Opening doors to learning - ULR survey report 2008

Opening doors to learning Union learning representative survey report 2008

Contents This survey was designed and analysed by Professor Nicolas Bacon and Professor Kim Hoque from Nottingham University Business School, in consultation with the research and strategy team at unionlearn.

Unionlearn is the TUC organisation that supports union-led strategies for learning and skills. It helps unions open up learning and skills opportunities for their members and develop and deliver trade union education for their representatives and officers. www.unionlearn.org.uk

02

Executive summary

04

Introduction

06

Who are today’s ULRs?

08

Where are today’s ULRs?

11

What do ULRs do in the workplace?

12

How much time do ULRs have for their activities?

14

Training, resources and facility time for ULRs

18

Working with employers

20

Training for members at the workplace

24

What works for ULRs?

28

Next steps

31

References

Foreword

Š Jess Hurd/reportdigital.co.uk

Liz Smith Director unionlearn

This survey of union learning representatives (ULRs) is the fourth to be conducted on behalf of the TUC since 2000, and the first to be commissioned since the launch of unionlearn in 2006. The design of the questions and the analysis of the results were conducted by Professor Nic Bacon and Professor Kim Hoque of Nottingham University.

Several of the questions from the earlier surveys have been carried forward, and the first part of this report describes the profile of current ULRs, and how their role has developed over the years. Where appropriate the report also makes comparisons with the another group of union specialists – health and safety reps.

Previous surveys have concentrated on identifying what ULRs actually do, but this one has gone a step further, by attempting to distil what it is that makes ULRs have an impact on the amount of training provided in the workplace. The value of this type of research is that it gives us the evidence to support the claims that seem so obvious. For example, to be fully effective, a ULR needs to feel valued, and an essential element of feeling valued is to be consulted on learning and training issues at work, ideally for learning and skills to be part of the bargaining agenda.

In May 2008 the Government announced plans to introduce a right to request time off for training, a welcome first step in supporting union efforts to improve access to learning for all workers. This survey goes a long way to providing the evidence to support the TUC campaign for training to be a collective bargaining issue in the statutory union recognition procedure. We expect it to be supported by a supplementary survey of employer contacts identified by the ULRs who responded to the main survey. The detailed results of both surveys will be published in the unionlearn research series later this year.

Opening doors to learning

1

Executive summary

Almost 1,400 valid responses were received to the 2007/8 survey – around 12.5 per cent of all those who were sent a questionnaire.

The analysis reveals a number of good news stories – for unions, ULRs, members and the Government – but it also shows that there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that all ULRs and members get the optimum benefit from union learning.

ULRs continue to stand out as a new breed of union activist: ❚ More than a third had never undertaken any sort of union role before becoming a ULR. ❚ Approximately a third of these ‘new activists’ now have at least one other role in the union. ❚ ULRs are more likely than other union representatives to be women, although age and ethnic background remain similar across the range of representatives.

Responses were received from ULRs in the public, private and voluntary sectors, and from most of the major industrial sectors.

It is clear that ULRs cover all grades of employee, with a third dealing with at least some professional or managerial staff.

Most ULRs work for large organisations and on large sites, but there are a small number who work in organisations with no more than 99 employees.

The amount of time ULRs spend on performing their role has continued to increase over the years; however, over half still spend less than two hours a week on their ULR activities and for more than a third none of the time they spend on ULR duties is paid for by the employer (a further third have to perform at least a proportion of ULR work in their own time).

2

Opening doors to learning

Many ULRs also have to manage without office space, office equipment and communication equipment.

Just over half of ULRs responding had a learning agreement, and fewer than half had access to a learning centre at the workplace.

❚ Managers value ULR activities. ❚ The employer negotiates or consults with unions on training. ❚ ULRs should have contact with some level of management to discuss training.

ULRs perform a wide range of activities: ❚ Almost all give information and advice on learning to their members. ❚ More than half also arrange courses for their members. ❚ Almost half have conducted a learning needs assessment in the last year. ❚ A significant proportion reports that the amount of training undertaken at the workplace has increased during the past year as a result of their activities.

❚ A formal learning agreement with the employer is in place. ❚ Sufficient time per week is available to spend on ULR activity. ❚ ULRs are encouraged and enabled to remain in post long-term. ❚ ULR constituencies should be no larger than 200 members. ❚ A learning needs assessment should be conducted every two years.

Only one third of ULRs felt that their work was valued by their managers, and fewer than half had discussions with their managers about training at least once a quarter.

❚ A learning centre is available in the workplace.

Almost three quarters of ULRs reported that their activities had resulted in an increase of at least one type of training at the workplace.

The support available to ULRs from their unions and from unionlearn needs to be maintained and enhanced, but clearly ULRs also need real support from their employers. Much of their work is of direct benefit to the organisation as well as to workers, however, the work of a substantial majority of ULRs surveyed goes unsupported by their managers.

The researchers used standard statistical methods to establish the key ingredients of ULRs' successes.

Several criteria were found to be statistically insignificant, including all personal characteristics, the ULRs’ unions, the sectors they worked in, and the employers’ engagements with Train to Gain. The analysis demonstrated that, to optimise the benefits of union learning in terms of the Government’s skills agenda, and encourage employers to invest in training, the criteria that need to be in place are:

❚ There is support from a Union Learning Fund project.

Opening doors to learning

3

Introduction

The impressive achievements of union learning representatives over the last 10 years have been a major factor in the high regard in which union learning is now held in government departments.

“What’s most likely to get you studying again? Your best friend at work saying ‘you can do it!’ So I’m proud that our labour movement has produced 18,000 volunteer union learning reps – ‘best friends’ in 6,000 workplaces up and down the country.”

