Who stands to gain from union-led learning in Britain? Evidence from surveys of learners,union officers and employers

Abstract

This article considers the potential gains which the union-led learning agenda may provide for its various stakeholders in Britain. To do this, it draws on extensive surveys of individual learners, trade union workers and employers to evaluate the extent of possible gains. The article argues that the union-led learning agenda may open a new and novel channel for unions to develop voice around learning at the workplace within a liberal market environment. The findings show that purported gains have been realized by all parties, but suggest that any notion of mutuality is dependent on the workplace structures of voice and codification that unions are looking to build around learning, such as learning agreements.

Keywords

Employee voice mutual gains trade unions workplace development

Introduction

The aim of this article is to explore the potential gains that may be derived for different stakeholders from the union-led model of skills development in Britain. The rationale for the analysis is two-fold. First, the social partners play a role, to varying degrees, in the design and implementation of vocational education and training (VET) in most developed economies (Bosch and Charest, 2010; Winterton, 2007). Second, skills and learning have been accorded increased significance in debates on the modernization and renewal of employment relations (Stuart, 2007). Simply put, supply-side agendas are seen to provide new spaces for the development of trade union innovation and partnership-based initiatives between unions and employers (Martinez Lucio et al., 2007; Streeck, 1994; Stroud, 2011). Set against wider debates around economic competitiveness and the need for life-long learning, unions in countries as diverse as Norway, Spain and the UK have actively campaigned for, or played a central role in, the development of new strategic initiatives or frameworks for skills and learning (Martinez Lucio et al., 2007).

Union involvement in, and partnership-based approaches to, skills and learning agendas are typically situated within wider national systems of industrial relations and VET. Engagement between unions and employers is seen to be more pervasive and institutionally embedded in coordinated countries, such as Germany or Norway (Bosch and Charest, 2010; Winterton, 2007), than more liberal economies, such as the UK and Australia, where social partnership is more limited (Cooney, 2010). Yet, as Stuart (2007) notes, national systems are not in themselves determinate. First, even where strong nationally coordinated frameworks promoting skills and learning exist, implementation at the workplace level may be limited (Leisink and Greenwood, 2007). Second, neocorporatist approaches to skill are seen as most applicable to initial systems of VET, such as apprenticeships, whereas changing definitions of skill are placing more of an emphasis on learning and continuing skills development (Crouch et al., 1999; Martinez Lucio et al., 2007). It is no surprise, therefore, that while policy-makers extol the virtues and mutual gains of learning and partnership (European Commission, 2001), the social partners, and specifically trade unions, still struggle to adopt new systems of learning and understand how mutual gains are to be defined and realized. Previous research has explored union-led initiatives on learning and considered how management–union learning partnerships may develop (Stroud, 2011; Wallis and Stuart, 2007), but no study has yet systematically examined the potential mutual gains that may derive for all stakeholders.

Against this backdrop, the focus of this article is on union-led learning in Britain. Since 1997 unions have developed a distinctive new role in the learning agenda through state support for a Union Learning Fund and workplace Union Learning Representatives. Given the liberal traditions of skills development in Britain, this can be seen as a novel development, and it has attracted the interest of unions and policy-makers in a number of other countries, such as New Zealand, Norway, Denmark and America (Alexandrou, 2009). The article examines the potential mutual gains that may result, drawing from survey data of employees, trade unionists and employers. In doing so, it elucidates the type of gains that different parties to the employment relationship look to achieve and considers how unions, in looking to protect their specific interests, are seeking to initiate new institutional structures, or regulatory functional equivalents. The next section sets out the context of union-led learning in Britain and conceptualizes how gains may be derived. This is then followed by the study’s methods and empirical findings. The conclusion seeks to draw out the wider significance of the analysis.

Mutual gains, bargaining and union-led learning in Britain

Mutual gains, bargaining and partnerships for learning

The logic for union involvement around skills and learning can be understood in terms of the conceptual distinction between integrative and distributive bargaining (Walton and McKersie, 1965). While distributive bargaining relates to pay and the terms and conditions of bargaining and delivers benefits for one party at the expense of the other (i.e. zero sum gains), integrative bargaining is seen to relate to less contentious concerns, such as training and learning, which have the potential to deliver mutual gains. This simple premise has underscored a body of research on new union agendas and innovations within the union movement itself. Huzzard (2001: 427), for example, notes that, as contemporary economic conditions may act to limit the ability of unions to improve both the pay and job security of members, one possible union response may be to extend the agenda ‘to focus on competence development and development of the workplace’. Likewise, Mathews (1993) suggests unions can innovate through an ‘industrial relations of skill formation’, while Streeck (1994) argues that unions can coalesce around training interests as part of a ‘new industrial relations’.

As noted above, unions across Europe and in other developed economies (Stroud, 2011; Stuart, 2007) have given more central prominence to integrative approaches since the early 1990s. Skills and learning are thus posited as of benefit to all parties: employers want more highly trained and productive workers; workers want to develop themselves at work and their wider employability; and unions have an interest in delivering more training and learning opportunities for their (potential) members.

While this rationale has formed the conceptual underpinning for the subsequent development of union interests in learning, notable problems are evident. First, while employers and unions may have a coincidence of interest in learning and skills, their interests are not identical (Stuart, 1996; Winterton and Winterton, 1994). Second, given potential differences in the definition of skill, a question remains over just how so-called ‘integrative’ concerns are advanced at the workplace. Bargaining may not be the most suitable way of understanding union–employer engagement around learning and skills issues (Rainbird and Stuart, 2011). One way around this has been to locate learning and training issues as central to more partnership-based approaches to employment relations (Huzzard et al., 2004; Stuart, 2001), whereby rights and responsibilities are shared in pursuit of mutual gains and issues such as participation, employee adaptability and learning are accorded priority over distributive concerns (Huzzard et al., 2004; Kochan and Osterman, 1994; Stuart and Martinez Lucio, 2005). Yet empirical assessments of partnership often cast doubt on the extent to which gains materialize in practice (see Huzzard et al., 2004; Stuart and Martinez Lucio, 2005). Union incorporation and the intensification of employees’ work are often seen as the more likely outcomes of partnership (Richardson et al., 2005).

