this papmphlet is a comapnion piece to his earlier Unions 21 pamphlet on the Future for Unions..

6

Fighting poverty, low pay, unfairness and dreary work are the foundations of trade unionism; whether by confronting poor employers or by campaigning for a fairer society.

But it is not enough just to tackle the symptoms. In today’s UK there is one fundamental cause of unequal life chances which stands out above all others: education. And that is why unions care about learning. It is not something peripheral; learning is at the heart of trade unionism. It always has been. The very first trade union banners gave equal prominence to three words: Educate, Agitate, Organise. They were, and still are, the key to progress in fighting poverty and unfairness.

Introduction Why learning is a union issue

If anything, education is even more important today than ever. In order to sustain reasonable lifestyles for its citizens and maintain a prosperous society the UK needs to be globally competitive. That in turn demands much higher levels of skilled work.

The national skills body (The UK Commission for Skills and Employment) estimates that by 2020, on average, half of all working people will need to gain an additional qualification. Table 1 shows what is needed: Table 1: Changing distribution of skills in the UK (%)(1) 2007 2020 Gap Level 4 and above

31

40

+9

Level 3

20

28

+8

Level 2

20

22

+2

Below Level 2

17

6

-11

No Qualifications

12

4

-8

Total

100

100

Forecasts like these often prompt scepticism. Some say there is little evidence of higher pay at Level 2. Actually the UKCES evidence is mixed, many level 2 jobs do earn higher pay. And of course Level 2 is a stepping stone to the higher pay at level 3 and 4. Some say that there will always be plenty of jobs for the unqualified such as cleaners, waiters or building site labourers. Others that the labour market is already “oversupplied” with graduates at level 4. Neither is true. Cleaners increasingly use more sophisticated methods and materials, waiters need customer care skills, a glance at building sites will show they employ very few labourers and increasingly assemble factory made components using complex technology. A detailed study of the UK ‘college premium’ for young graduates using data from large cross-section datasets for the UK from 1994 to 2006 – a period when the higher education participation rate increased dramatically – found that even though graduate supply considerably outstripped demand, which ought to imply a fall in the premium, the study found no significant fall for men and even a large, but insignificant, rise for women(2). Of course there are exceptions. There will always be some jobs which need few qualifications and some graduates who find it difficult to get a graduate level job – but the overall trend towards higher skills is very clear.

Equally clear is the impact on inequality. If working people do not manage to gain qualifications then they will increasingly be destined for a life of low pay, poor quality work or unemployment. This is not just a problem for those individuals, it affects the whole of society. The more unequal the distribution of educational attainment(3), the lower is both the average attainment across the whole of society and the lower is the attainment at the highest end. In their massively influential book The Spirit Level, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett show that national educational scores are closely correlated with national income inequality. More unequal countries have worse educational attainment. Countries like Finland outperform the UK at every level of attainment and have much less inequality between the highest and lowest levels of

(1) Ambition 2020: World Class Skills and Jobs for the UK; UK Commission on Employment and Skills, page 45 (2) The College Wage Premium and the Expansion of Higher Education in the UK, Ian Walker and Yu Zhu, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol 110, pages 695-709 (3) The Spirit Level, revised edition 2010, R Wilkinson and K Pickett, Penguin, pages105-109

7

attainment. So the prosperous and well educated middle classes should not ignore the plight of those without qualifications. They and their children will benefit if those with least skills also benefit.

The UK is one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. It came 4th from bottom (only Portugal, the USA and Singapore are worse) in a ranking of 23 developed nations measured by how much richer are the top 20% than the bottom 20%. In the UK the richest 20% are 7 times richer than bottom 20%. In top scoring Japan (Finland came a close second) they are 4 times as rich.(4) This income inequality is reflected in the UK’s poor international standing in the educational league tables, as shown in the table below.

Table 2: International skills position(5) Country

(4) The Spirit Level, pages16-17 (5) Ambition 2020, UKCES, from table 3.1 page 49 (6) Ambition 2020, UKCES, page 48

8

% %Below Upper Secondary Upper Secondary

% Tertiary

USA

12.2

48.3

39.5

Canada

14.4

38.7

47

Switzerland

15

55.1

29.9

Japan

15.3

44.2

40.5

Sweden

15.9

53.6

30.5

Germany

16.8

59.3

23.9

Denmark

18.4

46.9

34.7

Austria

19.7

62.7

17.6

New Zealand

20.2

50.8

29

Finland

20.5

44.3

35.3

Norway

20.9

46.1

33

Hungary

22

60.7

17.2

S. Korea

23.3

43.7

32.9

Netherlands

27.6

42.2

30.2

UK

31

38.8

30.2

France

32.6

41.2

26.2

Belgium

33.1

35.2

31.8

Australia

33.3

33.7

33

Greece

41.4

36.7

21.9

Poland

47.3

34.8

17.9

Italy

48.8

38.5

12.8

Spain

50.3

21.2

28.5

Portugal

72.4

14.1

13.5

And the UK is falling further behind. The UK Commission found that “the UK’s relative position is worse for younger individuals than it is for older people. The progress we are making is often less than for other countries and we are at serious risk of being left behind”(6). Many of the countries with higher skill levels are those with less skill inequality such as Japan, Canada and the Nordic nations. Many of those with lower skill levels are emerging from decades of underdevelopment such as Poland, Greece, Spain and Portugal and on current trends will overtake the UK. In other words, inequality and prosperity go hand in hand. If we want to campaign against poverty and inequality we need to improve skills. If we want a prosperous society

we need to improve skills. And if we want to improve skills we have to do so at all levels, not just for the better off.

Nor can this be left to the next generation. It is an oft quoted statistic that 80% of those at work in the year 2020 are already at work today. Demographics and political pressures suggest we will work longer and retire later, so the figure looks closer to 85%.

So learning needs to be about those already working more than preparing the next generation for the world of work.

And that is where unions come in. Learning is a unique and complex activity. It involves engaging with people, not telling them what to do. It is not about filling empty minds with knowledge (the deficit model) so much as encouraging people to grow their own understanding, using their existing skills to grow new skills. It is not about transferring knowledge from teacher to student but helping people how to find out and make sense of things for themselves, especially in the age of the internet. All of this means learning is done with working people and not to them. Managers cannot make employees learn.