John Denham, Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS)

Employers are encouraged by organisations as wide-ranging as sector skills councils, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and the CBI to make use of ULRs’ expertise and the relationship of trust they are able to develop with the rest of the workforce.

“I’d like to pay tribute to those many union learning reps who do great work up and down the land in helping their colleagues to gain new skills and experiences.”

Richard Lambert, CBI Director–General

4

Opening doors to learning

There are plenty of stories of the excellence of ULRs. However, if the Government is to continue to support union learning with money as well as encouraging words, and if more employers are going to give ULRs the time and respect they need to function effectively in the workplace, we also need to be able to give them solid evidence. In addition to the added value brought by ULRs, this should include the level of support they need to produce the best possible results.

The survey was posted in October 2007 to all those ULRs whose details are held on the central unionlearn database. The main sources of ULR contact details for the unionlearn database are the records from TUC training courses. These have recently been augmented by the inclusion of those ULRs trained by the public sector union, Unison, but unionlearn is still in the process of replicating this with several private sector unions. Although the ratio of responses between public and private sector ULRs does not, therefore, accurately reflect the ratio of all ULRs, detailed statistical analysis showed there were no significant differences between the experiences of ULRs based on the sector they work in.

A repeat mailing was sent out in January 2008, and the combined exercise resulted in the return of over 1,500 questionnaires. Some of these had to be excluded from the final analysis because the respondents were no longer active as ULRs, so this report uses responses from 1,389 current ULRs. Thanks are due to everyone who was able to complete the survey, and to the unions that helped to swell the response rate by encouraging their ULRs to respond.

The first part of this report presents a snapshot of the profile and activity of ULRs as at the end of 2007. Comparisons are made when appropriate with earlier ULR surveys, with the surveys of health and safety representatives that are conducted in alternate years to the ULR survey, and with similar data captured by the Workplace Employment Relations Survey 2004 (WERS) in relation to the whole range of union representatives. The report then goes on to examine all of those elements in order to assess which ones are most likely to contribute to meeting of the Government’s skills strategy by increasing the amount of training taking place in the workplace.

This report demonstrates that, although physical resources such as communication channels are important to ULRs, having the confidence that their work is valued by the employer (as well as the members) is just as crucial. There are all sorts of factors that can help to build this confidence, but this survey clearly demonstrates that there is a strong link between being involved in decisions about training issues at work and feeling valued as a ULR. Opening doors to learning

5

Who are today’s ULRs?

ULRs continue to be more representative of the whole workforce than union representatives in general. More than four out of every 10 ULRs are women. Seven per cent are from ethnic minority groups: this compares with the four per cent of union representatives and six per cent of employees who classified themselves in categories other than white in WERS 2004. There was a slight increase in the average age of ULRs in 2007, as can be seen from Figure 1, but this increase is small enough to be accounted for by the ageing of the 75 per cent of 2007 ULRs who were in post at the time of the 2005 survey.

94

93

93

70 64 53

61

64

51

Percentage of reps

Figure 1 Profile of ULRs and safety reps

63 58

58

H&S Reps 2006

ULRs 2005 Male

Age 46–60

White

ULRs 2007 has other union role

As well as comparing the profile of ULRs in 2005 and 2007, Figure 1 compares these with the profile of health and safety reps, in a similar survey in 2006. The ‘average’ profile is very similar – male, middle aged, white and having at least one other role in the union, but health and safety reps are considerably more likely than ULRs to be male, and less likely to have another union role. Approximately half of health and safety reps had another union role at the time of the survey, compared with two-thirds of ULRs in both 2005 and 2006, and only three in 10 health and safety reps were female, compared with almost half of ULRs.

6

Opening doors to learning

93

91

71 64 56

53 Percentage of all ULRs

Figure 2 Profile of experienced reps and ‘new activists’

47

44 36 29

male

female

age <46

experienced reps

age 46+

white

‘new activists’

The role of ULR has attracted a significant proportion of members new to trade union activity since the early days, rising from nine per cent of ULRs in 2000 to a peak of 36 per cent in 2005, where it appears to have stabilised.

Figure 2 shows that, as has been the case in all ULR surveys, these ‘new activists’ are more likely than their more experienced counterparts to be young and female. A new feature this time is that they are also very slightly more likely to come from an ethnic minority group.

93

93

66 59

58 53 47

Percentage of ULRs

Figure 3 Profile of all ULRs and ‘new’ ULRs

42

44

41 36

34

male all ULRs

female

age <46

age 46+

white

new activist

new ULRs

Figure 3 compares the profile of those ULRs who have only been in post since 2005 with the overall figure, showing that ULRs are increasingly likely to be young, female, and new to trade union activism. Exactly half of the ULRs recruited in the two years prior to the survey were women, and 45 per cent were aged under 45. The slight increase in the number of ULRs from ethnic minorities among all new activists was not replicated in the newly recruited ULRs, where the proportions were exactly the same as for all ULRs – 93 per cent white, seven per cent from ethnic minorities.

Opening doors to learning

7

Where are todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ULRs?

The unionlearn database of ULRs does not yet contain contact details for most of those private sector ULRs who have been trained by their own union. Therefore, the figures in this section do not reflect the whole population of ULRs. However, no significant difference could be found between the experiences of ULRs in the public and private sectors.

The majority of ULRs who responded to the survey came from the public sector, with just over 28 per cent in the private and nearly two per cent in the voluntary sectors.

Figure 4 plots the change in the sectoral distribution over the four ULR surveys, combining the private and voluntary sectors in order to compare it with the equivalent statistics from the safety reps survey. Although the proportion of ULRs coming from the public sector has almost trebled since 2000, the increase has resulted in a similar distribution of ULRs to that which has existed for safety reps since at least 2002.