Despite this, Munro and Rainbird (2004: 420) argue that beneficial partnerships on learning can be developed, but they need to be framed around learning as a single-issue agenda that operates ‘outside normal industrial relations structures’. This distinction allows unions to cooperate (‘dance’) around learning, while at the same time taking a stronger, more adversarial stance (‘boxing’) on other industrial relations concerns (Huzzard et al., 2004). Even so, partnership carries certain risks for unions (Martinez Lucio and Stuart, 2005), prompting Munro and Rainbird (2004: 420) to caution that learning partnerships, from a union perspective, need to have the benefits of members as their central concern and benefits should be distinct from employers’ interests to ensure union credibility.

Despite ongoing interest in new partnership-based approaches to employment relations and the centrality of skills and learning to mutual gains arrangements, a central dilemma remains evident. Even leading advocates of partnership, such as Kochan and Osterman (1994), note that for cooperation to be effective it requires a degree of state or external regulatory support. Yet, as noted, while there is compelling evidence that partnership may be more viable in those countries with extant traditions of strong and institutionalized social partnership, the complexity of new skills demands and the ongoing nature of learning means that institutionalized approaches to learning remain lacking even in economies with highly developed systems of initial training such as Germany (Martinez Lucio et al., 2007; Trappmann, 2012). Munro and Rainbird (2004: 421) suggest that learning partnerships initiated proactively by unions can contribute to a ‘process of establishing new worker entitlements and workplace institutions’, but there is a lack of research on what this means in a practical sense or how unions can develop the resources and capacities needed to secure such gains (Stroud, 2011).

The union learning model in Britain

In this context the recent development of a model of union-led learning in Britain is novel. Conceptually, it could be assumed that any gains from this union-led approach are likely to be limited, as the British system of VET and employment relations is an exemplar of the liberal market model (Keep and Mayhew, 2010). Cooney’s (2010) recent analysis in this journal of the Australian case cogently illustrates the structural constraints of liberalism. In Australia, a deregulated and increasingly employer-led skills model has seen a greater focus on job- and firm-specific forms of training. Cooney (2010: 390) suggests this is due to the ‘few opportunities for the exercise of employee voice in relation to skill development’ that exist, as the engagement of the ‘social actors is limited’. Uniquely, the model of union-led learning in Britain represents an example whereby unions have started to build voice with regard to skills development, despite wider structural constraints. It offers an intriguing backdrop to examine union activity with regard to learning and to assess the extent to which gains have materialized for different stakeholders. If unions are able to make potential gains in a national context such as the UK, this may offer insights for unions in more institutionally embedded systems.

The union-led model in Britain was initiated and supported by the 1997–2010 Labour government, and marked a shift from the previous exclusion of trade unions from the skills and training system. The Labour government regarded learning as a natural issue for partnership and a key agenda of concern for a modern union movement (see Stuart, 2001). The development of the union learning model is explained in detail by Clough (2010), but three strands stand out. First, a Union Learning Fund (ULF) was established in 1998; currently in its 14th Round. The specific focus and themes of funding have varied across each round of the ULF, along with the scale of funding. Early projects funded pilot work, but latter rounds have funded larger, nationally focused union activity with an emphasis on capacity building. To date, the ULF has received well over £100 million of state funding, with the first 11 Rounds supporting 522 projects involving 57 individual trade unions (Stuart et al., 2011). The incoming Conservative–Liberal Democrat government in 2010 approved continued funding of the ULF – for the foreseeable future at least.

The second distinctive dimension is an emphasis on workplace trade union learning representatives (ULRs). ULRs were granted statutory rights in 2003, for reasonable paid time off to train as a ULR and to undertake their duties; employees have a right to talk with their ULR (see Wallis et al., 2005). ULRs do not, however, have a legal right either to negotiate or to consult with employers. To date, around 25,000 ULRs have been trained and they play a key role in connecting workplace activity to the wider resources of the ULF. The third distinctive dimension has been the establishment by the British Trade Union Congress of a dedicated function, unionlearn, to oversee the administration and strategic development of all union learning activities. Unionlearn receives a core grant from government and, from 2006, took over the administration (from government) of ULF funding to individual unions.

It is important to understand the meaning of learning within this union model. Conceptually, learning is distinct from training and education and exemplifies more informal and non-formal routes of skills development than more formal classroom-based training. This is considered in detail by Stroud (2011), who notes the practical difficulties of distinguishing between learning and training, and the political differences that can pervade social partners’ interests in learning and definitions of skill (see also Stuart, 2007). Differentiating between learning and training within the union learning model is particularly tricky. The key point to note is that unions focus less on delivery than on creating the conditions for, and access to, opportunities to learn. A key role of ULRs at the workplace is thus to encourage, motivate and direct employees to learning. Much of this activity has concentrated on engaging employees with low levels of education and with basic skills deficiencies (in numeracy or literacy) that are often overlooked or ignored by employers (Cassell and Lee, 2007; Hollinrake et al., 2008; Wallis et al., 2005). The provision itself may take place in workplace learning centres, through online sources or via external providers, such as local colleges. In this sense the rubric of learning can cover in practice education, training or learning, leading to a variety of outcomes and qualifications.

In addition, unions have concerned themselves with building the workplace conditions necessary to facilitate and sustain learning activities. A key aim of unions is to get employer support behind their activities, such as time off for learners, facilities and time for ULRs and ultimately additional financial investment – for the benefit of employees. Accordingly, 1,777 learning agreements had been signed between unions and employers by 2010, with the aim of codifying practice around union learning at the workplace and embedding activities through voice structures, such as learning committees. Such agreements also help to detail any provisions for paid time off for employees to undertake learning and levels of employer support.