Genuine understanding only comes with a genuine desire to learn. In other words working people will only learn if, literally, they feel like it.

Through their own unions, working people can collectively discuss the kind of learning they want, how it should be organised and delivered. Employees (and the state) want and need learning which is wider and longer term than the more immediate profit driven needs of employers. Reconciling these aims is the keystone of any skills strategy. Again, that’s where unions come in. By sitting down with employers, unions can discuss and agree an employee training scheme which collectively meets both short and long term needs, skills directly related to work and broader developmental learning.

Above all, unions provide the confidence and trust needed for successful work based learning. Employees who may feel unsure of their skills are not likely to confide in their manager. They are far more likely to confide in their own union learning rep, who is one of them. There is a perfectly understandable anxiety that managers may think that employees are admitting they can’t do the job very well. Good managers know and understand this, which is why they encourage and support union learning.

Unions perform another vital role. It is not enough just to gain qualifications. If skills are not used they are forgotten. Unions can help employers to expand the scope of jobs to absorb new skills. Upskilling a workforce means changing culture, hierarchies and job design. A higher skilled workplace may well be less authoritarian, more open to debate, care more about ending dreary job routines – and of course have higher pay.

Employees want all that and so should good employers but achieving change needs joint commitment. The UK is poor at skill utilisation. Unions can help employers make it better.

The UK skills problem is not because people do not want to learn. Working people know very well that better skills are the passport to a better life. But if managers don’t know what kind of training their employees want then they will either not provide much training or provide the wrong kind – and if that results in few volunteers then managers will wrongly conclude there is little appetite for training. So the union role is crucial.

Without the trusted intermediary of the union learning rep it will inevitably be more difficult to organise the right kind of training. All too often the training budget goes to those employees who ask for it and have always had the training – professionals and senior managers. Those who arguably need it most, the least qualified, get least.

Giving a voice to the least well qualified, via the union, can transform who gets training.

The result is not just a fairer allocation of learning opportunities but also better returns

9

This union learning role in the workplace goes hand in hand with the wider union role campaigning for a fairer learning system beyond the workplace. Unions’ understanding of the problems faced by their members at work is the basis of union campaigning for a better skills system. Fighting poverty and inequality cannot be confined to the realm of politics, nor just to what happens at work. Union learning is a dynamic which includes both practical support for learning at work and lobbying for better funding, rights and opportunities. Each rely on the other and together they form the unique and vital contribution made by union learning to the fight against poverty and unfairness, the fight for better quality work, and for a more prosperous society.

10

Almost every union in the UK has a learning programme. Overall, the scale of activity is impressive. In the past 10 years more than 25,000 Union Learning Reps have been trained, over 800,000 working people have been involved in some form of learning, there are over 1,000 workplace learning centres and unions have negotiated over 1,500 learning agreements with employers. All this activity has developed steadily since the early days of the TUC “Bargaining for Skills” programme of the nineties, which in turn built on the experience of many unions before that, including the Unison “Return to Learn” programme and the similar big education programmes delivered by the then TGWU, AUEW or GMB. And of course the delivery of education for members and reps through individual union programmes or via the TUC Education service goes back decades to the early days of the union movement. Unions have always been involved in delivering, and campaigning on, education for working people, not least through the Workers Educational Association, the National Council of Labour Colleges, and the Open University. Unionlearn is the learning and skills arm of the TUC, it was launched in 2006 but it grew out of this long and successful history.

Chapter 1 The Current State of Union Learning

Today, unions are more involved in learning than ever before. Latest figures from unionlearn show that in 2009/10 almost 250,000 working people were involved in a learning opportunity delivered through their union, and supported by unionlearn. Of these, 5,000 were enrolled in degree level courses, 22,000 enrolled on Level 3 (equivalent to A level), 40,000 on level 2 (equivalent to GCSE), over 35,000 were engaged in a Continual Professional Development programme and thousands more engaged in a wide range of other less formal or accredited (but often equally valuable) learning. The courses range from entry level literacy, numeracy or I.C.T to customer care, apprenticeships of all kinds, management, and job specific training. Many courses are informal and some are “tasters” such as photography or cookery or local history which very often lead on to more formal, employment related courses.

There is a vast range of activity which very largely depends on the union involved.

For example ATL (a large teaching union) has over 1,000 members enrolled, via the union, on a professional teaching course through a Higher Education Institution. Unite (a very large general union) has thousands of members who are migrant workers learning English for Speakers of Other Languages. Unison ( a very large public sector union) has embedded learning at all levels and in all regions of the union, Dave Prentis, General Secretary, made it a highlight of his speech at the 2010 annual conference.

Many specialist unions have highly developed programmes tailored to their members, for example the Prison Officers Association has been given the contract by government to deliver training to ensure all prison officers reach at least level 2; The Fire Brigades Union works closely with the Fire and Rescue Service to deliver higher level professional and management training. The Public and Commercial Services Union (a large union for low to medium paid civil servants) runs a big learning programme aimed at helping members improve both their workplace skills/job prospects and skills to help them become active in the union. Almost every union runs a programme (themselves and/or via the TUC Education service) to train workplace reps and officers. In 2009 the TUC programme trained almost 60,000 – more than twice the number at the height of union membership in 1980. Union learning is flourishing as never before.

Employer Support Whatever their views on other union activities, employers who know about union learning are strong supporters. In 2009 unionlearn commissioned the biggest ever survey of union learning from Leeds University. It covered 415 employers who between them employed almost 1m people in workplaces where there was union learning(7).

It found that: •

91% of managers agree that unions should continue to develop their role in the learning agenda

(7) Assessing the impact of union learning and the Union Learning Fund: union and employer perspectives; Prof Mark Start, Hugh Cook, Jo Cutter, Prof Jonathan Winterton; Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change, Leeds university Business

11

•

79% are very supportive of the union role in learning

•

87% of managers say their organisation will continue to be involved with union learning activities

•

81% say union learning benefited the individuals taking part

•

63% say union learning was of benefit to the organisation

The reason why employers are so supportive is straightforward. Union learning delivers results. Asked whether learning outcomes had increased/stayed the same/decreased, the percentage of managers responding was: increased

stayed the same

decreased

Take-up of job related training?

41%

59%

0%

Number of employees gaining qualifications?

55%

44%

1%

Continuing Professional Development?

31%

60%

0%

Positively addressed basic skills gaps?