ULRs by sector

Safety reps by sector

72

71

Figure 4 ULRs/safety reps by sector

8

Opening doors to learning

Percentage of ULRs

52

67

67

62

61

48 39

38

33

29

28

23

2000

2003

public sector

2005

2007

2002

2004

private and voluntary sectors

2006

The increase in public sector representation from 62 to 71 per cent of all respondents was matched by an increase from six to 15 per cent in those working in health and social work. There were also significant increases in the proportion of ULRs in the transport, storage and communications, and education sectors, pushing manufacturing down to fourth place from second in 2005 (see Table 1).

The consequential reduction in representation is spread fairly evenly across other sectors, with none dropping more than four percentage points.

Table 1: Industry sectors of ULRs Sector

Percentage of ULRs

Public administration and defence Transport, storage and communications Health and social work Manufacturing Education Other community, social and personal services Wholesale, retail and motor trade Electricity, gas and water supply Financial intermediation Construction Real estate and business services

Figure 5 Workplace size

30

28 20

1000+ 2005

Percentage of all ULRs 2005 2007 30 26 10 16 6 15 19 15 6 10 7 8 8 5 2 1 4 1 1 1 1

16 15

501–1000

21

28

16

251–500

13

51–250

14

–10

2007

Opening doors to learning

9

200+ employees

25.5%

29% 101–200 employees 51–100 employees

Figure 6 Size of ULR ‘constituency’

23.5%

22%

50 employees or fewer

17% non-management/ non-professional only 21%

Figure 7 Type of employee represented

62%

management/ professional only mixed

Previous surveys asked about the number of employees at the ULR’s site and in the whole organisation; Figure 5 compares the responses for individual work sites.

There are now 28 per cent working at sites with over 1,000 employees, up from 20 per cent in 2005.

The proportion of ULRs working for organisations employing over 1,000 people across all sites remains approximately three quarters, barely changed from 2005.

A new question in this survey asked how many employees the ULR was responsible for. Twenty eight per cent covered more than 200 people, but at the other end of the scale, 26 per cent have constituencies of 50 people or less. As only 14 per cent of ULRs work at sites with fewer than 50 employees, it follows that almost half of these small ‘constituencies’ are in larger workplaces (see Figure 6).

Most ULRs represent workers from only non-managerial or non-professional grades, but more than a fifth only represent management and/or professional employees. When the 17 per cent that represent all grades of employee are added into the equation, it is clear that more than a third of ULRs support members who are managers or professional staff at least some of the time.

10

Opening doors to learning

What do ULRs do in the workplace?

The detailed day-to-day activity of ULRs is not something that is set in stone. It can vary according to the priorities of individual unions, the needs of particular groups of workers, the number of other ULRs operating at the workplace and the amount of time available to the ULR. Nevertheless, the three activities shown in Figure 8 can be regarded as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;coreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for most ULRs. 85

59

Figure 8 What ULRs do

Percentage of ULRs

47

give information and advice

arrange training courses

conduct learning needs analyses

One of the first things that every ULR is asked to do on returning to work after their initial training is to conduct a learning needs assessment (LNA). Ideally they will repeat this exercise every two years. In 2007, fewer than half of ULRs (47 per cent) reported conducting a LNA in the previous two years. The equivalent question in 2005 did not specify a time period, so the 62 per cent response rate in that survey could indicate a tendency for ULRs not to repeat the exercise.

The major activity of a ULR continues to be to provide information and advice on learning to members, with 85 per cent saying they do so in 2007, up from 83 per cent in 2005.

A new question in the 2007 survey was about ULRs actually arranging courses for their members, and this is being done by 59 per cent of respondents. Just over one in five were aware that their employer has consulted a Train to Gain skills broker, and in more than half of those cases (11 per cent of all respondents) the ULR has been involved in the Train to Gain process.

Opening doors to learning

11

How much time do ULRs have for their activities?

The number of ULRs having relatively long periods of time to spend on their activities continues to grow.

Figure 9 shows that although more than half still spend fewer than two hours a week on their duties, that figure has come down from over two thirds in 2003 and almost two thirds in 2005. Almost a quarter of ULRs are spending five hours or more a week on ULR activities, and 11 per cent are spending more than 10 hours, i.e. at least a day and a half each week, including work done in their own time.

Figure 9 Time spent on ULR activities per week

Percentage of ULRs

2007

2005

2003 37

42 40

27 11 10

9

more than 10 hours per week

13

20 18 17 9

18 20

8

5–10 hours

1–2 hours

2–5 hours

less than 1 hour

The equivalent question in the health and safety survey showed a considerably smaller proportion of safety reps spending more than five hours per week on health and safety work. The safety reps’ role has been established for considerably longer than the ULR role, so Figure 10 suggests that unions may be having more success than in the past in securing facilities time for reps.

Figure 10 Hours per week spent on specific union activities by ULRs and safety reps

12

Opening doors to learning

Percentage of reps

53 37

38

34

13 7 up to 1 hour ULRs

1–5 hours health and safety reps

5–10 hours

11

6

more than 10 hours

Case study Jenny Ford When Jenny Ford became a ULR almost five years ago she was fairly typical of the new class of activist that union learning is attracting. Not only had she never held any union roles before, she actually joined the union in order to become a ULR, having spent the previous 15 years working for the Portsmouth NHS Trust believing unions were “all about strikes and militancy”.

Part of Jenny’s job as a facilities supervisor (domestics and porters) at St James Portsmouth City Teaching Primary Care Trust was to ensure staff underwent mandatory training courses. It was a difficult job – everything about the courses was intimidating to people who had left school at 16 with no expectations of ever going near a classroom again. But Jenny’s approach caught the attention of the UNISON branch secretary, who persuaded her to join the union and become a ULR almost simultaneously. She is now responsible for 200 members in her department at the Trust. In addition, she is now chair of the South East Regional Women’s committee as well as a member of the region’s education committee.

