1 Introduction: Trade Unions and Vocational ...

Introduction: Trade Unions and Vocational Education and Training in Theory and Practice

RICHARD COONEY and MARK STUART

INTRODUCTION

This collection examines the role of unions in the process of vocational education and training (VET). It looks at the role unions play in the development of their members’ skills for work and employment. This is an emergent issue for unions as they seek to respond to two decades of change in work and employment, change that has drawn attention to the importance of education, training and employability over an individual’s lifetime. Certainly, trade unions have had to confront a rapidly changing landscape in the past few decades, which has impacted upon and led to the restructuring of labour markets, employment relations and the organization of work. This has had corresponding implications for the ways in which employees are educated for work, trained whilst in employment and retrained over the course of their working lives. Training, skill development and the attainment and certification of skills have all become significant issues for unions as they seek to ensure that their members are fairly paid for skills acquired and that their members are prepared for more frequent changes in employment in more turbulent labour markets (Locke, Kochan and

1

Piore 1995; Olney 1994). As Olney notes (1994: 44), union interest in skills is explicitly linked to the future employability of their members:

To secure opportunities for workers in times of change, not only is enterprise specific training required, but also general training and retraining to enhance external labour market mobility; trade unions are uniquely placed to promote and facilitate such training.

Nonetheless, unions face a number of challenges in how they look to respond to such change and effectively press an agenda around employee skill development. First, unions find themselves enmeshed in relationships with members, employers and the state that extend well beyond the reach of bargaining over the outcomes of the employment relationship. The navigation of such relationships has become far more complex in recent times as the historic pluralist compromise has faded, the state has retreated and employers have sought to assert their authority. Unions have a role to play as industrial and social actors, but they have sought to advance their interests in VET at a time of declining power. Indeed, to some extent, this has been a predicate of increased union interest in skills development, as it is seen to offer a new agenda for the enhancement of union legitimacy (Mathews 1994).

Second, the advancement of an agenda around VET comes up against a collective good problem. The interests of unions and employers, in particular, are not the same. If left to their own devices, it is rational for employers to under invest in

2

skill development, since trained workers are free to leave the firm and competitors who free-ride are able to poach such skills. To address this collective good dilemma, Regini (1995: 192) asserts that it is necessary ‘that the VET system should be highly institutionalized, with appropriate legislation and strong trade unions which oblige firms to pursue collective long-term interests’. Historically, and of relevance to the international sweep of this book, the degree of institutionalization of VET has differentiated economies. In liberal market economies, covered in the book by the UK, USA, Australia and Canada, weak institutionalization has meant a relatively limited role for unions and a concern about systematic under investment in VET. In contrast, the more coordinated economies of Germany, Norway and France have tended to have higher levels of institutionalization and higher levels of skills investment.

The problem for unions with regard to such regulation is the changed definition of skill development itself, with less emphasis on initial systems of training, which are often easier to systematize, measure and regulate, and more of an emphasis on learning and competence of an informal and non-formal kind (Martínez Lucio et al 2007). This poses a direct challenge for systems of regulation, governance and interest articulation, because as Crouch et al. (1999: 221) explain, ‘although the changeability and flexibility of new skill concepts are shifting emphasis towards further rather than initial VET, it is difficult to organize neo-corporatist involvement in the former’.

3

The third challenge is the manner of union engagement. While union interest in VET has increased, to some extent encouraged by policy makers, this has typically been advocated on the basis of a partnership-based approach. The basic premise for this is the potential for training to deliver mutual gains that are of benefit to all parties’ interests. Given this mutual gains underpinning, unions are advised to advance the training agenda through integrative rather than distributive bargaining (Mathews 1994). Whether such mutual gains are easily achieved or partnership-based relations easily established, is a point of debate. It has been noted that union interests over training often cross the integrative-distributive bargaining divide and, to the extent that union involvement in VET may challenge managerial prerogative, conflicts of interest are ever present (Stuart 2007). As Martinez et al (2007) note, how unions ‘craft’ their way into new partnership relations and institutions of regulation around VET should not been seen as a given and represents a major strategic challenge.