46%

39%

16%

Number of apprentices?

15%

83%

2%

Equality of access to training opportunities?

56%

43%

1%

Employer expenditure on training?

23%

72%

6%

The effect of union learning is not just better learning outcomes; it goes well beyond that to better outcomes for the organisation as a whole: increased

stayed the same

decreased

Organisational performance?

32%

67%

1%

Service and/or Quality indicators?

34%

66%

0%

Health and Safety?

39%

61%

0%

Staff turnover?

4%

87%

9%

Staff Morale?

42%

56%

3%

Employee commitment?

39%

60%

2%

Levels of union/management trust?

42%

54%

4%

Negotiation on training issues?

40%

59%

1%

Consultation on training issues?

46%

54%

0%

On almost all of these indicators the level of employer support was much higher where a learning agreement had been negotiated - which shows how bargaining on skills and some formalisation can help make even stronger progress. It is also interesting that managers are far more prepared to negotiate or consult the union on training after they can see value of union input – national figures show that across the entire economy (i.e. including the two thirds of workplaces where unions are not present) the level of consultation on training is only 9%.

The added value to employers of working with unions could not be clearer from these survey results. There are relatively few studies which translate training into bottom line benefits to employers. This survey not only does that but shows a very striking level of bottom line impact. In other words involving unions in learning not only improves training but is also more likely to ensure that training is cost effective.

12

Union Views The Leeds University survey included a survey of union officers running Union Learning Fund(8) projects. It found union learning was equally popular with employees and made them think much better of their union: Table 3 Union views on impact of union learning impact Improved employees attitudes to the union Contributed to increased union membership Increased enrolment on other union courses Increased member involvement in union activities Increased interest in taking on union roles Increased interest by ULRs in other union roles Increased capability of union workplace reps

strongly agree

agree

neither

disagree

strongly disagree

44

44

11

0

0

20

43

32

6

0

25

52

17

6

0

35

46

19

0

0

20

57

22

0

0

34

43

17

6

0

20

54

24

2

0

Again these are strikingly positive figures. Almost 90% of Union officials engaged in learning say that employees (many of whom would not even be union members) either agree or strongly agree that union learning is a good thing for their union to engage in.

Over 60% think it has helped unions recruit new members. Over 90% think members will become more active within the union. At a time when union membership is broadly static (nonetheless no small achievement during a recession) and when unions are keen to find new ways to engage more members in union activity, these figures are crucially important. Union learning must play a major role in any plans to revitalise union membership and activity.

Of course many unions already know this. The link between learning and organising is well established. A 2009 study(9) found that: “The research suggests that unions are increasingly promoting a relationship between learning and organising at national union level. Unions are bringing learning and organising together in their departmental structures, or developing links between separate learning and organising departments around specific campaigns. Some unions are also integrating the two at regional union level by placing Union Learning Project Workers in regional organising teams. Another trend is to designate Union Learning Project Workers as organisers, to reflect how they are organising around the learning agenda. Union education and training is also developing the link between the two functions, with learning reflected in activist training and organising in ULR training.”

A good example of this integration is Unison’s Learning and Organising Services (LAOS) which brings them together in a single high profile department. PCS have had a single department since 2002 and other unions are moving in the same direction.

The relationship between learning and organising is strong but varies between unions, reflecting different memberships and strategies. Unionlearn compiled a resource pack featuring 7 case studies in 2008. It covered a TGWU recruitment drive among migrant

(8) The Union Learning Fund is a £15.5M fund, distributed by unionlearn with government oversight, to unions after a bidding process. It has been running for 12 years, initially managed by government before moving to unionlearn in 2006. The survey asked union officials involved with the ULF for their views on its impact in their union.

(9) Integrating Union Learning and Organising Strategies; Sian Moore, Working Lives Research Institute, London Metropolitan University, Unionlearn Research Paper 8, March 2009, page 4

13

Tayside based on better CPD; a CWU (postal workers) call centre campaign aimed at younger workers issues; an ATL recruitment drive based on better in-service training; a Unison campaign at Exeter University offering workplace skills for the first time in their lives to administrative workers; and a FDA (senior civil servants) seminar on better professional skills which saw 17 new members sign up on the spot. In every case there was an increase in both membership and activism, both immediate and longer term.

Very many unions find that for members who take up the ULR role it is the first time they have ever been a union activist, many go on to further union roles or become union officials.

Some see union learning as just about basic “skills for life”. In other words level 1 literacy and numeracy and ICT skills. Certainly those are important skills but union learning goes far wider. Over 40% of all union members already have Higher Education (degree or equivalent) qualifications. The great majority of the remaining 60% have level 2 or 3 skills. Union learning reflects this pattern. Unions like USDAW, representing workers in retail and distribution, focus on skills up to level 2. USDAW’s pioneering “checkout learning” programme has helped thousands of their members gain qualifications equivalent to GCSE, often for the first time in their lives. Equally, unions representing more highly qualified employees, aim at HE qualifications. For example ATL, representing teaching staff, have organised a programme with Edgehill College of Higher Education which now has 3,000 ATL members enrolled on in-service courses.

Very many members are not content to gain just level 2 but, once they realise what they can do, aspire to level 3 and 4. Unionlearn has negotiated discounts of 10% or more on courses from the Open University, Birckbeck College, Kingston University and others.

A Unison cleaner in a university law department became a lecturer in that same department, through Unison’s “return to learn” programme. The FBU helped a firefighter move from level 2 to a PhD in 7 years, all through work-based learning.

As the economy and workforce move towards higher average skill levels, there will be ever more demand for higher level union learning. Nor will it always take the form of specific courses. Many professional union members want to engage in continual professional development (CPD) but find their employers need persuading or the CPD courses on offer are not appropriate. So unions are organising better CPD (as ATL did) and ensuring it recognises, supports and enhances the work their members actually do.

Unions are helping to break down the barriers between Further Education and Higher Education; between academic and vocational. As HE becomes ever more expensive unions are negotiating with employers for more help with fees. Unions are negotiating with FE and HE institutions to offer learning tailored to members’ needs; such as more on-line learning, more recognition of the learning members have already gained via experience, more courses tailored to the jobs members do or aspire to. Above all, union learning is dynamic and democratic. It champions members’ right to progress, to carry on learning, either for its own sake or to achieve higher qualifications, skills and pay.

