The Future for

Union Learning

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

Registered office:
Unions 21
c/o ATL
7 Northumberland Street
London WC2N 5RD
www.unions21.org.uk
Email: info@unions21.org.uk
Foreword - Debate 4
Contents

Acknowledgements 4

Summary 5

The Author 6

Introduction
Why learning is a union issue 7

CHAPTER 1
The current state of Union Learning 11

CHAPTER 2
Union Learning - A soft activity? 16

CHAPTER 3
The Union vision for learning 21

CHAPTER 4
Future prospects 23

Appendix
An agenda for skills policy 25

3
Debate
Unions 21 exists to provide an ‘open space’ for discussion on the future of the trade
union movement and help build tomorrow’s unions in the UK.

We are mainly resourced by contributions from trade unions and others who work with
trade unions that recognise we need to keep the movement evolving in an ever
changing world. We encourage discussion on tomorrow’s unions through publications,
conferences, seminars and similar activities.

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

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

Sue Ferns
Chair of the Steering Committee
Unions 21

www.unions21.org.uk
Email: info@unions21.org.uk

Acknowledgements

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

Other titles in our Debate series:

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

4
• Unions exist to fight poverty and unfairness; Learning and Skills are the key to a
better job and a better life but are grossly unequally distributed Summary
• The UK economy must radically improve skills at all levels but can only improve
skills for all by reducing skills inequality, so prosperity and equality arguments go
hand in hand

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

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

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

• Wider union campaigning and policy development is based on experience in the

workplace, and vice versa; union learning should embrace both delivery and policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5
The Author Tom Wilson

Tom was appointed Director of Unionlearn, the learning and skills arm of the TUC, in
July 2009; he first joined the TUC as Head of the Organisation and Services Dept in
2003. Prior to that he worked as Head of the Higher Education Dept of Natfhe and
Assistant General Secretary of AUT - both of which have now merged to form the UCU.
From 1986 to 1988 he was trade union liaison officer with the Labour party and from
1980 to 1986 was a researcher with the GMB.

Tom is a board member of Niace, Learndirect, Foundation Degree Forward and City
and Guilds and is involved in many other bodies aiming to improve learning and skills.
He has written widely on a range of skills and union issues, this papmphlet is a
comapnion piece to his earlier Unions 21 pamphlet on the Future for Unions..

6
Fighting poverty, low pay, unfairness and dreary work are the foundations of trade
unionism; whether by confronting poor employers or by campaigning for a fairer society. Introduction
But it is not enough just to tackle the symptoms. In today’s UK there is one fundamental
cause of unequal life chances which stands out above all others: education. And that is
why unions care about learning. It is not something peripheral; learning is at the heart of Why learning is a
trade unionism. It always has been. The very first trade union banners gave equal union issue
prominence to three words: Educate, Agitate, Organise. They were, and still are, the key
to progress in fighting poverty and unfairness.

If anything, education is even more important today than ever. In order to sustain
reasonable lifestyles for its citizens and maintain a prosperous society the UK needs to
be globally competitive. That in turn demands much higher levels of skilled work.
The national skills body (The UK Commission for Skills and Employment) estimates
that by 2020, on average, half of all working people will need to gain an additional
qualification. Table 1 shows what is needed:

Table 1: Changing distribution of skills in the UK (%)(1)

2007 2020 Gap

Level 4 and above 31 40 +9
Level 3 20 28 +8
Level 2 20 22 +2
Below Level 2 17 6 -11
No Qualifications 12 4 -8
Total 100 100

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

Equally clear is the impact on inequality. If working people do not manage to gain (1) Ambition 2020: World Class Skills and
qualifications then they will increasingly be destined for a life of low pay, poor quality Jobs for the UK; UK Commission on
Employment and Skills, page 45
work or unemployment. This is not just a problem for those individuals, it affects the
whole of society. The more unequal the distribution of educational attainment(3), the (2) The College Wage Premium and the
lower is both the average attainment across the whole of society and the lower is the Expansion of Higher Education in the
UK, Ian Walker and Yu Zhu,
attainment at the highest end. In their massively influential book The Spirit Level,
Scandinavian Journal of Economics,
Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett show that national educational scores are closely Vol 110, pages 695-709
correlated with national income inequality. More unequal countries have worse
(3) The Spirit Level, revised edition 2010,
educational attainment. Countries like Finland outperform the UK at every level of
R Wilkinson and K Pickett, Penguin,
attainment and have much less inequality between the highest and lowest levels of pages105-109

7
 attainment. So the prosperous and well educated middle classes should not ignore the
plight of those without qualifications. They and their children will benefit if those with
least skills also benefit.