This forms the platform for the chapters that follow, which, from a variety of perspectives, interrogate the way in which unions have sought to tackle such challenges and explore key developments and innovations in the union role in VET. In the remainder of this chapter we examine more systematically the changing context faced by unions and how they have sought to respond through partnership-based innovations around VET, and consider the implications of such developments for the wider project of union renewal. Following this, we introduce

4

the contributions of the individual chapters, before drawing out some general conclusions.

THE CHANGING NATURE OF WORK

The initial evidence of change in work was seen in the restructuring of occupational skill profiles in established industries, such as manufacturing. From the 1990’s onwards, technological change, the introduction of new manufacturing practices (such as lean production) and on-going organizational restructuring (such as the introduction of teamworking), saw significant changes in the skill profiles and work roles of manufacturing employees. Work roles have expanded as new responsibilities for production (such as those for quality or routine maintenance) have been delegated to frontline employees and skill profiles have been changing to encompass more ‘soft skills’, such as communication and problem solving (Grugulis 2006).

But change in the established industries is only part of the picture. The past few decades have also seen the emergence of new industries, such as IT Services, that have their own distinctive skill requirements. These new industries have created new occupations with a broad set of work responsibilities, and requirements for the deployment of a range of soft skills. New product or service development work, temporary work in projects, direct customer service work, and the like, all require different occupational skill profiles to those traditionally found in more

5

established areas. Moreover, the pace of technological and organizational change in the newer industries is rapid, mandating continuous upgrading of skills and knowledge to maintain employment.

It would be misleading, however, to suggest that this occupational change has all been in one direction: towards skill upgrading and an emphasis on new skills. Change has, as ever, been uneven, with some occupations experiencing increasing skill requirements, while others have remained unchanged or experienced some deskilling (Grugulis 2006). This uneven development of change, when combined with increasing segmentation in labour markets between those with low skills and those with intermediate and higher level skills, creates problems of equity and access to education and training. Those with greater skill requirements at work tend to receive the bulk of continuing training, whilst those with no or minimal qualifications, employed in areas of low skill, receive little continuing training and so are most at risk of social exclusion. Those with minimal qualifications are most at risk of unemployment or of finding themselves in on-going contingent employment. In this context, the development of skills becomes critical for overcoming social disadvantage in employment. As organizations with an abiding concern for social justice, unions have also had a concern for the public policy implications of addressing disadvantage in the labour market through skill upgrading.

6

So far as union members are concerned, the changes taking place in occupations have seen an increased emphasis upon skill development for work. Employee training has assumed a growing significance as part of the employment relationship, as employees seek to develop their employability in rapidly changing labour markets. Whether in labour markets internal to the firm or external in the broader economy, employees are now interested in the employment and career development opportunities opened up by vocational education and training to an extent not previously seen. Vocational training has assumed a greater significance for many groups of employees and unions have paid greater attention to training as they represent this interest. One consequence of this change is that training has become a more highly contested matter in the workplace (Stuart 1996). As the workplace has emerged as an important site of learning, and as the consequences for individuals of engaging in learning at work have grown in importance, so the contest about the kind of training that is offered, the conditions of the offer and the outcomes of training, has intensified (Streeck 1989; Stuart 2007).

Training has become a more important industrial matter for unions but this change has occurred in the context of labour market deregulation and changes to established social institutions involved in regulating training and occupations. Unions have, in many cases, confronted an expanded managerial prerogative in relation to training, either because new forms of continuing training have not been regulated or because existing forms have been deregulated (Cooney 2010b). This has driven unions to focus upon the development of enterprise partnerships and

7

sectoral joint action with employers. The approach of unions to skill development issues is, however, very much a work in progress. Partnerships have proved problematic in some cases and sectoral action has not led to wider changes in the social institutions that regulate training. How union strategy evolves in relation to training and skill development is a subject for on-going research and study, and as the chapters in the book illustrate takes different forms in different countries, depending on the wider institutional make-up.