Jenny doesn’t have a set number of hours for her ULR work, but says it averages out to about a day a week. Her manager Chris Hill supports her wholeheartedly, and is happy for her to take the time when she needs to do so. During that time she works with providers, Train to Gain brokers and NVQ assessors ensuring that her members are getting the sort of training they need for NVQs in catering, hospitality and cleaning.

In the last four months she has arranged training for at least 20 of her members. She also arranges non-vocational courses, such as a recent ESOL course for migrant workers. She even ensures that cover is available for members attending the nonvocational courses.

Jenny acknowledges that her job would be much more difficult without the support she has from both management and her union branch. The Trust makes no bones about her value to them – the Associate Director of Learning and Development, Anne Axford, has even said that she wants a ULR in every department. No doubt Jenny would be a good ULR in any circumstances, but being so highly valued must contribute to the outstanding nature of her achievements.

Opening doors to learning

13

Training, resources and facility time for ULRs In order to perform their duties ULRs need at the very minimum to be trained, to have the communication channels to make contact with their members, to have the time and space to meet with them, and to have access to the technology or other equipment needed to perform any of these activities.

The facilities and facility time currently allowed to union representatives for conducting their duties was recently the subject of a consultation by the former Department of Trade and Industry. Data from the Workplace Employment Relations Survey 2004 (WERS) shows that the majority of union representatives are trained, have at least some facilities provided by their employer, and have paid time off for both training and to conduct their duties. The figures in Table 2 relate to the whole spectrum of union representatives. Respondents also raised the point that many representatives, who are in theory entitled to time off, do not take some or all of it because they are not provided with either cover for the period of their absence or a reduction in their workload.

Table 2: Facilities and facility time for union representatives Received some sort of training for their role Paid time off for training Spend less than one hour a week on union work Spend two to four hours a week on union work Spend more than five hours a week on union work Paid time off for trade union activity Have office equipment provided by the employer Have office space provided by the employer Have access to email at work Source 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey

The rest of this section will be looking at these elements in relation to ULRs, along with some more specifically learning-related resources that may be available to them.

14

Opening doors to learning

75% 82% 24% 33% 43% 89% 91% 55% 62%

ULR training As in 2005, 98 per cent of ULRs had undergone their initial training, with just two per cent still waiting for a course. In response to two new questions in this survey, more than a quarter of ULRs felt that they had not yet had sufficient training to carry out their roles effectively, and 83 per cent responded that their employers provide them with reasonable time off for relevant ULR training.

Union Learning Fund Twenty-four per cent of respondents reported being involved in a Union Learning Fund (ULF) project. The ULF was set up in 1998 to promote activity by trade unions in support of the Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s objective of creating a learning society, by influencing the increase in take-up of learning in the workplace and boosting unionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; capacity as learning organisations. A major theme of ULF projects is the recruitment, training and ongoing support of ULRs.

Learning agreements and learning centres 61

Figure 11 Learning agreements and learning centres

51

52

51 44

Percentage of reps

47

2003 learning centre

2005

2007

learning agreement

A primary indication of employer engagement with union learning is the existence of a learning agreement with the union. In addition to supporting ULRs by setting out the specific terms under which they operate in a particular workplace, the existence of a learning agreement can enhance ULRsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; confidence in performing their duties. Figure 11 shows that the proportion of ULRs reporting a learning agreement in 2007 declined to 51 per cent from 61 per cent in 2005, returning to the 2003 level. In Table 3 the responses for 2007 are shown broken down by industrial sector. One third of the ULRs who do not have a learning agreement are from two of the sectors which have a significantly greater representation in this survey than they did in 2005. Between them ULRs working in education, health and social work represent a quarter of all respondents in 2007, compared with just 12 per cent in 2005.

The reduction in the proportion of ULRs saying that they have the use of a learning centre at their workplace, from a high of 52 per cent in 2005 to below the 2003 figure of 47 per cent, at just 44 per cent may be partly attributed to the greater proportion in the same two sectors. However this also reflects recent changes in FE funding, which have meant that free or discounted ICT courses, previously one of the mainstays of union learning centre provision, have not been available since 2006. Learning centres are an important enabling factor for ULRs at the workplace, and unions are currently considering strategies to restore their viability.

Opening doors to learning

15

Table 3: Industrial sector of ULRs having learning agreements and learning centres Industrial sector

Percentage of all ULRs with learning agreement learning centre 60 33 26 28 43 40 37 43 59 55 69 44 58 71 75 25 46 31 68 68 53 42 36 18 0 0 50 50

public admin and defence education electricity, gas and water supply health and social work transport, storage and communications financial intermediation manufacturing mining and quarrying other community, social and personal services construction wholesale, retail and motor trade real estate and business services agriculture, forestry and fishing hotels and restaurants

Facility time

Figure 12 Hours worked and paid by employer

Percentage of ULRs

Figure 9 showed how the time commitment for a ULR has increased over the years. Figure 12 compares the amount of time ULRs actually spend on their role with the amount of paid time off they are given. For 60 per cent of ULRs time spent on activities at work is fully paid by their employers, but a third still receive no paid time off at all, compared with 11 per cent of the senior union representatives surveyed in WERS. Thirty-two per cent of those ULRs who responded to the 2007 survey perform some or all of their duties in their own time.

worked

paid 34 20

11

9

more than 10 hours

13

16

11

5–10 hours

2–5 hours

18

23 16

1–2 hours

14

less than 1 hour

14

none

Whether or not the amount of time provided by an employer is sufficient depends largely on what the ULR actually needs to do, and this can vary widely, so this year the survey included questions on the ULR’s perception of sufficiency of time.