That is what union members want.

Union Learning Reps are the bedrock of union learning. Unionlearn commissions a biennial survey of ULRs, the 2009 survey(10) showed:

(10) Learning works, Report of the 2009 survey of union learning representatives and their managers; Richard Saundry, Alison Hollinrake and Valerie Antcliff, University of Central Lancashire Business School, unionlearn April 2010

14

•

43% of ULRs are women, 8.4% are Black or Minority Ethnic and 39% are aged under 46. In other words ULRs are much more likely than other union representatives to be women, black and young – and more likely to be representative of union membership

•

One third of ULRs are new to trade union activity

•

Over 80% of ULRs feel supported by the union and 87% are happy to continue in the role

•

Over two thirds report adequate support from their line managers but only 34% feel valued by senior management

•

Two thirds negotiate with their employer over learning

•

94% of ULRs had given advice to members/employees(11), and three quarters had arranged or helped arrange courses for colleagues

•

Three quarters of ULRs had helped recruit new members to the union

•

Activity is rising, over 40% of ULRs said they were more active against 27% who said less active

•

Two thirds of ULRs feel their work has helped improve management/union dialogue: over half of managers agree

•

Almost 60% of managers think ULRs have helped improve basic skills and 90% say the recession has not undermined their support for union learning – though both ULRs and managers said the recession had put pressure on budgets and placed more emphasis on job-related training.

Of course union learning is not confined to ULRs. In fact about two thirds of ULRs also hold another union post, e.g. shop steward or departmental rep or health and safety rep. Nor is engaging with employers left just to ULRs. Others from the union branch are usually involved at workplace level and union officers are increasingly involved in discussions or negotiations with employers. This trend towards “mainstreaming” union learning is gathering pace. The vast majority of unions now have formal recognition of ULRs in their rule books, places for ULRs on branch committees, learning committee structures which are accountable to the Union Executive, learning conferences and so forth. While ULF funding is essential, most unions increasingly supplement this with their own resources. At national level union learning is increasingly prominent on union bargaining agendas. Many ULRs have become active more widely and been appointed as union full time officers, bringing the learning agenda with them as they rise within the union. Many unions have welcomed the influx of new activism which ULRs bring.

All of this survey evidence confirms that union learning is a growing force, is strongly supported by both managers and unions, has a major positive impact in the workplace, is delivering benefits to all employees (and particularly to those who have previously had least access to training), and is helping raise the nation’s present and future skills.

But at what cost? Has it led unions to go soft on employers or government? Is learning a “soft” issue where unions should be semi-detached? Are unions being seduced into a narrow utilitarian view of learning? Is it diverting unions from a much tougher approach to learning? Why do so many union reps and officials who are involved in learning feel that their unions treat it as a distinct and lesser activity? These are the issues discussed in the next section.

(11) Very few unions make any distinction between members and non-members in practice, very often offering help to non-members is seen as a good recruitment tool

15

Chapter 2 Union learning – a soft activity?

(12) For an excellent summary of the history see An Historical Overview of Trade Union Involvement in Education and Training; Moira Calveley, in Learning With Trade Unions, Ashgate, 2008, pages 13 to 31

A brief look at history helps explain attitudes to union learning. Although there is a long history of union involvement in learning, it was for a long time seen as peripheral to the core concern with gaining recognition and bargaining on pay, jobs and conditions.

There is little mention of education, training or learning in the magisterial History of British Trade Unions (vol 1 published in 1964, vol 2 in 1985) by Clegg, Fox and Thompson. Nor any mention in Clegg’s 1954 history of the GMWU. Classics like Working for Ford by Huw Beynon (1975) or Carter Goodrich’s The Frontier of Control (1920) also contain little on unions and learning, although they are both, arguably, about widening workers’ perspectives in exactly the way that union learning does today.

There are hardly any references to training, education or learning in other classics, whether of left or right, such as George Bain’s Growth of White Collar Unionism (1970); Robin Page Arnott’s The Miners in Crisis and War (1961), or Cole’s Attempts at General Union (1953).

To some extent, this may well have been right. In the 19th century unions had a hard struggle simply existing, let alone providing training services, in the teeth of fierce opposition. Not surprisingly, issues of organising, recognition, and bitter battles over pay and conditions took centre stage(12). In the 20th century, as union membership grew and unions became more established, unions’ own education services also grew, albeit slowly, and primarily aimed at helping reps and officers carry out their union work. Of course throughout their formative years unions had a passionate interest in education for their members and the working class. The struggle for the 8 hour day was largely to allow time for adult instruction in evening classes, which is where many union leaders gained both their union and wider education. The TUC lobbied hard for the 1870 Elementary Education Act which gave free schooling, for the first time, to the children of the working class. The TUC carried on the fight for better funding and raising the school leaving age (it only got to age 12 in 1899 and even then was partly discretionary) and still does today. Central to the New Unionism of the 1890’s was a belief that the movement should do more to improve wider social conditions. Tom Mann, the engineering union leader, attended evening classes three times a week which, he said, helped him become a union leader and in particular lead the 8 Hour movement.

He called for “Leisure to think, to learn, to acquire knowledge, to enjoy, to develop; in short leisure to live.”(13) (his emphasis).

(13) From Calveley, see above, page 15 (14) Royal Commission on Trades Unions and Employers Associations, Chair Lord Donovan, Cmnd 3623, June 1968, Para 357 to 359, pages 92 to 93: “Prejudice against women is manifest at all levels of management as well as on the shop floor. Among the professions there are to be found demarcation rules and rules for qualifying to practise which are no less strict and no less open to question than those practised in many crafts. There are, however, some encouraging signs that the need for a transformation in our system is gaining wider recognition. The trades unions co-operation in the rapid expansion of the government training centres is greatly to be welcomed. The levy and grant system under the 1964 Act has stimulated employers to devote greater attention to industrial training in all its aspects. We doubt, however, whether the urgency and scale of the problem have yet been appreciated.”