The pace and extent of change at work has, then, created new challenges for unions, their modes of organizing and the issues around which they organize. Skill development is emerging as an important issue around which to organize, but how unions’ best represent their members’ interests when it comes to issues surrounding training and skill development is still a work in progress. Dealing with training throws up a new suite of issues that become the subject of employment bargaining and social dialogue and so training represents a potential new pole of activity around which unions can organize and attract new members. How unions fare in this endeavor remains to be seen. Will involvement with skill development at work give unions a new role in the workplace and a new role in public policy relating to skill, or will these emerging issues merely be assimilated to existing forms of union activity?

UNIONS AND CHANGING CONCEPTS OF ‘SKILL’

8

The emerging challenges for unions when dealing with skill development first became evident in the 1990’s as changing skill requirements in existing occupations began to be observed. Training was pushed to the forefront of debate about the future of industrial work. The recomposition of industrial work practices highlighted the need for continuing employee skill development and governments across the developed world began to examine the implications for public policy and the design of education and training systems, of these changes (see, for example, Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce 1990, National Board of Employment, Education and Training 1992).

Two significant effects were noted, initially in manufacturing. Firstly, rising skill requirements for operators, tradesmen and technicians in manufacturing were observed and, secondly, there was an on-going recomposition of manufacturing jobs and employee work roles. Numerous studies asserted that manufacturing work was being recomposed around new skill sets (Barley 1996; Capelli 1993; 1996; Capelli and Rogovsky 1994; Osterman 1994, 1995). In an effort to capture and conceptualise the changes taking place - not only to existing occupations but also to new and emerging occupations especially in the service sector – new conceptual frameworks were developed for the classification of skills. These conceptual schema are, however, many and varied. Some scholars have focused upon identifying the cognitive and interpersonal dimensions of the changes to skill, while others have focused upon skill and the design of work roles.

9

Adler (1986) identifies three skill areas that have been affected by changing skill requirements at work. He identifies new 'task responsibilities' such as responsibility for the integrity of the manufacturing process, the 'abstractness of tasks' or mental elements of what were formerly seen as manual jobs and the 'systemic interdependence of tasks' in manufacturing systems with enhanced product flow such as just-in-time systems. Looking at job skills, Rainbird (1990) distinguishes between craft skills and tacit skills, whilst Conti and Warner (1997) develop a four level classification of skills revolving around the use of social, technical, diagnostic, coping and discretionary skills.

The changing composition of the work role has also been used as the basis for the analysis of skills. Changes to work roles have seen job demarcations redrawn, leading to a growing emphasis upon the use of 'diagnostic skills' and 'analytical skills' that require different configurations of the breadth and depth of skill and knowledge (Hendry 1990; Hirschorn 1990). Where specialisation had been the norm in skill development, changes to the work role mean that while some roles retain their focus on specialist skills, other roles now require a breadth of skill and knowledge without much depth (generalist skills). Campbell and Warner (1992: 31) refer to this as a process of skill hybridisation and, referring to manufacturing, observe that:

...those involved in the assembly, testing and maintenance functions may require a more general understanding than before, and possibly the

10

command of a wider (not necessarily ‘deeper’) range of skills which may in turn require regular updating.

There is much evidence for the changing nature of skill development at work, but this has been multi-faceted and uneven, and to open to different interpretations. There are difficulties in defining, classifying, measuring and recognising skills. Concepts of skill and conceptualisations of the changing nature of skills are many and varied and, as Darrah (1994) points out, whilst the idea of skill may seem straight forward, in practice it is a difficult idea to apply to the workplace.

This situation creates a significant problem for unions. Skill is not easy to define, but unions need a definition of skills in order that their members can be trained for skills, assessed for skills and then put onto appropriate classification scales and pay rates. Unions seek to have the skills of their members recognised through payment systems but the links between skill and pay take us into the realm of industrial relations systems and so the ways in which these systems interface with education and training systems becomes critical to understanding union strategy in relation to skill. Unions have used both education and training systems and industrial relations systems to address the questions of recognition of skills, payment for skills, the attainment of certifications and the portability of qualifications. The emerging industrial relations of skill thus become complex and contested matters that are not always resolved simply through industrial agreement (Cooney 2010a).