Research on union learning to date has tended to focus on the role of ULRs, notably in terms of how they may specifically prompt more employer-provided training (Hoque and Bacon, 2008) or contribute to the wider revitaliszation of unions (Findlay and Warhurst, 2011; Hollinrake et al., 2008; Wallis et al., 2005). Academic opinion is largely divided between those that see few gains for unions in an agenda supported by the state with limited constraints on employers (McIlroy, 2008) and those that see an opportunity for unions to develop new strategies of engagement (Rainbird and Stuart, 2011). Research on learners’ experiences, employers’ perspectives or ULF project workers are less common (but see Hoque and Bacon, 2011; Findlay and Warhurst, 2011), but are necessary if the full portrait of potential (and mutual) gains are to be understood. Against this backdrop, this article marshals evidence from three unique surveys of employees, employers and union workers to examine the potential gains of union learning. With this aim in mind it considers: how are gains understood and defined; and how are unions looking to ensure that gains are mutually constituted and of benefit to members and to unions themselves?

Methods

The data are derived from a large-scale study of union-led learning conducted during 2009 and 2010. The study focused specifically on ULF Rounds 8–11, on the grounds that during this period the administration of the ULF passed to TUC unionlearn and performance management information improved considerably. In total 98 projects were funded under ULF 8–11, between 2005 and 2011. Around £53 million was allocated to these four rounds, constituting more than half of the total funds distributed across the first 11 rounds. The records suggest that 8,307 ULRs were trained across Rounds 8–11 and some 436,947 learning opportunities were accessed.

The data were collected from a variety of sources. This included analysis of documentary sources and datasets of individuals, union workers and employers. First, the gains from union learning on individuals draw from two sources. This includes a large dataset of official learner records, collected by unionlearn as part of its management information, which includes 30,744 learning incidents involving 11,166 individuals, as part of Union Network (UNET) learner data from 2006 to 2010 and European Social Fund (ESF) learner data from 2008 to 2010. This is complemented by an original survey of 230 learners that had attended union learning centres. The gains for learners are considered in terms of the demographic profile of learners, the nature of learning undertaken, the extent of learner progression and wider material outcomes.

Second, the gains for unions are explored through a survey of ULF Union Project Officers (UPOs), responsible for the day-to-day management and delivery of ULF projects. A telephone survey was undertaken with the UPOs of all 98 ULF projects. Responses were elicited for 84 projects, a response rate of 86%. All phone interviews were tape-recorded and the median length of interview was 45 minutes. The gains for unions are considered in terms of the types of learning undertaken and the impact of union learning on wider union policy and employer practice.

Third, the largest survey to date of employers’ perspectives on union-led learning was conducted. This covered employers that had some experience of engagement with unions on learning-related issues, with a sample of 965 employers derived from unionlearn records. Again, the survey was administered by telephone. On average it took 10–15 minutes to complete and 430 responses were elicited. Once incomplete returns and duplicates were deleted, we were left with 415 useable responses; an overall response rate of 43%. The gains to employers are considered in terms of the nature of learning undertaken and the perceived impact on employer policy, practice and outcomes. In practical terms the survey of employers focused at the workplace level. The workplaces were evenly split between the public (51%) and private sectors (47%) and covered 941,000 employees (the remaining 2% of organizations were in the voluntary sector). More than 25 unions were represented.

Findings: The gains of union-led learning for learners, unions and employers

The gains for learners

The findings for individuals confirm that much union-led learning has tended to focus on basic skills provision. Although it is worth noting that union learning encompasses a wide range of activities from information, advice and guidance to higher education provision. Key growth areas in provision relate to higher level National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) and continuing professional development, though often from a low initial base level. On average each union learner engaged in 2.74 learning episodes – by which we refer to each incident of recorded learning, no matter what it may have been. For 90% of learners at least one of these episodes was a union-organized information, advice and guidance (IAG) session. Once these IAG sessions were taken out of the learner data, half of all learning was non-vocational and non-accredited. Superficially, this could be seen as learning related to employees’ interests rather than the specific interests of employers. However, it is important to recognize that learners also tend to be interested in vocationally related learning, particularly where it is accredited, transferable and improves employability. In 2010, 19.3% of all non-IAG learning episodes were for (National) Vocational Qualifications, an increase from 12.4% in 2006.

Beyond the content of learning, little is known about the demographic profile of union learners. This is considered in Table 1, which compares, where possible, the composition of union learners to more general national-level datasets. Compared to national statistics, union learners were far more likely to be men, aged between 35 and 64 and qualified to lower levels. Seven in ten union learners were qualified at or below Level 2, compared to around half of the national population. Only a minority (29%) were qualified to Level 3 and above. These findings are reflective of the composition of union membership more generally. More significantly, the findings are indicative of learning being taken up by groups that have historically been excluded or disadvantaged in terms of learning and training. Thus, the demographic characteristics of union learners were those that tend not to receive employer-provided training. Indeed, this has been one of the key rationales for union-led learning as far as the union movement is concerned.

Table 1.

Demographic profile of learners (in percentages).

		UNET MI records 2006–2010 (n = 5,898)	ESF MI records 2008–2010 (n = 5,268)	National Adult Learner Survey (n = 1,064)	UK workforce (2008) (Labour Force Survey)
Gender	Female	46.5	51.8	54.7
	Male	53.5	48.2	45.3
Age	< 25	1.4	8.4	29.6
	25–34	16.3	18.2	18.4
	35–44	24.1	30.1	19.0
	45–54	34.0	31.4	14.5
	55–64	19.4	11.2	10.1
	65+	4.8	0.7	8.4
Ethnic origin	White British		92.4	82.3
	Other ethnic		7.6	17.7*
Disability	Yes		7.5
Previous qualification	< Level 2Level 2Level 3+	70.4*13.715.9	50.0*20.629.3		29.020.051.0

Source: Unionlearn ESF learner data 2008–2010, UNET MI data 2006–2010 and NIACE adult learner survey 2008/2009.