(15) Trade Unionism; pub by the TUC, November 1966, pages 10-11

16

At the same time, organisations aimed at helping union education grew up outside the unions: the WEA was founded in 1903, Ruskin College in 1899, the Plebs League founded the Central Labour College (CLC) in 1909, The Workers Education Trade Union Committee WETUC) was formed in 1919 to strengthen the WEA’s work with unions and the CLC became the National CLC in 1921. For the next 40 years there was great rivalry between the WEA (which received some state funding) and NCLC, each accusing the other of Marxist indoctrination/selling out to capitalism and it was not until 1964 that the TUC finally took over the NCLC and WETUC so as to bring trade union education in-house. It was then managed by the TUC Education Committee which covered both policy issues (lobbying government for better training and education systems) and delivery of union education for reps and officers. This did not end the debate but thereafter it carried on within the TUC, and was frequently the subject of impassioned debate at Congress.

Shortly afterwards the 1968 Donovan Commission was set up to consider the trade union “problem”. Its report(14) contained much (including some trenchant criticism) on unions and training. The TUC evidence to Donovan(15) described the work of the TUC Education Committee and gave it some prominence. An influential research paper for the Donovan Commission by John Hughes of Ruskin College on Trade Union Structure and Governance, argued strongly for much more emphasis by both unions and the TUC on training of representatives and officers, though he commended the (generally)

exemplary efforts of the GMWU and the TGWU. There was much activity and debate on union education (for reps and officers if not for members), even if it had a lower profile than reforming the law on taking industrial action.

Yet the 1964 Industrial Training Act, which established levies on employers to encourage training, overseen by joint union/management training bodies, was perhaps the high water mark of union involvement in training. (Though some commentators might say the high water mark was in the mid seventies with the involvement of unions in the early days of the Manpower Services Commission.) The criticism it faced was from those who saw unions being sucked into a managerial agenda and those who wished to preserve the restrictions on entry to skilled trades by “dilutees”. The Donovan Commission, on the other hand, argued strongly for what would be seen today by most trades unionists as a more progressive agenda: reform of the apprenticeship system needed because it discriminated strongly against women and because “time serving” gave no guarantee of skill level; reform of the dilution agreements or at least that unions nationally should try to ensure they were observed locally.

On TU Education it said(16) “So far as training is concerned, trade unions are urged to develop courses for junior full time officers, both on and shortly after appointment and after some experience, and for shop stewards. For the latter, day release courses with the employer’s co-operation offer the best prospects; grants from industrial training boards could be used to increase the number and raise the standard of these courses.”

There was little mention of trades unions offering a wider learning service to members, that was seen as either the role of the state through, for example, adult evening classes, or of organisations like the WEA, funded by the state or local authorities.

Throughout most of the seventies and eighties, trade union involvement in learning focussed on building up rep and officer training on the one hand, funded by unions and government, and on the other hand a long hard fought retreat from involvement in employer training. By the end of the eighties there were only two industries left with training levies and statutory union representation, Construction and Engineering Construction. Unions’ own capacity, voluntarism, grew as involvement with the state, corporatism, declined. Between 1976 and 1988 training strategy (such as it was) within Britain was run by the tripartite (Government, CBI and TUC) Manpower Services Commission. In 1988, following the refusal by the TUC representatives on the Commission to support a new training scheme (which included little real training) for the adult unemployed, the government abolished the Commission replaced it by the short-lived Training Agency which was replaced by local employer-dominated Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs). Initially some unions refused any dealings with TECs but union involvement gradually increased until almost every TEC had a union representative on its board and a concordat was signed with the TUC(17). The advent of the 1997 Labour government brought statutory rights for ULRs and much more attention to skills. Sector Skills Councils were set up with union involvement (often only after some pressure) and the Learning and Skills Council also set up with union and TUC involvement, but long cherished TUC policies for extending statutory recognition to cover collective bargaining on training made no progress though the Conservative government’s cuts in funding for union education were reversed.

What does this brief historical tour show about attitudes to unions and learning?

First, that bringing training of reps and officers under union control is relatively recent.

Second, that extending union learning to members is even more recent. Third that debate over the purpose of union learning is not new, albeit the terms of the debate have largely moved from overthrow/accomodation to capitalism to skills for work/wider learning. Fourth that active government involvement in training policy and unions’ own training (for which government funding is essential) has grown but always been

(16) Donovan Commission; page 272 (17) For an excellent overview of this period see Unionlearn Research paper no 5, From Voluntarsim to PostVoluntarism, the emerging role of unions in the vocational education and training

17

controversial; there is deep rooted scepticism about government involvement.

But history also shows a clear sense of direction: unions have become increasingly involved in both delivery and policy over the years. Government support has grown.

Union involvement in skills policy is becoming more important.

Recent growth in union learning is the continuation of this long march. The advent of ULRs, the growth of the ULF and unionlearn, union involvement with training policy via SSCs (although this has varied with each SSC) and greater government funding – these are all squarely in line with the fundamental aims and historical development of trade unionism. The challenges it faces today are the same as those in the past. Seeing union learning as a semi-detached or “soft” activity reflects old debates, the charge had little truth then but even less today.

Mark Stuart, author of the Leeds survey,(18) describes and rebuts the kind of challenges which union learning faces today well: “First, what is the benefit of union learning for unions themselves and their membership? Is union learning about individual member services or can it embody more collectivist approaches? Critics would see learning as a ‘displacement’ activity that distracts unions from core issue of pay and collective bargaining (McIlroy, 2008). Yet, research suggests that members’ themselves are enthusiastic about learning, with a large unmet demand for learning that unions can mobilise around and link to core union activities (Findlay et al, 2007; Moore and Ross, 2008). Second, how does union learning influence employer policy and practice on learning and do employers see any value in engagement with unions? For critics, the lack of constraints on employer prerogative means that cooperation with unions on learning may not be forthcoming or limited to marginal policies and practice: with the effect that unions are unable to raise levels of employer investment in training (Hoque and Bacon, 2008). Yet, equally, there are numerous studies that show that unions can influence employer policy and learning outcomes for the better (Heyes and Stuart, 1998; Stuart and Robinson, 2007). Moreover, few studies have actually surveyed employers about their views on any perceived benefits of engagement with unions on learning (Bacon and Hoque, 2009, is an exception). Finally, what do developments in union learning tell us about the relationship between unions and the state? Critics argue that funding for union learning activities has reduced the TUC to an ‘arm of the state’; delivering, instead of influencing, state policies, whose limited ambition fails to deliver a high skills economy (Lloyd and Payne, unions can shape government policy (Mustchin, 2009). More widely, how unions use state funding; McIlroy, 2008). Yet, research has shown how unions can shape government policy (Mustchin, 2009). More widely, how unions use state funding and the outcomes that this delivers requires empirical assessment.”