The UK is one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. It came 4th from
bottom (only Portugal, the USA and Singapore are worse) in a ranking of 23 developed
nations measured by how much richer are the top 20% than the bottom 20%. In the UK
the richest 20% are 7 times richer than bottom 20%. In top scoring Japan (Finland
came a close second) they are 4 times as rich.(4)

This income inequality is reflected in the UK’s poor international standing in the
educational league tables, as shown in the table below.

Table 2: International skills position(5)

Country %Below % %
Upper Secondary Upper Secondary Tertiary
USA 12.2 48.3 39.5
Canada 14.4 38.7 47
Switzerland 15 55.1 29.9
Japan 15.3 44.2 40.5
Sweden 15.9 53.6 30.5
Germany 16.8 59.3 23.9
Denmark 18.4 46.9 34.7
Austria 19.7 62.7 17.6
New Zealand 20.2 50.8 29
Finland 20.5 44.3 35.3
Norway 20.9 46.1 33
Hungary 22 60.7 17.2
S. Korea 23.3 43.7 32.9
Netherlands 27.6 42.2 30.2
UK 31 38.8 30.2
France 32.6 41.2 26.2
Belgium 33.1 35.2 31.8
Australia 33.3 33.7 33
Greece 41.4 36.7 21.9
Poland 47.3 34.8 17.9
Italy 48.8 38.5 12.8
Spain 50.3 21.2 28.5
Portugal 72.4 14.1 13.5

(4) The Spirit Level, pages16-17
(5) Ambition 2020, UKCES,
from table 3.1 page 49
(6) Ambition 2020, UKCES, page 48
And the UK is falling further behind. The UK Commission found that “the UK’s relative
position is worse for younger individuals than it is for older people. The progress we
are making is often less than for other countries and we are at serious risk of being left
behind”(6). Many of the countries with higher skill levels are those with less skill
inequality such as Japan, Canada and the Nordic nations. Many of those with lower skill
levels are emerging from decades of underdevelopment such as Poland, Greece, Spain
and Portugal and on current trends will overtake the UK.
In other words, inequality and prosperity go hand in hand. If we want to campaign
against poverty and inequality we need to improve skills. If we want a prosperous society

8
we need to improve skills. And if we want to improve skills we have to do so at all levels,
not just for the better off.

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

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

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

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

Unions perform another vital role. It is not enough just to gain qualifications. If skills
are not used they are forgotten. Unions can help employers to expand the scope of
jobs to absorb new skills. Upskilling a workforce means changing culture, hierarchies
and job design. A higher skilled workplace may well be less authoritarian, more open
to debate, care more about ending dreary job routines – and of course have higher pay.
Employees want all that and so should good employers but achieving change needs
joint commitment. The UK is poor at skill utilisation. Unions can help employers make
it better.

The UK skills problem is not because people do not want to learn. Working people know
very well that better skills are the passport to a better life. But if managers don’t know
what kind of training their employees want then they will either not provide much
training or provide the wrong kind – and if that results in few volunteers then managers
will wrongly conclude there is little appetite for training. So the union role is crucial.
Without the trusted intermediary of the union learning rep it will inevitably be more
difficult to organise the right kind of training. All too often the training budget goes to
those employees who ask for it and have always had the training – professionals and
senior managers. Those who arguably need it most, the least qualified, get least.
Giving a voice to the least well qualified, via the union, can transform who gets training.
The result is not just a fairer allocation of learning opportunities but also better returns

9
 This union learning role in the workplace goes hand in hand with the wider union role
campaigning for a fairer learning system beyond the workplace. Unions’ understanding
of the problems faced by their members at work is the basis of union campaigning for a
better skills system. Fighting poverty and inequality cannot be confined to the realm of
politics, nor just to what happens at work. Union learning is a dynamic which includes
both practical support for learning at work and lobbying for better funding, rights and
opportunities. Each rely on the other and together they form the unique and vital
contribution made by union learning to the fight against poverty and unfairness, the
fight for better quality work, and for a more prosperous society.

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

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

There is a vast range of activity which very largely depends on the union involved.
For example ATL (a large teaching union) has over 1,000 members enrolled, via the
union, on a professional teaching course through a Higher Education Institution. Unite
(a very large general union) has thousands of members who are migrant workers
learning English for Speakers of Other Languages. Unison ( a very large public sector
union) has embedded learning at all levels and in all regions of the union, Dave Prentis,
General Secretary, made it a highlight of his speech at the 2010 annual conference.
Many specialist unions have highly developed programmes tailored to their members,
for example the Prison Officers Association has been given the contract by government
to deliver training to ensure all prison officers reach at least level 2; The Fire Brigades
Union works closely with the Fire and Rescue Service to deliver higher level professional
and management training. The Public and Commercial Services Union (a large union for
low to medium paid civil servants) runs a big learning programme aimed at helping
members improve both their workplace skills/job prospects and skills to help them
become active in the union. Almost every union runs a programme (themselves and/or
via the TUC Education service) to train workplace reps and officers. In 2009 the TUC
programme trained almost 60,000 – more than twice the number at the height of union
membership in 1980. Union learning is flourishing as never before.