The responses to these questions are shown in Table 4. This was the first time that ULRs had been asked specifically about time off for ULR training, and although the positive response looks high compared with time for the other activities, it is still disappointing that 17 per cent of ULRs consider that they are not getting enough time off for this essential element of their role.

16

Opening doors to learning

Having time off, whether paid or not, is of little value if the ULR still has to return to a full workload, yet only 46 per cent reported having cover for their regular job or a reduced workload.

Since 2003 ULRs have been legally entitled to ‘reasonable’ paid time off to conduct their duties, and guidance on interpreting this right is contained in the ACAS Code of Practice on Time off for Trade Union Duties and Activities. In the Government’s response to the public consultation on the facilities and facility time mentioned earlier, it was acknowledged that many representatives are using their own time to undertake their duties, and that the increasing stress and time commitment contributes to the difficulty some workplaces are having in recruiting representatives. It has therefore asked ACAS to “[revise] the existing code of conduct so that it provides updated guidance on time off issues… in particular to consider how the issues of cover [and] reduced workloads… should be treated in its Code”. The results of this survey underline the urgency for this development.

Table 4: Time off for ULR activities ULR has reasonable time off to: Undergo relevant ULR training Conduct ULR role Discuss members’ individual training needs Arrange learning or training for members

yes 83% 70% 66% 64%

no 17% 30% 34% 36%

Time off for members to consult ULRs A surprisingly high percentage of ULRs (75 per cent) felt that their members had sufficient time off to consult their ULR during normal working time. However this leaves 25 per cent who don’t , which underlines anecdotal evidence that many members have to consult ULRs during break periods.

Other facilities and provisions A majority of ULRs report that employers provide sufficient facilities for them to carry out their role. Employers provide office space to more than two-thirds of ULRs, and office equipment and communication equipment to three-quarters.

Despite this, a significant minority of ULRs lack basic facilities. Employers do not provide one-third of ULRs with office space and approximately one-quarter of ULRs with office equipment or communication equipment.

Table 5: Facilities provided by employer

Office space Office equipment (e.g. computer, photocopier) Communication equipment (e.g. phone, email, internet)

Percentage of ULRs yes no 67 33 73 27 75 25

Opening doors to learning

17

Working with employers

Figure 13 shows the percentage of ULRs reporting contact with management to discuss training issues in a range of different time periods.

Although one-third of ULRs report contact at least once a month, many ULRs report infrequent contact and, in some cases, no contact at all with management on training issues. Over one-quarter had no contact with any level of management to discuss training matters during the previous 12 months.

3 %

daily 7% 5%

28%

Figure 13 Frequency of contact with any level of management to discuss training issues

at least once a week at least once every two weeks at least once a month

19% at least once every three months at least once every six months

11% 11%

16%

once a year not at all

ULRs were asked to identify the extent to which union representatives were involved in their managersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; decisions about training by classifying it as negotiation, consultation or information. This question is similar to one asked of employee representatives in the Workplace Employee Relations Survey 2004 (WERS), and the two sets of responses are shown in Figure 14. ULRs report that managers normally negotiate or consult with union representatives when deciding training issues in only a minority (37 per cent) of cases, and that they provide information to union representatives about training related decisions in

18

Opening doors to learning

17 per cent of cases. The remaining 45 per cent of ULRs were not aware of their employer involving the union in training decisions in any way at all.

Only eight per cent of union representatives in the WERS reported negotiation on training, but 64 per cent were aware of either consultation or information. The Government has used the eight per cent figure for negotiation as evidence that bargaining on training is not yet sufficiently commonplace to be included as one of the statutory collective bargaining issues in voluntary recognition agreements.

The results of this survey demonstrate that training is becoming more commonplace as an element of workplace negotiations, and will add weight to TUC and union campaigns to make training a subject of future collective bargaining agreements.

Percentage of responses

Figure 14 Involvement of union representatives in training decisions

ULR survey 2007

WERS 2004 38 26

22 17

15 8 negotiation

consultation

information

Figure 15 Managers at the workplace value ULR activity

Percentage of responses

Since many ULRs report infrequent contact with managers, and managers often do not involve union representatives in training issues, it is not surprising that many ULRs feel undervalued. Figure 15 shows that only one-third of ULRs believe managers at their workplace value ULR activities. The remaining two-thirds report that managers do not value ULR activities in their workplace or that management shows ambivalence to ULRs.

33 27 15

18 7

strongly disagree

disagree

neither agree nor disagree

agree

strongly agree

The attitude of middle managers to union representatives was an issue raised in response to the consultation on the facilities and facility time of union representatives. Concerns included inadequate training of managers, and the problem of budgets and performance targets of managers not being adjusted to take account of the presence of union representatives in their teams. These issues are to be addressed in the revision of the ACAS Code of Practice on Time off for Union Representatives.

Opening doors to learning

19

Training for members at the workplace The questions about training at the workplace deliberately asked about union members only, since not all ULRs work with nonmembers, and it is the only constituency about which they can realistically be expected to be able to make an assessment.

Figure 16 Proportion of members at workplace given time off for training

Percentage of ULRs reporting in each category

Even so there were a relatively high number of respondents who did not have the confidence to answer these questions: six and 10 per cent respectively for the two questions about time off for training, and around 20 per cent for each of the questions about ULRs’ perceptions of their impact on training. By making this decision not to ‘guess’ at responses, ULRs have almost certainly added to the validity of the following analysis, as there were still well in excess of one thousand responses to be considered in each case.