Stuart is right. The empirical evidence simply does not support these challenges.

(18) Leeds Report; pages 9-10 which includes references to the authors cited (19) See www.unionlearn.org.uk

18

Union Learning is not inherently individualistic, quite the reverse. In fact the curriculum for Trade Union Education relies heavily on a collective approach, using discussion and problem sharing. It teaches the skills of listening, sharing and collective action.

Wider learning for union members is equally collective. The network of College providers that unionlearn works with are chosen for their commitment to a collective trade union approach to learning. And unionlearn is piloting Collective Learning Fund(19) pilots i.e. a way of employees and/or unions pooling their funding. Far from distracting from collective approaches, the growing union involvement in learning has fuelled a more collective approach to training, both in relations with employers and relations with government.

Union learning does have a significant influence on employers, given the chance to show what it can do. The Leeds survey provides clear evidence not just of strong

employer support but also of how employers are changing their behaviour: increasing training spending, opening up learning opportunities much more equally, and taking on more apprentices. Of course employers should do far more and it is still relatively early in the life of ULRs and the ULF, but these are positive signs.

Less clear, admittedly, is influence on government. Certainly the former Labour government demonstrated its strong commitment to union learning and ministers in the coalition government have also expressed strong support.(20) They have seen and warmly welcomed the significant expansion of union learning. Critics would point to unions’ failure to get any statutory right to collective bargaining on training, to the lack of a genuine social partnership approach, or to the weakness (e.g. compared to Europe) of apprenticeship frameworks. Others would point to the new statutory right to request time to train, the inclusion of TUC and union representatives on the UK Commission for Employment and Skills or the erstwhile LSC, and to the fact that Labour massively expanded apprenticeship training and other funds for workplace learning. Much that the Labour government did was in line with union policy, for example the £5bn investment in basic skills to help those in most need. Some might say that government might have been more influenced if the union movement had developed a more coherent and practicable policy agenda for learning and raised its profile further. Appendix 1 summarises such a possible agenda. Overall it seems reasonable to say that unions have undoubtedly had some impact and will continue to do so.

What about the argument that taking government funding has reduced unions, and in particular the TUC or unionlearn, to being an arm of the state?(21) There are two answers to this. The first is that the facts suggest otherwise. The government does not dictate, for example, the allocation of ULF grants to unions. That is done by a panel of union officers according to criteria agreed by the unionlearn Board, drawn from the TUC General Council. It is certainly true that government is represented and involved but does not seek to control the process. Equally, the Trade Union Education programme, while it is delivered in Colleges which draw down government funding, is not subject to government control. The curriculum and training of tutors are all overseen by unionlearn.

This is not, of course, to argue that unionlearn can do what it likes. Courses are all accredited externally, funding is subject to transparent external audit and activity is subject to external quality assessment via Ofsted.

The second objection is that a glance at the history of union learning would celebrate, not criticise, government funding. It has been a long standing union aim to get government recognition for unions; both for their role in civil society and their role in the workplace.(22) Of course unions want to retain their independence and there has been a long tradition of voluntarism in the UK (unlike e.g. the USA where unions are far more highly regulated) but unions cannot themselves fund and organise all the delivery of training to their members, nor should they. Unions campaign today (as they did in the mid 19th century) for state education and training, both initially up to age 18 and beyond. Most progressives would see the state having a strong role in funding lifelong learning as one of the hallmarks of a civilised society. That should include union learning, both wider learning opportunities for members and union education for reps and officers. Many admire the strength of the Nordic trade unions, which have a major role in the state welfare and training system, and would celebrate the fact that, unions (in the shape of unionlearn) are given a similar (unique in the UK) role in distributing government funding.

Here is an example of workplace learning which would never have happened without unionlearn: Many union members struggle with cancer, affecting them, their friends or family. In 2009 unionlearn and Macmillan cancer support jointly began work on a guide to help union reps gain the skills to help. Many people do not find it easy to know what

(20) Both the Secretary of State, Vince Cable, and Minister for Skills, John Hayes, expressed strong support for unionlearn at the July 27th 2010 unionlearn annual conference (21) See, for example, McIlroy, John, Ten Years of New Labour: Workplace Learning, Social Partnership and Union Revitalization in Britain; British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 46, Issue 2, pages 283-313, June 2008 (22) Ref to BERR (now BIS) estimate of monetary value of union contribution

19

to say, how best to offer work-related advice and support. The joint guide, launched in 2010, along with associated training, gives practical examples and has been warmly welcomed by employers and unions alike. It builds on union’s health and safety campaigning, offering emotional support as well as defending workers’ rights. Here is another example: In 2009 unionlearn launched a nationwide project to help working people affected by the recession. The project offers help in reskilling, either to avert redundancy or to help the jobless find new work. It trains reps in the skills needed to help members who may be worrying about or dealing with redundancy, gives advice on money, managing relationships, finding new jobs, persuading an employer to train during short time working. And it firmly points training in the direction of the “green” skills needed to build a competitive low carbon economy. These projects are not driven by government, neither would have happened without union learning.

The real argument about government involvement is not about funding (few would seriously disagree with that beyond the extreme right) but about the strings attached i.e. government influence over what is taught. In fact there are few strings. Sian Moore’s evaluation of ULRs puts it clearly: “Whilst the government's learning and skills agenda has moved away from a broad conceptualisation of learning for social and self-development and towards an increasingly narrow interpretation of lifelong learning based upon employability, ULRs and trade unions have not abandoned this vision.

At the same time, union expectations of the role of the ULR appear to have shifted and they are increasingly seen as part of wider union recruitment and organising strategies.”(23) In other words, the government vision has not become the union vision.

So what is the union vision?

(23) The evolving role of ULRs; Sian Moore and Cilla Ross, Working Lives Research Institute, London Metropolitan University, Professional Development in Education, Vol 34, Issue 4, Dec 2008, pages 423-440

20

Unions have always been concerned with members’ welfare: chiefly members’ pay; together with members’ conditions, jobs and ability to lead fulfilling lives. But if unions bargain only on pay, they will have little ability to influence pay. The economy and labour market are changing radically. In today’s complex, global, high skill economy pay is increasingly the outcome of many different factors. Unions need to influence those factors to influence pay – and jobs and conditions and leading fulfilling lives.