Employer Support
Whatever their views on other union activities, employers who know about union
learning are strong supporters. In 2009 unionlearn commissioned the biggest ever
(7) Assessing the impact of union
survey of union learning from Leeds University. It covered 415 employers who between learning and the Union Learning Fund:
them employed almost 1m people in workplaces where there was union learning(7). union and employer perspectives;
Prof Mark Start, Hugh Cook, Jo Cutter,
It found that:
Prof Jonathan Winterton; Centre for
Employment Relations Innovation and
• 91% of managers agree that unions should continue to develop their role in the
Change, Leeds university Business
learning agenda

11
 • 79% are very supportive of the union role in learning

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

• 81% say union learning benefited the individuals taking part

• 63% say union learning was of benefit to the organisation

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

increased stayed decreased

the same
Take-up of job related training? 41% 59% 0%
Number of employees gaining qualifications? 55% 44% 1%
Continuing Professional Development? 31% 60% 0%
Positively addressed basic skills gaps? 46% 39% 16%
Number of apprentices? 15% 83% 2%
Equality of access to training opportunities? 56% 43% 1%
Employer expenditure on training? 23% 72% 6%

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

increased stayed decreased

the same
Organisational performance? 32% 67% 1%
Service and/or Quality indicators? 34% 66% 0%
Health and Safety? 39% 61% 0%
Staff turnover? 4% 87% 9%
Staff Morale? 42% 56% 3%
Employee commitment? 39% 60% 2%
Levels of union/management trust? 42% 54% 4%
Negotiation on training issues? 40% 59% 1%
Consultation on training issues? 46% 54% 0%

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

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

12
Union Views
The Leeds University survey included a survey of union officers running Union Learning
Fund(8) projects. It found union learning was equally popular with employees and made
them think much better of their union:

Table 3 Union views on impact of union learning

impact strongly agree neither disagree strongly

agree disagree
Improved employees
attitudes to the union 44 44 11 0 0
Contributed to increased union
membership 20 43 32 6 0
Increased enrolment on other
union courses 25 52 17 6 0
Increased member involvement
in union activities 35 46 19 0 0
Increased interest in taking on
union roles 20 57 22 0 0
Increased interest by ULRs in
other union roles 34 43 17 6 0
Increased capability of union
workplace reps 20 54 24 2 0

Again these are strikingly positive figures. Almost 90% of Union officials engaged in
learning say that employees (many of whom would not even be union members) either
agree or strongly agree that union learning is a good thing for their union to engage in.
Over 60% think it has helped unions recruit new members. Over 90% think members
will become more active within the union. At a time when union membership is broadly
static (nonetheless no small achievement during a recession) and when unions are keen
to find new ways to engage more members in union activity, these figures are crucially
important. Union learning must play a major role in any plans to revitalise union
membership and activity.

Of course many unions already know this. The link between learning and organising is
well established. A 2009 study(9) found that:

“The research suggests that unions are increasingly promoting a relationship between
learning and organising at national union level. Unions are bringing learning and
organising together in their departmental structures, or developing links between
separate learning and organising departments around specific campaigns. Some unions
are also integrating the two at regional union level by placing Union Learning Project (8) The Union Learning Fund is a £15.5M
fund, distributed by unionlearn with gov-
Workers in regional organising teams. Another trend is to designate Union Learning
ernment oversight, to unions after a bid-
Project Workers as organisers, to reflect how they are organising around the learning ding process. It has been
agenda. Union education and training is also developing the link between the two running for 12 years, initially managed
by government before moving to
functions, with learning reflected in activist training and organising in ULR training.”
unionlearn in 2006. The survey asked
union officials involved with the
A good example of this integration is Unison’s Learning and Organising Services ULF for their views on its impact in
their union.
(LAOS) which brings them together in a single high profile department. PCS have had a
single department since 2002 and other unions are moving in the same direction. (9) Integrating Union Learning and
The relationship between learning and organising is strong but varies between unions, Organising Strategies; Sian Moore,
Working Lives Research Institute,
reflecting different memberships and strategies. Unionlearn compiled a resource pack
London Metropolitan University,
featuring 7 case studies in 2008. It covered a TGWU recruitment drive among migrant Unionlearn Research Paper 8, March
2009, page 4