A key theme of interest is learner progression, defined in terms of multiple learning and increased qualification levels or skills uplift. As noted, across the datasets, individuals participated in an average of 2.74 learning episodes (with an episode broadly constituting a course of some description). Nearly nine out of every ten (88%) learners had undertaken more than one learning episode. Among the 2008–2010 ESF learners the maximum number of learning episodes by an individual was 11 and the median was 2.1. Fourteen percent of learners had taken three or more courses.

This suggests that union learners were often repeatedly engaged in learning through the union learning route: suggestive of increased demand for learning. But does repeat learning represent progression? This is best evaluated in terms of skills uplift – i.e. do learners move from lower to higher level learning, courses or qualifications? Skills uplift was calculated by looking at the level of qualification before participation in union learning against the highest level of learning undertaken. Overall, around a third of learners had progressed in terms of participating in learning that was at least one level higher than their prior level of qualification (e.g. from Level 1 to Level 2). Two-thirds (67%) of learners with a prior level of qualification below Level 2 participated in learning at least one level higher; 14.4% of Level 2 learners progressed further. However, the direction went both ways. Just over eight in ten learners (82%) with prior learning at Level 3 or higher had taken courses at a lower level of qualification (such as basic IT courses). This reflected the extent to which union learning offered opportunities for learners to refresh or widen their learning, as well as increase qualification levels. In total, of the third of learners that had experienced skills uplift, half did so by one level above their prior qualification, almost half increased by two levels and almost one in ten by three levels.

Cost is often identified as a key barrier to the take-up of learning. The survey of 230 learners attending union learning centres asked who paid for learning, the length of courses in hours and whether the learning was undertaken in learners’ own time, in paid work time or a mix of the two. Just over half (54%) of all learners noted that their most recent course was free, a third that their employer paid for the course and 13% that the learner and employer both contributed to the cost of the course. The average length, in hours, was 45 hours. For one in ten learners the learning was for just six hours and, for a similar proportion, 60 hours or more. For four in ten learners (39%) learning was in their own time, while a third (33%) reported that learning was in paid work time. For just over a quarter (28%) it was a mix of the two. The distribution of paid and un-paid time off was broadly similar regardless of the length or type of course. Only a very small proportion (6%) of union learners agreed strongly that they would have undertaken their learning through another route if union learning had not been available to them.

In summary, learners accessed a wide range of provision, but a large amount of this was accounted for by basic IAG. Nonetheless, union learning typically offered opportunities to those traditionally excluded from employer provision and under-represented in terms of national profiles of learning. Their experiences of learning often prompted repeat activity and, for those with low base qualifications, there was evidence of progression and higher level qualifications. Less positively, for those with higher starting qualifications, union learning was of a lower level with no progression and generally the duration of learning was quite short.

The gains for trade unions

The survey of Union Project Officers (UPOs) explored further the coverage of learning and the type of learning on offer. Nine out of ten UPOs reported that union learning was ‘inclusive’ and open to all employees, whether union members or not. Just over a third (34%) of union activity was directed at specific ethnic, migrant or minority worker groups in order to raise demand for learning among under-represented groups. The type of learning on offer was extensive and reported to have covered a wide range of provision, from basic IAG sessions between a ULR and individual through to directing individuals to higher education provision.

In addition to specific types of learning activity, union-led learning contributed to the building of wider processes and frameworks to assist developments in learning that could be beneficial to trade union organization at the workplace. This can be understood in terms of the extent to which ULRs were trained, union learning centres established and learning agreements signed. Through such activity, unions have sought to embed policies for learning within wider union activities. Data show that for Rounds 8–11 of the ULF, 8,307 ULRs were trained, 75 learning centres were opened and 719 learning agreements signed. However, it should be noted that individual ULF applications have to set projected targets for such outcomes and against each of these criteria actual achievements fell substantially short of anticipated targets – for example, 1,413 learning agreements were projected.

Table 2 explores the embedding of union-led learning within wider union structures during the course of ULF projects. This was notable in terms of the extent to which ULRs worked more effectively within union branches. Just 11% of UPOs stated that ULRs were working effectively with their branches prior to projects. In contrast, nearly two-thirds of UPOs (63%) reported that as a result of projects ULRs were working more effectively within their union branches and a further quarter (24%) were working towards more effective branch working. There was also some indication of a greater degree of formalization within union structures. In just over a quarter of cases (28%) the role of ULRs had been written into rule books during the course of ULF projects, with union officers with specific roles for learning established in 39% of projects and written union policies on learning policies established according to 38% of respondents. The area most likely to already exist prior to projects was, perhaps unsurprisingly, with regard to union officers with a specific role for learning, which was noted by 41% of respondents.

Table 2.

Embedding of union-led learning within unions: ULF Rounds 8–11 (in percentages).

	Existed before project	Established during project	Working towards	Not working towards
ULR role written into rule book	27	28	26	19
ULRs working more effectively within their branch	11	63	24	3
Union officers with a specific role for learning	41	39	8	13
Written learning policy established	30	38	8	24
Learning become more linked to union organizing	12	62	16	10
Learning/skills formed part of union negotiating	20	50	20	11

Source: Union Project Officers survey, base: 84 UPO project responses.