Chief among those factors are the skills of the workforce. That pragmatism is a major driver of union involvement in learning.

Chapter 3 The union vision for learning

Members know this. Indeed recent surveys(24) have shown a sharp increase in the numbers of working people interested in training. That has partly been fuelled by the recession but also by recognition that gaining skills is essential to getting or retaining a decent job. The professional/associate professional unions have long expected their unions to play an active role in professional regulation and continuing professional development frameworks. The same pressure is there in the manual, semi-skilled and craft unions which have long argued for training agreements giving members more opportunities and better payment for higher skills. The recognition of the importance of learning for work is not new, it is simply becoming stronger. The NIACE survey shows that employees at all levels want and are getting more training: •

60% of full time adult workers plan to take up training, up 13% since 2009

•

58% of part time adult workers plan to take up training, up 9% since 2009

•

67% of the unemployed plan to take up training, up 17% on 2009

•

56% of social classes AB have had current or recent training

•

51% of social class C1 have had current or recent training

•

37% of social class C2 have had current or recent training

•

30% of social classes DE have had current or recent training, up from 25%

These are striking figures; the DE jump up from 25% (where it had been for many years) is very significant and may reflect union learning influence as well as wider government priorities.

Of course this pragmatic reason for supporting skills is not the only factor. There is radicalism too in the union vision of learning. Paulo Freire famously argued in The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, for an education built around the learner, their understanding of their place in society, their oppression and how it had evolved.

He argued for an educational system based not on authoritarian hierarchies but on shared problem solving: “In problem-posing education, people develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation.”(25) This could easily serve as a description of Trade Union Education. It builds on the experience of the learner, develops their understanding of their situation and their ability to act, through negotiation and organising, to change it.

The fact that at the same time TUC Education (like many union education programmes) is both quality assured and accredited (itself a significant achievement) does not lessen its radicalism. Accreditation is very important to learners who want to know that their learning has a currency, is recognised by their own or other employers, and is something they can feel proud of. But at the same time, of the 233,000 learners involved in learning with unionlearn support in 2009/10, around half were not engaged in accredited programmes. They were doing a variety of “taster” courses through e.g.

Learning at Work Day or the autumn 2009 “Festival of Learning”. Some learning involved people exchanging skills, teaching each other. Learning does not have to be

(24) A Change for the Better, the 2010 NIACE survey of adult learning (25) The Pedagogy of the Oppressed; Paulo Freire, 1970, Penguin ed 1996,

21

accredited (though unions want to make sure it is of good quality) to be valuable, both to employers and learners. The important point is that the learner has a choice, as Freire would argue, and is not tied down by training which only their employer recognises.

Or take Ivan Illich, another radical educationalist. He argued against formal educational structures which suppressed real change and for a different kind of teacher. Arguing against what he described as educational administrators he argued for network builders who would: ...”demonstrate genius at ...facilitating encounters among students, skill models, educational leaders and educational objects. Many persons now attracted to teaching are profoundly authoritarian and would not be able to assume this task: building educational exchanges would mean making it easy for people ...the educational path of each student would be his own (sic) to follow, and only in retrospect would it take on the features of a recognisable programme.”(26) This network builder is not a bad description of a ULR. Many workers became attracted to the second chance offered by union learning precisely because it was better than their authoritarian and negative experience of schooling. The use of collective exchanges and networks is how unions support their learning. Indeed unionlearn has recently re-launched an electronic Information Advice and Guidance tool a “Climbing Frame” which provides practical support to learners and ULRs in the way Illich describes.

This wider, radical, vision is immensely powerful. It was vividly brought to life in The Pitmen Painters, a hit play(27) describing a group of miners in the thirties who took up painting in an evening class which they largely ran themselves, though their tutor was a university academic provided through the WEA. The same vision drove the early pioneers who set up working men’s or mechanic’s institutes, the weavers who recited Shelley at their looms, and just as much today, the thousands of working people who have set up learning centres at their workplace so they have their own space where they feel comfortable learning. It is a vision which crosses political boundaries, witness the enthusiastic support for adult education shown by the new coalition government. And it is a vision which has massive public support, evident in the surging numbers attending museums or art galleries, digging up local or family history, watching TV documentaries, forming book clubs or attending pub quiz nights. Learning, especially learning which is both enjoyable and organised by the learner, is more popular than ever before. Union learning is a powerful way in which unions can strengthen their links with this wider public movement.

(26) Deschooling Society; Ivan Illich, 1971, Marion Boyars ed 2002, page 98 (26) The Pitmen Painters; Lee Hall, inspired by a book by William Feaver.

It was a co-production between the Live Theatre Newcastle and the National Theatre, London and ran for several months. The group of miners met in their hut after work and, having had no previous training, produced some amazing paintings as well as learning, through argument and discussion with

22

So union learning is unashamedly pragmatic, but also radical. It helps learners in their job or to get a better job; but also, if they wish, to transform their lives and do something quite different. It is passionate about equality and fairness, challenging employers and educational structures to ensure that the most disadvantaged (not least migrants) get a better deal. It argues for both state funding and independence; for external accreditation, quality control and audit, but also for choice over course and certification. If this is complex and messy then that reflects people’s lives and choices.

Critics who argue against government funding, or external assessment, or employer involvement would reduce choices available to members. The current pattern of union learning has been developed by unions to represent what their members want. That democratic base is the fundamental reason why it works.

Jobs, pay, conditions and welfare will always be the centre of union activity, but learning will increasingly take its place alongside them. The economic, social, cultural and labour market pressures described above will only become stronger. Already the vast majority of unions are, or have already written ULRs into their rule book, established learning structures at branch regional and national level, appointed learning staff, and linked learning to wider union strategies like organising.(28)

Chapter 4 Future Prospects

The next stage in the process of integration is to include more learning issues in the bargaining agenda. Of course there has always been bargaining on skills. The craft unions have a long tradition of negotiating agreements on training and apprenticeships.

Teaching unions have agreements on e.g. in-service training. The health unions have a comprehensive “skills escalator” framework within the Agenda for Change agreement.

The Public Services Forum, which brings together government and the public sector unions, reached agreement on a detailed set of recommendations aimed at improving skills. So there is already a strong foundation on which to build.