13

(10) Learning works, Report of the 2009
survey of union learning representatives
and their managers; Richard Saundry,
Alison Hollinrake and Valerie Antcliff,
University of Central Lancashire
Business School, unionlearn April 2010
14
Tayside based on better CPD; a CWU (postal workers) call centre campaign aimed at
younger workers issues; an ATL recruitment drive based on better in-service training; a
Unison campaign at Exeter University offering workplace skills for the first time in their
lives to administrative workers; and a FDA (senior civil servants) seminar on better
professional skills which saw 17 new members sign up on the spot. In every case there
was an increase in both membership and activism, both immediate and longer term.
Very many unions find that for members who take up the ULR role it is the first time they
have ever been a union activist, many go on to further union roles or become union
officials.
Some see union learning as just about basic “skills for life”. In other words level 1
literacy and numeracy and ICT skills. Certainly those are important skills but union
learning goes far wider. Over 40% of all union members already have Higher Education
(degree or equivalent) qualifications. The great majority of the remaining 60% have level
2 or 3 skills. Union learning reflects this pattern. Unions like USDAW, representing
workers in retail and distribution, focus on skills up to level 2. USDAW’s pioneering
“checkout learning” programme has helped thousands of their members gain
qualifications equivalent to GCSE, often for the first time in their lives. Equally, unions
representing more highly qualified employees, aim at HE qualifications. For example
ATL, representing teaching staff, have organised a programme with Edgehill College of
Higher Education which now has 3,000 ATL members enrolled on in-service courses.
Very many members are not content to gain just level 2 but, once they realise what they
can do, aspire to level 3 and 4. Unionlearn has negotiated discounts of 10% or more on
courses from the Open University, Birckbeck College, Kingston University and others.
A Unison cleaner in a university law department became a lecturer in that same
department, through Unison’s “return to learn” programme. The FBU helped a firefighter
move from level 2 to a PhD in 7 years, all through work-based learning.
As the economy and workforce move towards higher average skill levels, there will be
ever more demand for higher level union learning. Nor will it always take the form of
specific courses. Many professional union members want to engage in continual
professional development (CPD) but find their employers need persuading or the CPD
courses on offer are not appropriate. So unions are organising better CPD (as ATL did)
and ensuring it recognises, supports and enhances the work their members actually do.
Unions are helping to break down the barriers between Further Education and Higher
Education; between academic and vocational. As HE becomes ever more expensive
unions are negotiating with employers for more help with fees. Unions are negotiating
with FE and HE institutions to offer learning tailored to members’ needs; such as more
on-line learning, more recognition of the learning members have already gained via
experience, more courses tailored to the jobs members do or aspire to. Above all, union
learning is dynamic and democratic. It champions members’ right to progress, to carry
on learning, either for its own sake or to achieve higher qualifications, skills and pay.
That is what union members want.
Union Learning Reps are the bedrock of union learning. Unionlearn commissions a
biennial survey of ULRs, the 2009 survey(10) showed:
• 43% of ULRs are women, 8.4% are Black or Minority Ethnic and 39% are aged
under 46. In other words ULRs are much more likely than other union
representatives to be women, black and young – and more likely to be
representative of union membership
• One third of ULRs are new to trade union activity
• Over 80% of ULRs feel supported by the union and 87% are happy to continue
in the role
• Over two thirds report adequate support from their line managers but only 34% feel
valued by senior management

• Two thirds negotiate with their employer over learning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(11) Very few unions make any

distinction between members and
non-members in practice, very often
offering help to non-members is seen as
a good recruitment tool