In terms of more traditional union activity, a major challenge for union-led learning is how it links to wider imperatives around union organizing and negotiating. Sceptics, not least within unions themselves, may regard learning as a displacement activity that distracts unions from their core agenda. But it is entirely feasible that learning activities could be constituted within or contribute to wider organizing efforts. Indeed, nearly two-thirds of UPOs (62%) claimed that learning had become increasingly linked to the union organizing agenda during the course of the ULF, and a further 16% reported work in progress. The survey did not illuminate, however, what this meant in practice. Similarly, half of UPOs (50%) identified learning and skills as issues that had become more established as part of the union’s negotiating agenda, with a fifth working towards this. Whether employers would accept such a position is considered in the following section.

The findings in Table 3 explore in a little more detail the perceived impact of the ULF on unions. In general, UPOs held a positive view of the impact of the ULF on unions. This is not surprising, given the lead role that UPOs play in their union. A large percentage generally agreed across the indicators, with some 91% agreeing that the ULF had led to improved membership attitudes to the union, 79% that the ULF had led to increased interest in taking on union roles, 82% to increased capability of workplace representatives and 69% to increased union membership.

Table 3.

ULF impact on unions: ULF Rounds 8–11 (in percentages).

	Strongly agree	Neither	Disagree
Improved employee attitudes to the union	91	9	0
Increased enrolment on other union courses.	83	13	5
Increased member involvement in union activities	82	17	1
Increased capability of workplace reps	82	17	1
Increased interest in taking union roles	79	19	3
Increased ULR interest in union roles	78	14	9
ULF has contributed to increased union membership	69	25	6

Source: Union Project Officers survey, base: 84 UPO project responses.

These findings are to some extent corroborated by the survey of (230) learners at union learning centres, 85% of whom were union members. Of this group one in ten had become a union member since starting their union learning. In addition, a third of the non-union members had considered joining a trade union as a result of their learning experience. Furthermore, a third of all learners said that they had become more interested in the work of the union and a quarter that they had become more involved with the work of the union. This suggests that union learning may potentially act as a platform for individuals to get more involved in unions.

The union role involves not only engagement with members and internal union structures but the practices of employers. This is considered in Table 4. The ULF was reported to have had most impact on company policy on learning and support from senior management. Just over eight out of ten (82%) UPOs reported improvements in company learning policy, while just over two-thirds (70%) reported senior management were more supportive of learning. A small majority (62% and 57% respectively) reported that the ULF had led to the establishment of joint workplace training and learning committees and initiatives for the joint funding of other training. Fewer UPOs saw middle management as supportive (53%), compared to senior management. There was also evidence that unions and management were encouraged to look for further joint funding opportunities to support ongoing training and learning initiatives (57%).

Table 4.

ULF impact on employer policies: ULF Rounds 8–11.

	%
Company policy on learning has improved	82
Senior management are more supportive of learning	70
Joint workplace training and learning committees established	62
Joint funding of other training and learning initiatives	57
Middle management more supportive of learning	53
Joint application for funding from non-ULF sources	49
Other impacts on employer training	25

Source: Union Project Officers survey, base: 84 UPO project responses.

While these findings suggest that union-led learning may be impacting on employer policy, this does not mean that unions are necessarily finding it an easy agenda to advance. Eliciting employer support was reported to have been far from straightforward. Potential barriers with regard to engaging employers are considered in Table 5. While the majority of UPOs (90%) were of the view that the ULF did not substitute for employer training and 60% that anti-union attitudes were not a barrier, some significant challenges were evident. The main barriers related to engaging employers around learning agreements and time off for learning. Just over half of UPOs (55%) identified time off for learning as a very large or large barrier and just over four out of ten (41%) considered the barriers to reaching learning agreements to be large.

Table 5.

Barriers related to employers (in percentages).

	Small	Moderate	Large
Encouraging interest and support from employers	45	28	28
Reaching a formal learning agreement	35	24	41
Allowing time off for learning	25	19	55
Attitudes towards the union	60	29	13
ULF substituting for existing employer training	90	6	4

Source: Union Project Officers survey, base: 84 UPO project responses.

In summary, the gains for unions as reported by UPOs related to the breadth of learning coverage and the extent to which union-led learning as an approach was being integrated into the wider organizational structures of unions, stimulating increased membership interest in union participation and impacting on employer policy at the workplace. However, while there was evidence of unions looking to leverage learning on to the bargaining agenda and establishing joint structures at the workplace, engagement with employers was identified as a key barrier, notably in terms of establishing learning agreements and securing time off for employees to learn.

The gains for employers

The employers surveyed, by definition, had a track record of engagement with unions around the learning agenda. This covered a wide range of issues. Just under a half of employers surveyed (46%) reported that they were currently involved in ULF projects; this was the case for 53% of public sector employers and 38% of private sector employers.

Employer involvement was most likely to relate to the provision of facility time for ULRs (88%). More widely, effort had concentrated on tackling skills gaps and building qualification levels. Nearly eight out of ten employers reported that they had worked with unions to provide funding for employees to take work-related courses (78%), to address basic skills gaps (77%) or to introduce qualifications (71%). These types of learning represent direct benefits to employers by increasing the skills and competences of their workforce. Less attention had been directed to participation in non-work related training (46%), unsurprising where employer investment is concerned, or the development of learning centres (54%). It may be because this is seen as more of a union-specific domain, but it should still be emphasized that learning centres had been established at more than half the workplaces surveyed. The lowest level of engagement was around apprenticeships, a finding corroborated by the UPO survey.

The focus of training had predominantly been directed at those with less historical experience of learning and appeared to have been successful in increasing employee demand. Just over two-thirds of employers (68%) reported that their engagement with union learning had increased demand for learning among those employees with little history of learning, with even higher levels (71%) for those with poor basic skills. This did not mean that employees with higher levels of skills were excluded. Union learning had increased demand for learning among those with high skill levels by 28%. There were no significant differences between public and private sector workplaces.