26 11

100%

9

8

9

26

12

80–99% 60–79% 40–59% 20–39% 1–19%

0%

Proportion of members receiving training

Training levels in workplaces with ULRs According to the Labour Force Survey, in 2007 only 14.4 per cent of all employees had received any job-related training in the previous 12 months, yet Figure 16 shows that, in 74 per cent of ULR workplaces, at least a few union members were given time off from their normal work duties for training. Despite this clear premium attached to union learning, there is still progress to be made. In over half of the workplaces no more than 20 per cent of the members received training, and there were only 20 per cent of workplaces where most or all members had received training during working hours in the previous twelve months.

20

Opening doors to learning

The survey also asked about the amount of training received. According to the National Employer Skills Survey, in 2005 employers provided the equivalent of 8.7 training days per employee, and the CIPD annual survey of learning, training and development managers (2008) reports an average of 5 days per employee.

Figure 17 shows the proportion of ULRs reporting an average amount of training per year in six categories, ranging from none to more than 10 days, with a sixth in the latter category and a similar proportion reporting no training time at all given to members in the ULR’s workplace.

18%

10 days or more

16%

5–10 days 10%

2–5 days

18%

1–2 days 15%

Figure 17 Amount of training received by members

less than 1 day 23% no time

Figure 18 compares the results from the ULR survey with those in WERS. According to WERS 18 per cent of employees across both unionised and nonunionised workplaces had received five days training or more in the previous year, whereas the ULR survey shows 34 per cent of ULRs reporting this level of training. Even though union members in more than 40 per cent of workplaces received less than two days training during the past 12 months, and 18 per cent had none at all, these figures are considerably better than the 2004 WERS results, which were that over a third of workers had not received any training at all, further emphasising the added benefit of union learning.

Figure 18 Average number of days training received by members last year

Percentage of ULRs

48

46 34

36 18

18

ULR 2007 none

1–4 days

WERS 2004 5 or more days

Opening doors to learning

21

ULR impact on training

Percentage of ULRs

Figure 19 Levels of workplace training over previous 12 months

75

15 3 increase in at least one type of training

all types stayed the same

all types decreased

A central aim of the 2007 Survey was to assess the impact of ULRs on training activity. The foregoing comparison of data from the ULR survey with that from WERS 2004 certainly seems to suggest that the presence of ULRs has a positive impact on training levels, and the next set of questions was designed to identify ULRs’ own perceptions of the extent to which they had an impact in the previous twelve months. This section summarises the findings, which will be presented in greater detail in the forthcoming detailed report of the survey, which will be published as part of the unionlearn series of research reports.

There were two sets of questions in this group, one about training funded by the employer, and one about training funded by someone other than the employer, such as the individual, their union, or the Government. There may be some crossover between the two groups of findings, as ULRs may not always be aware that their employer has accessed external funding for training. This seems particularly likely in respect of the 36 per cent who reported an increase in employer-funded training in basic literacy and numeracy skills, which almost always attract a 100 per cent government subsidy. Even if this is the case, however, it is still reasonable to treat the ‘employer-funded’ category as training that is in some significant way supported by the employer.

ULRs were asked to report whether the levels of training in the previous twelve months had increased, decreased or stayed the same. Almost three quarters (73 per cent) reported an increase in at least one type of training.

For individual types of training the largest proportion of responses was in the ‘stayed the same’ category. Although only 15 per cent indicated that all types of training had stayed at the same level, this went up to over 60 per cent for employer-funded personal interest/leisure courses, and for job-related training not funded by the employer and not leading to a formal qualification. As 75 per cent of ULRs have been in post for more than two years, the ‘stayed the same’ category will reflect much of the increase in training levels that was achieved in previous periods. Even so, most ULRs who reported that the level of at least one type of training had stayed the same, also reported an increase in at least one other type of training.

22

Opening doors to learning

Similarly, a decrease in levels of training could simply mean that activity has settled down following an initial surge when the ULR(s) first became active at the workplace. Fewer than three per cent reported a decrease in all categories of training. Most decreases were reported in the employer-funded category, with 10 per cent of ULRs reporting a decrease in the amount of employer-funded training for accredited vocational or academic courses, and 13 per cent noting that employer funding for personal interest/leisure courses has declined. The first of these will, at least partly, reflect the increase in access to government funding in the 22 per cent of workplaces where ULRs reported their employers have engaged with Train to Gain. The second is disappointing, but unsurprising given the decrease in the size of training budgets reported by public sector respondents to the 2008 CIPD Learning and Development survey, from ÂŁ250 per person in 2006/7 to ÂŁ222 per person in 2007/8.

The third category of responses is from the ULRs who reported an increase in training levels over the previous 12 months. At least a third reported increases in all but one type of training, although even employer-funded personal interest/leisure courses increased in 25 per cent of workplaces. The 33 per cent increase in unaccredited job-related training not paid for by the employer almost certainly reflects the fairly large minority of ULRs who represent professional or managerial staff. Many of these may have obligations to engage in certain levels of continuing professional development, which may or may not be formally accredited. They may need ULR assistance in identifying appropriate training and finding good providers, but are likely to be paying for their own training.

The next section identifies the critical issues helping ULRs to increase employee participation in training where this has occurred.

Opening doors to learning

23

What works for ULRs?

This report has described a wide range of ULR characteristics and activities, and the positive impact of ULRs on training activity in many workplaces.

The remainder of the report aims to determine which ULR characteristics and activities are most likely to have an impact on three important training outcomes: ❚ providing information/advice to members and arranging training courses for members ❚ increasing employee participation in employer-funded training ❚ increasing employee participation in training not funded by employers.