15
 Chapter 2
Union learning – a
soft activity?
(12) For an excellent summary of the
history see An Historical Overview of
Trade Union Involvement in Education
and Training; Moira Calveley, in
Learning With Trade Unions,
Ashgate, 2008, pages 13 to 31
(13) From Calveley, see above, page 15
(14) Royal Commission on Trades
Unions and Employers Associations,
Chair Lord Donovan, Cmnd 3623, June
1968, Para 357 to 359, pages 92 to 93:
“Prejudice against women is manifest at
all levels of management as well as on
the shop floor. Among the professions
there are to be found demarcation rules
and rules for qualifying to practise which
are no less strict and no less open to
question than those practised in many
crafts. There are, however, some
encouraging signs that the need for a
transformation in our system is gaining
wider recognition. The trades unions
co-operation in the rapid expansion of
the government training centres is
greatly to be welcomed. The levy and
grant system under the 1964 Act has
stimulated employers to devote greater
attention to industrial training in all its
aspects. We doubt, however, whether
the urgency and scale of the problem
have yet been appreciated.”
(15) Trade Unionism; pub by the TUC,
November 1966, pages 10-11
16
A brief look at history helps explain attitudes to union learning. Although there is a long
history of union involvement in learning, it was for a long time seen as peripheral to the
core concern with gaining recognition and bargaining on pay, jobs and conditions.
There is little mention of education, training or learning in the magisterial History of
British Trade Unions (vol 1 published in 1964, vol 2 in 1985) by Clegg, Fox and
Thompson. Nor any mention in Clegg’s 1954 history of the GMWU. Classics like
Working for Ford by Huw Beynon (1975) or Carter Goodrich’s The Frontier of Control
(1920) also contain little on unions and learning, although they are both, arguably, about
widening workers’ perspectives in exactly the way that union learning does today.
There are hardly any references to training, education or learning in other classics,
whether of left or right, such as George Bain’s Growth of White Collar Unionism (1970);
Robin Page Arnott’s The Miners in Crisis and War (1961), or Cole’s Attempts at General
Union (1953).
To some extent, this may well have been right. In the 19th century unions had a hard
struggle simply existing, let alone providing training services, in the teeth of fierce
opposition. Not surprisingly, issues of organising, recognition, and bitter battles over
pay and conditions took centre stage(12). In the 20th century, as union membership grew
and unions became more established, unions’ own education services also grew, albeit
slowly, and primarily aimed at helping reps and officers carry out their union work. Of
course throughout their formative years unions had a passionate interest in education
for their members and the working class. The struggle for the 8 hour day was largely to
allow time for adult instruction in evening classes, which is where many union leaders
gained both their union and wider education. The TUC lobbied hard for the 1870
Elementary Education Act which gave free schooling, for the first time, to the children of
the working class. The TUC carried on the fight for better funding and raising the school
leaving age (it only got to age 12 in 1899 and even then was partly discretionary) and
still does today. Central to the New Unionism of the 1890’s was a belief that the
movement should do more to improve wider social conditions. Tom Mann, the
engineering union leader, attended evening classes three times a week which, he said,
helped him become a union leader and in particular lead the 8 Hour movement.
He called for “Leisure to think, to learn, to acquire knowledge, to enjoy, to develop; in
short leisure to live.”(13) (his emphasis).
At the same time, organisations aimed at helping union education grew up outside the
unions: the WEA was founded in 1903, Ruskin College in 1899, the Plebs League
founded the Central Labour College (CLC) in 1909, The Workers Education Trade Union
Committee WETUC) was formed in 1919 to strengthen the WEA’s work with unions and
the CLC became the National CLC in 1921. For the next 40 years there was great rivalry
between the WEA (which received some state funding) and NCLC, each accusing the
other of Marxist indoctrination/selling out to capitalism and it was not until 1964 that
the TUC finally took over the NCLC and WETUC so as to bring trade union education
in-house. It was then managed by the TUC Education Committee which covered both
policy issues (lobbying government for better training and education systems) and
delivery of union education for reps and officers. This did not end the debate but
thereafter it carried on within the TUC, and was frequently the subject of impassioned
debate at Congress.
Shortly afterwards the 1968 Donovan Commission was set up to consider the trade
union “problem”. Its report(14) contained much (including some trenchant criticism) on
unions and training. The TUC evidence to Donovan(15) described the work of the TUC
Education Committee and gave it some prominence. An influential research paper for
the Donovan Commission by John Hughes of Ruskin College on Trade Union Structure
and Governance, argued strongly for much more emphasis by both unions and the TUC
on training of representatives and officers, though he commended the (generally)
exemplary efforts of the GMWU and the TGWU. There was much activity and debate on
union education (for reps and officers if not for members), even if it had a lower profile
than reforming the law on taking industrial action.

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

On TU Education it said(16) “So far as training is concerned, trade unions are urged to
develop courses for junior full time officers, both on and shortly after appointment and
after some experience, and for shop stewards. For the latter, day release courses with
the employer’s co-operation offer the best prospects; grants from industrial training
boards could be used to increase the number and raise the standard of these courses.”
There was little mention of trades unions offering a wider learning service to members,
that was seen as either the role of the state through, for example, adult evening classes,
or of organisations like the WEA, funded by the state or local authorities.

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

What does this brief historical tour show about attitudes to unions and learning?
First, that bringing training of reps and officers under union control is relatively recent. (16) Donovan Commission; page 272
Second, that extending union learning to members is even more recent. Third that
(17) For an excellent overview of this
debate over the purpose of union learning is not new, albeit the terms of the debate period see Unionlearn Research
have largely moved from overthrow/accomodation to capitalism to skills for work/wider paper no 5, From Voluntarsim to Post-
Voluntarism, the emerging role of unions
learning. Fourth that active government involvement in training policy and unions’ own
in the vocational education and training
training (for which government funding is essential) has grown but always been