To what extent was the view of UPOs on the impact of union learning on employer policy shared by employers? As Table 6 indicates, employers themselves reported that union learning initiatives had impacted across a range of learning practices. Most notably, equality of access to learning/training opportunities had increased in 56% of workplaces. More widely, there was extensive employer support for the union effect on the number of employees attaining qualifications (55%), positively addressing basic skills gaps (46%), the take-up of job related training (41%) and the take-up of non-job related training (37%).

Table 6.

Impact of union learning on organizational learning practices (in percentages).

	Increased (with learning agreement)	Stayed the same	Decreased	Base total
Take-up of job related training	41 (52)*	59	0	404
Take-up of non-job related training	37 (51)*	60	3	397
Number of employees attaining qualifications	55 (70)*	44	1	401
Continuing professional development	31 (40)*	69	0	380
Positively addresses basic skills gaps	46 (58)*	39	16	403
Number of apprenticeships	15 (21)*	83	2	390
Equality of access to learning/training opportunities	56 (65)*	43	1	399
Employer expenditure on employee training/learning	23 (31)*	72	6	396

Source: Employers survey. Figures in parentheses relate to where there is a learning agreement. *All differences between the overall percentages and percentage for employers with a learning agreement are significant (chi square) at .01.

Reported increases were less visible for apprenticeships (15%) and employer expenditure on employee training/learning (23%). But given the decline of apprenticeships in Britain and the extent to which budgets typically represent an area of management prerogative, high levels of impact would not have been expected. Of particular significance, all the reported increases attributed to union learning activity were higher still in those workplaces that had established union–management learning agreements.

Was there evidence to suggest that union learning had impacted more widely on organizational outcomes? As Table 7 shows, with the exception of staff turnover, at least three out of ten employers reported that union learning had led to increases across a whole range of employee indicators, performance measures and industrial relations concerns. In terms of performance, employers reported that union learning activity had contributed to increases in organizational performance (32%), service/quality indicators (34%) and health and safety (39%). It is important to note that the majority of respondents reported no change. Yet, given that union learning does not aim to address these factors per se, the fact that a large minority of employers attributed such increases to union learning was a rather notable finding.

Table 7.

The impact of union learning on organizational-level indicators (in percentages).

	Increased	Stayed the same	Decreased	Base total
Organization performance	32 (42)*	67	1	392
Service/quality indicators	34 (44)*	66	0	395
Health and safety	39 (42)	61	0	389
Staff turnover	4 (5)	87	9	394
Addressing skills gaps	54 (68)*	42	3	395
Staff morale	42 (52)*	56	3	395
Employee commitment	39 (49)*	60	2	396
Levels of trust between management and unions	42 (53)*	54	4	396
Negotiation on learning/training issues	40 (52)*	59	1	397
Consultation on learning/training issues	46 (59)*	54	0	395

Source: Employers survey. Figures in parentheses relate to where there is a learning agreement. * Significant difference to overall percentage (chi square) of at least .01.

The findings also suggest a degree of impact on employee outcomes and industrial relations matters. Around four out of ten employers claimed union learning had contributed to an increase in staff morale (42%) and employee commitment (39%). Turning to the wider industrial relations environment, the findings offer support for the contribution union learning can make to improved levels of trust between management and unions (42%). Perhaps more surprising was what this meant for wider voice levels at the workplace. Consultation levels were reported to have increased in 46% of workplaces and negotiation around learning and training issues in four out of ten workplaces. It may well be that the workplaces surveyed were highly predisposed to engagement with unions anyway. Even so, given the fact that British employers have generally proved reluctant to negotiate on learning, and that learning is often pursued separately from wider channels of bargaining, these findings merit further analysis. Staff turnover aside, again all the findings were positively associated with union–management learning agreements.

In summary, the gains for employers appeared to relate to increased levels of work-related learning and raised demand for learning among lower skill category employees, as well as performance indicators and employee outcomes. What was perhaps more surprising was the extent to which employers reported increased levels of negotiation and consultation around the learning agenda. The fact that union–management learning agreements were associated with higher perceived impacts was also suggestive that a degree of institutionalization around learning may be taking place and that such institutionalization may make a difference to the impact that union-led learning can have at the British workplace. Taken together, the findings reveal that new channels of voice around learning at those workplaces involved in the union learning model are emerging.

Discussion

The aim of the article was to assess the extent to which union-led learning in Britain has delivered gains for different stakeholders, namely employees, unions and employers. ULF projects in Rounds 8–11 have trained a significant number of ULRs and directed a large number of individuals into learning. The analysis of learner data shows that union learning activity was offering accredited learning opportunities for many learners with few or no formal qualifications and that successive learning activity had led, for a significant minority, to an increase in qualification levels. The demographic profile of learners was biased towards those usually under-represented in more traditional structures of vocational education and training. This could be seen as a distinctive union contribution. Overall, there was clear evidence that progression in learning was happening and that this would not have happened without union intervention. However, this was limited to those employees with lower qualification starting points and, while union-led learning was directing learners towards high skills levels, for those with a higher qualification starting point, progression was less likely.

In terms of specific union gains, UPOs reported that union learning had started to impact on the conduct and structures of trade unions, and ultimately the offer of unions within the modern economy. Learning is thus potentially becoming a more mainstreamed or core union activity, in Britain at least (Wilson, 2010). In practical terms this meant that unions were looking to: write the role of ULRs into their rule books; develop more formal policies around learning; link learning more explicitly to organizing; establish more effective working between ULRs and branches; and put learning into the arena of negotiation. But the gains were not just understood in terms of the union side. Union learning activities were also having a positive impact on employees’ attitudes to unions and were starting to influence the terrain of employer policy around learning. This was evident in terms of eliciting senior management support for the union learning role, influencing workplace learning policy and establishing joint workplace committees.