This part of the analysis was performed by comparing the responses to all the other questions and using statistical tests to determine which had a direct impact on these three outcomes; the findings rather than the detail of the analysis is reported here. Issues mentioned previously in this report are not mentioned below if they were not found to have a significant effect on training outcomes.

Providing information/advice to members and arranging training courses for members Eighty-five per cent of ULRs provided information/advice to members in the past 12 months and 59 per cent arranged training courses. The following characteristics help explain whether ULRs provided information/advice to members or arranged training courses in the past 12 months (see also Table 6): ❚ more hours per week spent on ULR activity ❚ a learning centre at the workplace ❚ a learning needs assessment conducted in the past two years ❚ a formal learning agreement with the employer ❚ contact with any level of management to discuss training ❚ involvement in a Union Learning Fund project ❚ more years in the ULR post.

24

Opening doors to learning

Table 6: Characteristics promoting positive impact on information and advice, and arranging training courses Characteristics

impact on Information/advice provided Courses arranged

Hours per week spent on ULR activity Learning centre in workplace Learning needs assessment conducted Formal learning agreement in place Contact with management to discuss training issues ULF project Time in ULR post

Provision of information and advice to members is probably one of the most fundamental roles of a ULR. Even though only 15 per cent of ULRs report that they have not done this in the past 12 months, unionlearn and unions need to be aware that there may be actions that can be taken to reduce even this low result.

In particular it is clear that three of the five characteristics which most facilitate this activity are ones that are often enshrined in the fourth characteristic, the existence of a formal learning agreement.

Regular conduct of a learning needs assessment also contributes highly to the likelihood of ULRs giving information and advice. This characteristic is one that is under the control of the ULR, but the relatively long period in between may lead to the activity being overlooked by some.

These characteristics also apply to the 41 per cent who have not arranged any courses in the last 12 months, but this group would also benefit from experience: not just in terms of length of time in post, but through exposure to other ULRs and to full-time project workers while working on a ULF project.

Employer-funded training Around two-fifths of ULRs reported increased participation in all categories of employer-funded training. ULRs who reported increased employee participation in employer-funded training were also more likely to report that: ❚ Managers value ULR activities. ❚ The employer negotiates or consults with unions on training. ❚ There is a learning centre in the workplace. ❚ More hours per week are spent on ULR activity. ❚ ULR cover 200 employees or fewer.

Opening doors to learning

25

Table 7: Characteristics promoting positive impact on training funded by employer Vocational or academic qualifications Hours per week spent on ULR activity ULRs per number of employees Learning centre at workplace Employer informs, consults or negotiates with union on training issues Managers value ULR’s activities

Unaccredited job related training

Basic literacy and numeracy

Personal interest/leisure courses

The relevance of each of these elements to the different categories of training is shown in Table 7.

The two elements of this category of employer-funded training that have the most relevance to the Government’s skills agenda are vocational qualifications and basic literacy and numeracy. These are also the two elements for which ULRs need the most support in order to raise the levels of training. In both cases the existence of a learning centre at the workplace is clearly beneficial, as is regular information, consultation and negotiation with the union by the employer and also the perception of ULRs that they are valued by their managers. Where these last two conditions prevail, there is also likely to be an increase in the provision of unaccredited job-related training and personal interest courses supported by the employer.

These results also suggest that increasing the take up of vocational qualifications is most effectively achieved by a single ULR having relatively long hours to spend on their union learning activities, whereas for basic skills it is important that the ULR is responsible for a relatively small number of employees.

Training not funded by employers A significant proportion of ULRs (two-fifths) reported that their activity had increased the number of employees on training not funded by the employer, including nationally recognised vocational or academic qualifications, basic literacy and numeracy skills training and personal interest/leisure courses.

One-third of ULRs also reported increased participation in job-related training not leading to formal qualifications and funded by sources other than the employer.

The following issues help explain whether ULRs had increased employee participation in training not funded by the employer (see also Table 8): ❚ Managers value ULR activities. ❚ More hours per week are spent on ULR activity. ❚ There is involvement in a Union Learning Fund project. ❚ The ULR cover 200 employees or fewer.

26

Opening doors to learning

Table 8: Characteristics promoting positive impact on training not funded by employer

Hours per week spent on ULR activity ULRs per number of employees ULF project Managers value ULR’s activities

Vocational or academic qualifications

Unaccredited job related training *

Basic literacy and numeracy

Personal interest/leisure courses

Note *10 hours or more

Three of these four characteristics have featured heavily in one or both of the other two sets of outcomes, but two things stand out in relation to learning not funded by the employer. The first is that unaccredited job-related training is more likely to take place when the ULR spends more than 10 hours per week on ULR activities, suggesting that this is considered to be a relatively low priority of the role by most ULRs. Secondly, it is with this group of outcomes that the role of the Union Learning Fund comes fully into play. It was also an important feature in ‘arranging courses’ (Table 6) and these two groups of results suggest that the ULF is playing an important role in helping ULRs to find funding and courses for their members when employers are unwilling to contribute.

Conclusions Almost three-quarters of ULRs reported that their activities contributed to an increase in at least one type of training available at the workplace. In order to increase that proportion there are a number of features of union learning that need to be in place for all ULRs, in particular: ❚ Managers should value ULR activities. ❚ Employers should negotiate or consult with unions on training. ❚ ULRs should have contact with any level of management to discuss training. ❚ A formal learning agreement should be in place with the employer. ❚ Sufficient time per week should be available to spend on ULR activity. ❚ ULRs should be encouraged and enabled to remain in post long-term. ❚ ULR constituencies ought to be no larger than 200 members. ❚ A learning needs assessment should be conducted every two years. ❚ A learning centre should be available in or near the workplace. ❚ ULRs should have support; if necessary through a Union Learning Fund project.

The final section of this report is unionlearn’s response to these initial findings.