17

(18) Leeds Report; pages 9-10 which
includes references to the authors cited
(19) See www.unionlearn.org.uk
18
controversial; there is deep rooted scepticism about government involvement.
But history also shows a clear sense of direction: unions have become increasingly
involved in both delivery and policy over the years. Government support has grown.
Union involvement in skills policy is becoming more important.
Recent growth in union learning is the continuation of this long march. The advent of
ULRs, the growth of the ULF and unionlearn, union involvement with training policy via
SSCs (although this has varied with each SSC) and greater government funding – these
are all squarely in line with the fundamental aims and historical development of trade
unionism. The challenges it faces today are the same as those in the past. Seeing union
learning as a semi-detached or “soft” activity reflects old debates, the charge had little
truth then but even less today.
Mark Stuart, author of the Leeds survey,(18) describes and rebuts the kind of challenges
which union learning faces today well: “First, what is the benefit of union learning for
unions themselves and their membership? Is union learning about individual member
services or can it embody more collectivist approaches? Critics would see learning as a
‘displacement’ activity that distracts unions from core issue of pay and collective
bargaining (McIlroy, 2008). Yet, research suggests that members’ themselves are
enthusiastic about learning, with a large unmet demand for learning that unions can
mobilise around and link to core union activities (Findlay et al, 2007; Moore and Ross,
2008). Second, how does union learning influence employer policy and practice on
learning and do employers see any value in engagement with unions? For critics, the
lack of constraints on employer prerogative means that cooperation with unions on
learning may not be forthcoming or limited to marginal policies and practice: with the
effect that unions are unable to raise levels of employer investment in training (Hoque
and Bacon, 2008). Yet, equally, there are numerous studies that show that unions can
influence employer policy and learning outcomes for the better (Heyes and Stuart, 1998;
Stuart and Robinson, 2007). Moreover, few studies have actually surveyed employers
about their views on any perceived benefits of engagement with unions on learning
(Bacon and Hoque, 2009, is an exception). Finally, what do developments in union
learning tell us about the relationship between unions and the state? Critics argue that
funding for union learning activities has reduced the TUC to an ‘arm of the state’;
delivering, instead of influencing, state policies, whose limited ambition fails to deliver a
high skills economy (Lloyd and Payne, unions can shape government policy (Mustchin,
2009). More widely, how unions use state funding; McIlroy, 2008). Yet, research has
shown how unions can shape government policy (Mustchin, 2009). More widely, how
unions use state funding and the outcomes that this delivers requires empirical
assessment.”
Stuart is right. The empirical evidence simply does not support these challenges.
Union Learning is not inherently individualistic, quite the reverse. In fact the curriculum
for Trade Union Education relies heavily on a collective approach, using discussion and
problem sharing. It teaches the skills of listening, sharing and collective action.
Wider learning for union members is equally collective. The network of College
providers that unionlearn works with are chosen for their commitment to a collective
trade union approach to learning. And unionlearn is piloting Collective Learning Fund(19)
pilots i.e. a way of employees and/or unions pooling their funding. Far from distracting
from collective approaches, the growing union involvement in learning has fuelled a
more collective approach to training, both in relations with employers and relations with
government.
Union learning does have a significant influence on employers, given the chance to
show what it can do. The Leeds survey provides clear evidence not just of strong
employer support but also of how employers are changing their behaviour: increasing
training spending, opening up learning opportunities much more equally, and taking on
more apprentices. Of course employers should do far more and it is still relatively early
in the life of ULRs and the ULF, but these are positive signs.

Less clear, admittedly, is influence on government. Certainly the former Labour

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

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

The second objection is that a glance at the history of union learning would celebrate,
not criticise, government funding. It has been a long standing union aim to get
government recognition for unions; both for their role in civil society and their role in the
workplace.(22) Of course unions want to retain their independence and there has been a
long tradition of voluntarism in the UK (unlike e.g. the USA where unions are far more
highly regulated) but unions cannot themselves fund and organise all the delivery of
training to their members, nor should they. Unions campaign today (as they did in the
mid 19th century) for state education and training, both initially up to age 18 and
beyond. Most progressives would see the state having a strong role in funding lifelong
(20) Both the Secretary of State,
learning as one of the hallmarks of a civilised society. That should include union Vince Cable, and Minister for Skills,
learning, both wider learning opportunities for members and union education for reps John Hayes, expressed strong support
and officers. Many admire the strength of the Nordic trade unions, which have a major for unionlearn at the July 27th 2010
unionlearn annual conference
role in the state welfare and training system, and would celebrate the fact that, unions
(in the shape of unionlearn) are given a similar (unique in the UK) role in distributing (21) See, for example, McIlroy, John,
government funding. Ten Years of New Labour: Workplace
Learning, Social Partnership and Union
Revitalization in Britain; British Journal of
Here is an example of workplace learning which would never have happened without Industrial Relations, Vol. 46, Issue 2,
unionlearn: Many union members struggle with cancer, affecting them, their friends or pages 283-313, June 2008

family. In 2009 unionlearn and Macmillan cancer support jointly began work on a guide (22) Ref to BERR (now BIS) estimate of
to help union reps gain the skills to help. Many people do not find it easy to know what monetary value of union contribution