This is not to suggest there were no challenges. UPOs reported considerable barriers in engaging employers, be it in terms of raising general interest and support from employers, establishing learning agreements or eliciting the appropriate time needed for learners to receive advice about or take advantage of learning opportunities. UPOs also faced challenges in terms of the recruitment and training of ULRs: time constraints were also a pressure on ULRs. More broadly, the sustainability of union learning will be shaped by the degree to which unions are able to firmly establish a role at the workplace level, and the extent to which they are able to engage constructively with employers on learning matters.

The employer survey revealed perceived gains to employers from engaging in union-led learning. Organizational involvement with unions on learning was found to be widespread and union learning was perceived to have had an impact on workplace learning practices, most notably in terms of perceived skills upgrading, the number of employees attaining qualifications and increased levels of equality of access to learning and training. Perhaps more surprising was the response to the wider impact of union learning on organizational outcomes. Around a third of respondents reported that organizational performance and service/quality indicators had increased as a result of union learning. In more than four out of ten workplaces trust levels between management and unions and consultation and negotiation around learning had also increased. The perceived impact of union-led learning was positively associated with the existence of a workplace learning agreement: where they had been signed, employers were more likely to report an impact.

What is the wider significance of these findings? Stroud (2011) has recently argued that unions should look to engage with skills and learning in defence of their members during an increased era of corporate restructuring. However, to avoid the well-rehearsed weaknesses of partnership-based approaches to learning, unions need to ‘reflect on organizational capacity and strategic formulation’ (Stroud, 2011: 14). The British model of union learning represents an example of such capacity building. Unions have been concerned to not only build individuals’ demand for learning, but to construct new workplace arrangements, such as learning centres, learning committees and learning agreements. These arrangements are important as they look to penetrate into the governance of skills and learning decisions at the workplace and look to provide a sustainable and institutional voice for unions around learning.

This is a somewhat curious development within the British context. Learning is often presented as an agenda item around which unions can forge consensual and integrative relations with employers, yet learning agreements are sought by unions alert to the need to ‘pin down’ employer commitment to engagement around learning and to establish a solid basis for negotiation and consultation on learning. While the findings suggest, therefore, that all parties have reported some degree of gains from union learning, it is important to note that the focus of unions on embedding activity and building workplace structures is revealing of the wider contested terrain of learning (Stuart, 1996). It is no surprise, therefore, that union respondents cited their biggest challenge as getting employers to sign learning agreements or provide time for ULRs to conduct their duties.

It is necessary at this stage to consider some limitations to the analysis. First, the presentation of data relied on quantitative sources. This allowed for the presentation of potential aggregate gains for individuals, unions and employers and allowed for a degree of triangulated, scale comparison across different stakeholder groups. Nonetheless, such quantitative sources could be further interrogated via multivariate techniques. Findings such as the impact of learning agreements and the perceived impact on employer outcomes would also repay further qualitative research to uncover the underlying processes at play. Relatedly, there would seem to be a high degree of overlap between the gains reported by different stakeholders and further analysis is needed to assess with confidence the extent to which genuine mutual gains have accrued or whether there is an underlying ‘balance of advantage’ towards union or employer interests.

Conclusion

This article has presented the most systematic assessment to date of the potential gains that may accrue to individuals, unions and employers from union-led learning in Britain. In conclusion two wider contributions of the empirical analysis are worth noting. First, despite the seeming benefits for all actors in relation to union-led learning, this does not necessarily imply mutual gains. The potential gains to individuals may relate to learning that is of rather short duration; although it has the potential to engage disadvantaged groups. Furthermore, unions face numerous challenges in advancing the learning agenda at the workplace, as employer support has to be actively elicited. It is for this reason that the article gave consideration to the institutionalization of learning through learning agreements. As Huzzard (2001) has noted, learning is often imbued with a curious discourse of consensus, yet where employers do not support joint activity around learning progress is unlikely. To be effective and deliver mutual gains, the discourse of learning needs to be ‘normalized’. Workplace structures, such as learning agreements and learning committees, offer one such way to encourage this with regard to union-led learning.

Second, union-led learning may be seen as an interesting anomaly within the context of a liberal market approach to learning and training (Cooney, 2010). Typically, their decentralized and employer-led nature offer limited engagement for the social actors ‘with few opportunities for the exercise of employee voice’ (Cooney, 2010: 390). But, union-led learning may offer a new avenue for unions and employees to develop and build voice around learning at the workplace. Given its reliance to date on state support, its sustainability is an open question. The union learning model is to some extent associated with the previous British Labour administration (1997–2010). Yet, curiously, the new Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition has extended the period of state funding, precisely because it perceives potential gains from the union learning model – but for employers. To ensure that the union model does not become an agenda based purely on the interests of employers, it is essential that unions continue to build their organizing capacity around learning, embed learning within new workplace structures around voice, consultation and negotiation and focus on the needs of (often marginalized) workers. This returns us to the issue of institutionalization and a question for future researchers over the extent to which unions can build enduring institutions of voice over new agenda issues, for the benefits of their members, within the constraints of the market model.

Footnotes

Funding

The study was funded by the British Trade Union Congress and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The views reported are the authors’ own.

Author biographies

Mark Stuart is Professor of Human Resource Management and Employment Relations and Director of the Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change (CERIC) at the University of Leeds. He has published more than 120 articles, chapters and reports on trade union change, the modernization of employment relations and skill formation. He is the Joint Editor-in-Chief of Work, Employment and Society.

Jo Cutter is a doctoral researcher at the University of Leeds and a freelance consultant. She has an extensive portfolio of trade union work, has led evaluations of the Union Learning Fund in both England and Northern Ireland and also advised the British government on the statutory provisions for Union Learning Representatives.

Hugh Cook is a lecturer in Employment Relations and Human Resource Management at the University of Leeds. His core research addresses the implementation of strategic HRM systems in the retail sector and their response to economic recession and partnership-based approaches to learning and skills provision. He has published in the Industrial Relations Journal.