Opening doors to learning

27

Next steps The conditions identified as essential for a ULR to be fully effective are all objectives for which unionlearn and the unions are already striving. Nevertheless, the survey has highlighted a number of activities that should continue to be prioritised in the future work of the TUC, unionlearn and the unions. In this section the TUC addresses the issues in the order they were listed at the end of the previous section.

Managers should value ULR activities.

Some unions have already produced leaflets for employers about their specific learning activity, but this type of material should be supplemented with more generic information. In order that all levels of management understand the benefits that ULRs can bring to the workplace, unionlearn should work with relevant employer-focused organisations, such as the CIPD and the sector skills councils, to produce up-to-date literature for employers that clearly explains the added value of working with ULRs.

Employers should negotiate or consult with unions on training.

The evidence of this survey should be used to enhance the TUC campaign that the Government should â&#x20AC;&#x153;incentivise employers and unions to negotiate on training by including it as a collective bargaining issue in the statutory union recognition procedureâ&#x20AC;?. (2020 Vision for Skills, TUC 2006).

Union negotiators should be encouraged to introduce learning issues onto the agenda of their regular meetings with employers.

ULRs should have contact with any level of management to discuss training.

ULRs are already encouraged during their initial training to approach their immediate line manager to discuss training issues, but if the potential of union learning is not understood, managers are unlikely to initiate the contact. In addition to the work outlined above, this type of contact is easier to initiate if the following are happening:

28

Opening doors to learning

A formal learning agreement should be in place with the employer.

The setting up and implementation of learning agreements between unions and employers needs to be a primary objective of union learning activity. These should guarantee sufficient time off to ULRs, facilitate both formal and informal arrangements for training issues to be discussed between management and union representatives and, ideally, give ULRs access to a learning centre.

Sufficient time per week should be available to spend on ULR activity.

Unionlearn welcomes the Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposal that the issues raised in its consultation on facilities and facility time should be addressed in a revised version of the ACAS code of conduct. The application of the new guidelines will continue to be monitored in the biennial survey of ULRs. When addressing issues of time off in learning agreements, unions should seek recognition that time-off requirements of a ULR are likely to fluctuate, and that there should therefore be sufficient flexibility in the arrangements to allow for this. Unions might also want to consider including provision for cover or reduced workload for ULRs.

ULRs should be encouraged and enabled to remain in post long-term.

This survey has demonstrated that ULRs need to feel valued by their managers. It is equally important that they are aware of being valued and supported by their union. Various forums are organised by unionlearn and by individual unions where ULRs are able to catch up on the latest developments and network with other ULRs, and they have access to a plethora of written support material, both in print and on the internet. What is probably of at least equal value, however, is supportive contact from other union representatives at the workplace. An important catalyst for developing and enhancing this type of support is for union learning to be included on the agenda of all union meetings.

ULR constituencies ought to be no larger than 200 members.

When negotiating time off, unions need to be aware that improving the ratio of ULRs to members/ employees in a workplace should not be an alternative to increasing the facility time of each ULR, and vice versa. If the employer hopes to see increased take up of both vocational training and basic skills training, then they need to accept that both of these conditions are essential.

ULRs who are struggling to service constituencies of more than 200 members are encouraged to use the evidence provided by this survey to seek help from their branch to increase the complement of ULRs in the workplace.

Opening doors to learning

29

A learning needs assessment should be conducted every two years.

ULRs are busy people, usually with very little time to undertake all of their responsibilities, so it is not surprising that those which recur infrequently sometimes get overlooked. Unions and/or unionlearn should investigate the possibility of producing automated electronic reminders to repeat learning needs analyses, on the biennial anniversary of ULR training courses. This might be something that could be built into future iterations of the unionlearn Climbing Frame.

A learning centre should be available at or near the workplace.

Learning centres available to ULRs can take many different forms, from the employer’s own training facility to dedicated, fully equipped accommodation controlled entirely by the union. Unionlearn also has a network of learndirect learning centres that are available for union learners, re-launched during 2008 as ‘U-Net’. It would be timely for unionlearn to consider revising and re-issuing its guidance to ULRs on setting up and running learning centres.

ULRs should have support through a Union Learning Fund project.

Eventually the support for all ULRs will be provided directly by their unions, or indirectly through the core activities of unionlearn and/or the TUC. In the meantime an important criterion for ULF projects is, and should remain, the building and strengthening of support networks for ULRs. The ULF should continue to encourage unions to work in partnership with SSCs and employers to increase the impact of ULRs on the provision of employerfunded training, and to help raise the profile of union learning with employers.

30

Opening doors to learning

References ACAS, 2003 Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities BERR, 2007 Workplace Representatives: A Review of Their Facilities and Facility Time. Government response to public consultation.

CIPD, 2008 Learning and Development Annual Survey Report DTI, 2007 Workplace Representatives: A Review of Their Facilities and Facility Time.

Public consultation.

Kersley B, Alpin C, Forth J, Bryson A, Bewley H, Dix G and Oxenbridge S, 2006 Inside the Workplace: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey Routledge, London TUC, 2006 2020: A Vision for Skills TUC, 2006 Focus on Health and Safety: TUC Biennial Survey of Safety Reps 2006 Unionlearn, 2006 Making a Real Difference: A Survey of Union Learning Reps

Opening doors to learning

31

Published by unionlearn Congress House London WCB LS Tel 020 7079 6920 Fax 020 7079 6921 www.unionlearn.org.uk May 2008 Designed by wave.coop Printed by Newnorth All photos by Simon Weller

All unionlearn publications may be made available for dyslexic or visually impaired readers, on request, in an agreed electronic format or in accessible formats such as Braille, audio tape and large print, at no extra cost.