19
 to say, how best to offer work-related advice and support. The joint guide, launched in
2010, along with associated training, gives practical examples and has been warmly
welcomed by employers and unions alike. It builds on union’s health and safety
campaigning, offering emotional support as well as defending workers’ rights. Here is
another example: In 2009 unionlearn launched a nationwide project to help working
people affected by the recession. The project offers help in reskilling, either to avert
redundancy or to help the jobless find new work. It trains reps in the skills needed to
help members who may be worrying about or dealing with redundancy, gives advice on
money, managing relationships, finding new jobs, persuading an employer to train
during short time working. And it firmly points training in the direction of the “green”
skills needed to build a competitive low carbon economy. These projects are not driven
by government, neither would have happened without union learning.

The real argument about government involvement is not about funding (few would
seriously disagree with that beyond the extreme right) but about the strings attached
i.e. government influence over what is taught. In fact there are few strings. Sian Moore’s
evaluation of ULRs puts it clearly: “Whilst the government's learning and skills
agenda has moved away from a broad conceptualisation of learning for social and
self-development and towards an increasingly narrow interpretation of lifelong learning
based upon employability, ULRs and trade unions have not abandoned this vision.
At the same time, union expectations of the role of the ULR appear to have shifted
and they are increasingly seen as part of wider union recruitment and organising
strategies.”(23) In other words, the government vision has not become the union vision.
So what is the union vision?

(23) The evolving role of ULRs;

Sian Moore and Cilla Ross,
Working Lives Research Institute,
London Metropolitan University,
Professional Development in Education,
Vol 34, Issue 4, Dec 2008,
pages 423-440

20
Unions have always been concerned with members’ welfare: chiefly members’ pay;
together with members’ conditions, jobs and ability to lead fulfilling lives. But if unions Chapter 3
bargain only on pay, they will have little ability to influence pay. The economy and labour
market are changing radically. In today’s complex, global, high skill economy pay is
increasingly the outcome of many different factors. Unions need to influence those The union vision
factors to influence pay – and jobs and conditions and leading fulfilling lives. for learning
Chief among those factors are the skills of the workforce. That pragmatism is a major
driver of union involvement in learning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course this pragmatic reason for supporting skills is not the only factor. There is
radicalism too in the union vision of learning. Paulo Freire famously argued in
The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, for an education built around the learner, their
understanding of their place in society, their oppression and how it had evolved.
He argued for an educational system based not on authoritarian hierarchies but on
shared problem solving: “In problem-posing education, people develop their power to
perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find
themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality, but as a reality in
process, in transformation.”(25) This could easily serve as a description of Trade Union
Education. It builds on the experience of the learner, develops their understanding of
their situation and their ability to act, through negotiation and organising, to change it.
The fact that at the same time TUC Education (like many union education programmes)
is both quality assured and accredited (itself a significant achievement) does not lessen
its radicalism. Accreditation is very important to learners who want to know that their
learning has a currency, is recognised by their own or other employers, and is
something they can feel proud of. But at the same time, of the 233,000 learners involved
in learning with unionlearn support in 2009/10, around half were not engaged in (24) A Change for the Better, the 2010
NIACE survey of adult learning
accredited programmes. They were doing a variety of “taster” courses through e.g.
Learning at Work Day or the autumn 2009 “Festival of Learning”. Some learning (25) The Pedagogy of the Oppressed;
involved people exchanging skills, teaching each other. Learning does not have to be Paulo Freire, 1970, Penguin ed 1996,

21
 accredited (though unions want to make sure it is of good quality) to be valuable, both
to employers and learners. The important point is that the learner has a choice, as Freire
would argue, and is not tied down by training which only their employer recognises.

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

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

So union learning is unashamedly pragmatic, but also radical. It helps learners in their
job or to get a better job; but also, if they wish, to transform their lives and do
something quite different. It is passionate about equality and fairness, challenging
employers and educational structures to ensure that the most disadvantaged (not least
migrants) get a better deal. It argues for both state funding and independence; for
external accreditation, quality control and audit, but also for choice over course and
certification. If this is complex and messy then that reflects people’s lives and choices.
Critics who argue against government funding, or external assessment, or employer
(26) Deschooling Society;
involvement would reduce choices available to members. The current pattern of union
Ivan Illich, 1971, Marion Boyars
ed 2002, page 98 learning has been developed by unions to represent what their members want. That
democratic base is the fundamental reason why it works.
(26) The Pitmen Painters; Lee Hall,
inspired by a book by William Feaver.
It was a co-production between the Live
Theatre Newcastle and the National
Theatre, London and ran for several
months. The group of miners met in
their hut after work and, having had
no previous training, produced some
amazing paintings as well as learning,
through argument and discussion with