Jonathan Winterton is Professor of Employment and Director of International Development at Toulouse Business School, where he also coordinates the research group Travail Emploi Santé. Having undertaken research on employment and training issues for 30 years, he is currently editing Trade Union Strategies for Competence Development for Routledge.

References

Alexandrou

(ed.) (2009) Union Learning Representatives: Challenges and Opportunities. London: Routledge.

Bosch

Charest

(eds) (2010) Vocational Training: International Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Cassell

Lee

(2007) Re-vitalising learning and development: Exploring the role of the trade union representative. Personnel Review 36(5): 781–799.

Clough

(2010) Union learning representatives: State agents or state partners? Labour and Industry 21(2): 495–512.

Cooney

(2010) Workplace training in a deregulated training system: Experiences for Australia’s automotive industry. Economic and Industrial Democracy 31(3): 389–403.

Crouch

Finegold

Sako

(1999) Are Skills the Answer? The Political Economy of Skill Creation in Advanced Industrial Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

European Commission (2001) Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality. Communication, Brussels. COM(2001) 678[final].

Findlay

Warhurst

(2011) Union Learning Funds and trade union revitalization: A new tool in the toolkit? British Journal of Industrial Relations 49(S1): 115–134.

Hollinrake

Antcliff

Saundry

(2008) Explaining activity and exploring experience: Findings from a survey of union learning representatives. Industrial Relations Journal 39(5): 392–410.

10.

Hoque

Bacon

(2008) Trade unions, union learning representatives and employer-provided training in Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations 46(4): 702–731.

11.

Hoque

Bacon

(2011) Assessing the impact of Union Learning Representatives on training: Evidence from a matched sample of ULRs and managers. Work, Employment and Society 25(2): 218–233.

12.

Huzzard

(2001) Discourse for normalizing what? The learning organization and the workplace trade union response. Economic and Industrial Democracy 22(3): 407–431.

13.

Huzzard

Gregory

Scott

(2004) Strategic Unionism and Partnership: Boxing or Dancing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

14.

Keep

Mayhew

(2010) Moving beyond skills as a social and economic panacea. Work, Employment and Society 24(3): 565–577.

15.

Kochan

Osterman

(1994) The Mutual Gains Enterprise: Forging a Winning Partnership among Labour, Management and Government. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

16.

Leisink

Greenwood

(2007) Company-level strategies for raising basic skills: A comparison of Corus Netherlands and UK. European Journal of Industrial Relations 13(3): 341–360.

17.

McIlroy

(2008) Ten years of New Labour: Workplace learning, social partnership and union revitalisation in Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations 46(2): 283–313.

18.

Martinez Lucio

Stuart

(2005) ‘Partnership’ and new industrial relations in a risk society: An age of shotgun weddings and marriages of convenience? Work, Employment and Society 19(4): 797–817.

19.

Martinez Lucio

Skule

Kruse

Trappmann

(2007) Regulating skill formation in Europe: A comparison of German, Norwegian and Spanish policies on transferable skills. European Journal of Industrial Relations 13(3): 323–340.

20.

Mathews

(1993) The industrial relations of skill formation. International Journal of Human Resource Management 4(3): 591–609.

21.

Munro

Rainbird

(2004) Opening doors as well as banging on tables: UNISON/employer partnerships on learning in the UK public sector. Industrial Relations Journal 35(5): 419–433.

22.

Rainbird

Stuart

(2011) The state and the union learning agenda in Britain. Work, Employment and Society 25(2): 202–217.

23.

Richardson

Stewart

Danford

. (2005) Employees’ experiences of workplace partnership in the private and public sector. In: Stuart

Martinez Lucio

(eds) Partnership and Modernisation in Employment Relations. London: Routledge, pp. 210–225.

24.

Streeck

(1994) Training and the new industrial relations: A strategic role for unions? In: Regini

(ed.) The Future of Labour Movements. London: Sage, pp. 250–269.

25.

Stroud

(2011) Organizing training for union renewal: A case study analysis of the European Union steel industry. Economic and Industrial Democracy. Epub ahead of print 22 June 2011. DOI: 10.1177/0143831X11404577.

26.

Stuart

(1996) The industrial relations of training: A reconsideration of training arrangements. Industrial Relations Journal 27(3): 253–265.

27.

Stuart

(2001) Contesting partnership: Evaluating the demise of a national training agreement. Journal of Vocational Education and Training 53(1): 5–20.

28.

Stuart

(2007) The industrial relations of learning and training: A new consensus or a new politics. European Journal of Industrial Relations 13(3): 269–280.

29.

Stuart

Martinez Lucio

(eds) (2005) Partnership and Modernisation in Employment Relations. London: Routledge.

30.

Stuart

Cook

Cutter

Winterton

(2011) Evaluation of the Union Learning Fund and Unionlearn: Final Report. London: Unionlearn, TUC.

31.

Trappmann

(2012) The changing role of trade unions in the German vocational education and training system. In: Cooney

Stuart

(eds) Trade Unions and Workplace Training: International Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

32.

Wallis

Stuart

(2007) A collective learning culture: A qualitative study of workplace learning agreements. Unionlearn Research Paper 3. TUC, London.

33.

Wallis

Stuart

Greenwood

(2005) ‘Learners of the workplace unite!’ An empirical examination of the trade union learning representative initiative. Work, Employment and Society 19(2): 283–304.

34.

Walton

McKersie

(1965) A Behavioural Theory of Labor Negotiations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

35.

Wilson

(2010) The Future for Union Learning. London: Unions 21.

36.

Winterton

(2007) Building social dialogue over training and learning: European and national developments. European Journal of Industrial Relations 13(3): 281–300.

37.

Winterton

(1994) Collective Bargaining and Consultation over Continuing Vocational Training. Sheffield: Employment Department RM.7.