Trade unions and bargaining for skills
| Date | 01 February 1998 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425459810369832 |
| Published date | 01 February 1998 |
| Pages | 57-72 |
| Author | Tony Dundon,Dave Eva |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Trade unions
and bargaining
for skills
57
Trade unions and bargaining
for skills
Tony Dundon
Manchester School of Management, UMIST, Manchester, UK, and
Dave Eva
Merseyside Trade Union Education Unit, Wirral Metropolitan College,
Birkenhead, UK
Introduction
A central theme in the current body of evidence is that the skill of human capital
is a key ingredient of enhanced employee motivation, flexibility and ultimately
competitive success for both individual organisations and national economies
(Finegold and Soskice, 1990; Keep, 1991; Senker, 1992; Steedman, 1993; Gospel,
1995). Yet UK investment in training and development lags behind that of other
competitor nations such as Japan, Ger many and France. One estimate suggests
that average spending on employee training in Japan and Germany is
equivalent to 2 per cent of company turnover compared with 0.5 per cent in the
UK (Finegold and Soskice, 1990). In response to a lack of training investment
and low skills equilibrium, a number of individual trade unions have sought to
promote a “strategic” focus to the issue of training (GMB/T&G, 1997; IRRR,
1990; MSF, 1991) while the voice of key employers has confirmed that “much
more needs to be done on training” (CBI, 1994, 1997; CSEU, 1993; EEF, 1995).
For most of the post-war era, both employers and unions have had a clear and
well-defined role in training strategies through former tripartite bargaining
structures. However, against a background of changing labour market
conditions, falling union density and reduced state regulation, one popular
perception is a corresponding decline in union influence. Within the vocational,
education and training (VET) debate the role of trade unions has been the
subject of more recent academic analysis (Claydon and Green, 1994; Green et al.,
1995; Heyes and Stuart, 1996; Rainbird, 1990, 1996; Stuart, 1996; Winterton and
Winterton, 1994). One recurring theme is a reconsideration of collective
bargaining approaches (the levels, scope and depth) in assessing the dilemmas
between consensual and conflictual relations concerning an “industrial
relations of skill formation” (Mathews, 1993; Stuart, 1996). Indeed, for Rainbird
(1996) the role of workplace union organisation within a new bargaining for
Employee Relations,
Vol. 20 No. 1, 1998, pp. 57-72 ,
© MCBUniversity Press, 0142-5455
The authors gratefully express their thanks to the North-West TUC Education Service for access
to information and documentation, and especially shop stewards and union officers who took
part in the project. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of either the TUC, any
TEC or separate trade union. Any errors of fact are the responsibility of the authors. We would
also like to thank two anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Received July 1997
Revised November 1997
Employee
Relations
20,1
58
skills agenda is even more important because of the very absence of a statutory
model of joint regulation.
Allied to this interest is the emerging “new” UK political and economic
climate as a source of increased legitimacy for workplace training, pushed by
the theme of “social partnership” in which trade unions can promote training
strategies for members while simultaneously offering an appealing role to
employers. In 1992 the Trades Union Congress (TUC) issued a “call to all unions
to bargain for skills” and “raise trade union awareness of training issues” given
a comparatively low level of investment in skill formation (TUC, 1992). To be
sure, the link between training and a partnership approach among employers
and state agencies is a central tenet of the TUC’s “new unionism” philosophy:
we need to extend the partnership approach which is becoming increasingly embodied in
Investors in People, vocational qualifications and TECs ... There is great scope for extending
the partnership approach further ... to develop occupational standards and to increase sector
training activity (TUC, 1997, pp. 16-17)
While evidence for the early part of the 1990s tends to confirm a positive
relationship between a union presence and the incidence as well as intensity of
training ( Green et al., 1995; Rainbird, 1996; Winterton and Winterton, 1994), the
nature of any potential influence is somewhat blurred. Moreover, the decision-
making processes concerning an industrial relations of skill formation appear
to remain the exclusive prerogative of management, with few reported
increases in joint consultation over training (Millward et al., 1992). However,
there is little detailed assessment of the distinction between national union
policy objectives about skill formation and actual workplace bargaining
practice (Rainbird, 1996; Winterton and Winterton, 1994). At a deeper level, it is
also unclear how, or in what way, local union representatives have responded to
the theme of social partnership engendered around a more consensual approach
to training. There is the added issue about bargaining informality and
workplace practice (Brown, 1972; Terry, 1977) as a potential source of indirect
influence on training strategies (Green et al., 1995).
A central aim of this paper is to help fill such a gap by assessing the role of
trade unions at workplace level and the extent to which local representatives are
able to engage management within a new agenda of bargaining for skills. The
main thrust of the argument is to illustrate the dual role experienced by local
union representatives in bargaining for workplace training. On the one hand we
found that for employers who have a desire to provide training, unions are more
than capable to act as both a catalyst and conduit for employee demand. On the
other hand we also found, more often than not in less than willing
organisations, that better informed union stewards are extremely pragmatic
partners who seek to challenge the managerial prerogative over training issues
within a distinctive adversarial climate.
A further issue which we sought to address (often neglected in the VET
literature) is a distinction between what can be termed “core” training and that
of “additional” value-added skills, where unions are seeking to broaden a
To continue reading
Request your trial