But learning is more complex and diverse than most bargaining issues. Different unions will take different positions on a range of key questions, depending on their membership, traditions and strategies, for example: •

Which learning should the union aim to provide itself and which press the employer to provide?

•

Should the union aim to cover the full range of learning needs?

•

What balance to strike between informal or accredited; job-related or wider?

•

Should the union aim to deliver the training itself or organise it via a third party?

•

Should learning be a distinct service? Integrated with organising? With bargaining?

•

How much should be centrally managed and how much devolved to regions and/or branches?

•

What balance to strike between education for reps and officers/wider learning for members?

•

How much should be funded by the union and how much by government or other external funding?

•

Should the union invest in policy development and research as well as delivery?

The answers to these and many other key questions will determine bargaining strategy.

For example whether to press the employer for: •

more apprenticeships, with better pay and conditions and higher quality training

•

achieving a minimum level of qualification for all staff(29)

•

minimum paid leave entitlements for all staff

•

funding for learning centres

•

action on equality, prioritising skills for those who have least e.g. the low paid, BME or women members

•

stronger agreements which include raising employer investment in learning

•

improved ULR facilities including time off which is a major problem for many ULRs

•

stronger joint bargaining, rather than just consultation, through a formalised training committee

(28) See Leeds Report, table 4, page 15 (29) The PSF Joint Statement of 2008 agreed on a minimum of Basic Skills (roughly equal to level 1) for all employees delivering public services, directly employed or via a contractor; and that level 2 for all would be good practice

23

•

better access to independent skills and career advisory services

•

a jointly managed learning fund

Moreover, unlike pay and conditions, where the issues can (usually) be clearly costed and decided between employer and union, learning involves third parties such as government agencies who may provide some funding or colleges who deliver the training. This can make bargaining a more complex process. On the other hand employers may well be more prepared to enter into discussion on learning than on pay since there are plainly advantages for them in having a more highly skilled workforce.

As the Leeds survey showed, employers were even stronger supporters and the outcomes (for both union and employer) were even stronger where there was a learning agreement. Unlike pay bargaining where (usually) more pay for workers means less money for employers; bargaining on learning can bring gains to both sides. So, though it may take time and will not be simple, there is every likelihood that the onward march of union learning will continue into the heart of union affairs, the world of bargaining.

Of course the elephant in the room is what would happen if government funding were withdrawn or sharply reduced. That remains to be seen and of course major public spending cuts are expected almost everywhere, though government expressions of support for unionlearn could scarcely be stronger. However the removal of funding should not be seen as some kind of virility test which unions ought to be able to withstand. Reduced funding would undoubtedly do major damage. For the past 150 years the union movement has sought government support and rightly so. Funding for the education of reps and officers is a recognition of unions’ role in civil society and supporting the national economy. The relatively small amount of government funding is repaid many times over by the direct benefits to employers in avoidance of unnecessary disputes, better employee relations and reduced staff turnover. For wider union learning, government support is also part of the adult learning service. Of course unions will always provide their own support too, but it will never replace government support, which is a tiny fraction of support to business, nor be expected to.

Union learning will always be distinctive. There will always need to be separate centres of expertise within unions on learning, just as on legal or health and safety issues.

But there should be fewer complaints in the future that it is treated as a second order union activity within unions. Increasingly it is taking its place at the centre of union affairs. Different but equal, it will continue to make a major contribution to the central union mission of fighting poverty and unfairness; and helping members improve their lives.

And finally, there is one further argument in support of union learning. Unions stand for a set of values based on care and respect for people; that society and the economy should be the servants of the people and not the other way round. Learning does that.

It is a profoundly human activity, involving thinking, listening, discussing and collectively sharing some common learning goals. Learning at the workplace helps humanise the world of work, it encourages managers to listen to their employees (and vice versa), it provides a space within which human issues such as different learning styles and interests can be voiced. It encourages learning for its own sake, a central element in union learning. In short it helps us create a world where work is enjoyable and fulfilling for all, not as now, just for the highly educated few.

24

A comprehensive union skills programme(30) might include: •

Make the current £3.5Bn tax relief for employers contingent on raising levels of participation and accreditation so as to ensure government funding supports additional training, not that which would have happened anyway

•

Extend currently minimal tax relief for individuals e.g. to cover cost of course fees, up to a ceiling of the basic rate of tax

•

Require employers to publish basic details of their training investment in Annual Reports

•

Publish (perhaps via the UKCES) an annual equality and diversity report on the distribution of learning throughout society to highlight where action is needed to help disadvantaged groups of actual or potential learners

•

Require SSCs as a condition of relicensing and continued government funding, to a) consider further occupational licensing, b) show how they are encouraging employers to increase investment in “green” skills, c) how they are encouraging a wider sense of entitlement to learning among employees, and d) publish and promote a minimum benchmark level of investment for their sector e.g. 2% of paybill

•

To recognise both demographic and workforce change, rebalance total government education and skills spending, over 10 years, from the current ratio of 86% for those under 25; 11% for the 25 to 50’s; 2.5% for the 50 to 75’s; and 0.5% for the over 75’s to new ratios of 80%/15%/4%/1% - all of this shift could be achieved without cutting investment in under 25’s as their numbers will shrink with demographic change

•

Promote an extended entitlement to Level 2 for all, as the minimum needed to ensure people can exercise their right to participate in society and work

•

Develop a free, universally accessible, Information Advice and Guidance Service designed to help all over 18, which would include signposting to union learning and access to high speed broadband support for e-learning

•

Incentivise, via the funding system, further development of a nationwide credit transfer system applicable across FE and HE to increase the variety and flexibility of ways of building up qualifications for working people

Appendix An agenda for skills policy

• Develop a system of financial help for learners, perhaps via skills accounts and/or subsidised loans, available to all learners, including those in FE and studying Part Time, on a comparable basis to student support for HE •

Explore ways of offering further support for union learning, including ways of encouraging employers who do not recognise unions to consider its benefits

•

Use the lever of government procurement to apply good practice in learning, for example requiring contractors to employ a proportion of apprentices and/or graduates, reach a minimum of level 2 or CPD for their workforce, or apply the SSC recommended minimum % investment in training.

(30) Some of these ideas are drawn from Work and Learning Thematic paper no 7 from the Inquiry into the Future for Lifelong Learning (IFLL), by the author and Jenny Williams. Available via NIACE.

25

26

27