22
Jobs, pay, conditions and welfare will always be the centre of union activity, but learning
will increasingly take its place alongside them. The economic, social, cultural and labour Chapter 4
market pressures described above will only become stronger. Already the vast majority
of unions are, or have already written ULRs into their rule book, established learning
structures at branch regional and national level, appointed learning staff, and linked Future Prospects
learning to wider union strategies like organising.(28)

The next stage in the process of integration is to include more learning issues in the
bargaining agenda. Of course there has always been bargaining on skills. The craft
unions have a long tradition of negotiating agreements on training and apprenticeships.
Teaching unions have agreements on e.g. in-service training. The health unions have a
comprehensive “skills escalator” framework within the Agenda for Change agreement.
The Public Services Forum, which brings together government and the public sector
unions, reached agreement on a detailed set of recommendations aimed at improving
skills. So there is already a strong foundation on which to build.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answers to these and many other key questions will determine bargaining strategy.
For example whether to press the employer for:

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

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

• minimum paid leave entitlements for all staff

• funding for learning centres

• action on equality, prioritising skills for those who have least e.g. the low paid, BME
or women members (28) See Leeds Report, table 4, page 15

• stronger agreements which include raising employer investment in learning (29) The PSF Joint Statement of 2008
agreed on a minimum of Basic Skills
• improved ULR facilities including time off which is a major problem for many ULRs (roughly equal to level 1) for all
employees delivering public services,
• stronger joint bargaining, rather than just consultation, through a formalised directly employed or via a contractor;
and that level 2 for all would be good
training committee practice

23
 • better access to independent skills and career advisory services

• a jointly managed learning fund

Moreover, unlike pay and conditions, where the issues can (usually) be clearly costed
and decided between employer and union, learning involves third parties such as
government agencies who may provide some funding or colleges who deliver the
training. This can make bargaining a more complex process. On the other hand
employers may well be more prepared to enter into discussion on learning than on pay
since there are plainly advantages for them in having a more highly skilled workforce.
As the Leeds survey showed, employers were even stronger supporters and the
outcomes (for both union and employer) were even stronger where there was a learning
agreement. Unlike pay bargaining where (usually) more pay for workers means less
money for employers; bargaining on learning can bring gains to both sides. So, though
it may take time and will not be simple, there is every likelihood that the onward march
of union learning will continue into the heart of union affairs, the world of bargaining.

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

Union learning will always be distinctive. There will always need to be separate centres
of expertise within unions on learning, just as on legal or health and safety issues.
But there should be fewer complaints in the future that it is treated as a second order
union activity within unions. Increasingly it is taking its place at the centre of union
affairs. Different but equal, it will continue to make a major contribution to the central
union mission of fighting poverty and unfairness; and helping members improve
their lives.

And finally, there is one further argument in support of union learning. Unions stand for a
set of values based on care and respect for people; that society and the economy
should be the servants of the people and not the other way round. Learning does that.
It is a profoundly human activity, involving thinking, listening, discussing and collectively
sharing some common learning goals. Learning at the workplace helps humanise the
world of work, it encourages managers to listen to their employees (and vice versa), it
provides a space within which human issues such as different learning styles and
interests can be voiced. It encourages learning for its own sake, a central element in
union learning. In short it helps us create a world where work is enjoyable and fulfilling
for all, not as now, just for the highly educated few.

24
A comprehensive union skills programme(30) might include:
Appendix
• Make the current £3.5Bn tax relief for employers contingent on raising levels of
participation and accreditation so as to ensure government funding supports
additional training, not that which would have happened anyway An agenda for
skills policy
• Extend currently minimal tax relief for individuals e.g. to cover cost of course fees,
up to a ceiling of the basic rate of tax

• Require employers to publish basic details of their training investment in

Annual Reports

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

• Require SSCs as a condition of relicensing and continued government funding, to

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

• To recognise both demographic and workforce change, rebalance total government

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

• Promote an extended entitlement to Level 2 for all, as the minimum needed to

ensure people can exercise their right to participate in society and work

• Develop a free, universally accessible, Information Advice and Guidance Service

designed to help all over 18, which would include signposting to union learning
and access to high speed broadband support for e-learning

• Incentivise, via the funding system, further development of a nationwide credit

transfer system applicable across FE and HE to increase the variety and flexibility
of ways of building up qualifications for working people

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

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

• Use the lever of government procurement to apply good practice in learning, for
example requiring contractors to employ a proportion of apprentices and/or (30) Some of these ideas are drawn from
graduates, reach a minimum of level 2 or CPD for their workforce, or apply the SSC Work and Learning Thematic paper no 7
from the Inquiry into the Future for
recommended minimum % investment in training.
Lifelong Learning (IFLL), by the author
and Jenny Williams. Available via NIACE.

25
26
27