11

UNIONS, TRAINING AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

How skills are defined is important because the outcomes of this process have important consequences for employees. Unions need a framework to negotiate issues around training but the immediate industrial issues for unions are those of job definition (the identification of job tasks and work role boundaries), skill recognition, pay for skills and training arrangements (including access and payment). Unions also have an interest in less directly vocational workplace training such as Occupational Health & Safety training, training for organizational change and the wider developmental interests of members (Rainbird 1990).

The growing emphasis upon workplace training and skill development, however, raises a second issue of concern for unions and that is how to deal with established management prerogative in relation to workplace training. Unions have long been interested in the regulation of entry-level training – especially that for the skilled trades through apprenticeships – but have, in the past, been less interested in the regulation of continuing training in the workplace. Unions now, however, seek to negotiate training issues for broader groups of employees beyond those in the traditional trades - and they seek influence over a broader range of training related issues. For unions, the question of how to address issues that have not, in the past, been dealt with through either the training system or the industrial relations system, poses new challenges. How do unions deal with

12

management over training, in the comparative absence of frameworks of regulation for new forms of entry-level training, new forms of continuing training and on-going workplace training? Such challenges are evident for unions even in the most ‘coordinated’ economies (Bosch and Charest 2010).

Initial research on this question assumed that conflicts could be readily resolved because training was an ideal issue for integrative bargaining. As noted, this rests upon the assumption that consensus can be attained around training issues because both unions and management have a stake in recognising skills. VET is seen to produce win-win outcomes for both unions and management. Management gains improvements in the competitive position of their business through employee skill development, whilst employees gain higher skills and higher pay. Mathews (1994), to give one example, models the workplace as a ‘learning space’ and a ‘training space’ and notes that consensus can be achieved by “.. paying particular attention to due process and to the public interests involved ..." (Mathews 1994: 239-40).

While it is true that unions and management need a framework for recognising skills in order to settle these issues, the kind of framework that is provided is not self-evident, nor is its development a matter that is uncontested by unions or management. There is, in other words, more than the public interest at stake here. The industrial parties have their own interests in the provision of workplace

13

training and whether or not these interests are outweighed by any public interest, is an open question.

Management has a stake in developing the competitiveness of their business; they are interested in the development of firm specific skills that are closely related to the nature of the technological systems used in the business, the design of the business process, the character of the business methods and the design of work. They have less interest in the production of general skills, which are the preserve of the education system and the responsibility of individuals. Training and development practice - with its emphasis upon the identification of strategic skill gaps and return on investment for in-house training – reflects this focus on the business benefits to the firm of investment in skill development. From the perspective of management, training and skill development is a competition good, designed to improve internal efficiency and labour productivity against business goals.

Studies point to a range of benefits that address the competitive position of the firm. The provision of training has been linked to specific improvements in internal performance measures such as scrap rates, machine efficiency and customer satisfaction. Training has also been linked to more general improvements in labour productivity (d'Arcimoles 1997; Bartel 1994; Holzer et al 1993; Prais 1995; Youndt et al 1996). Indeed Bartel (1994: 422) observes that:

14

the implementation of formal employee training programs can enable businesses that are operating at below-expected levels of labor productivity to eliminate this gap.

Yet, in contrast, the interest for unions in training at work is driven by their representation of members’ interests. Members are interested in training opportunities at work because this can lead to career development opportunities. Whether in internal labour markets, where skill is related to classification and pay, or in external labour markets, where skill may improve employability; union members are interested in the development of knowledge and skill, the recognition of knowledge and skill and the certification of knowledge and skill. For the employees represented by unions, education and training at work is predominately a labour market good, improving their opportunities in labour markets internal or external to the firm. This focus means that employees are more interested in certifiable knowledge and transferable skills and relatively less interested in informal knowledge and firm specific skills.

Studies of the labour market benefits to employees of participation in training are limited but suggest that the kind of training and the level of training that is provided matters. There is some evidence from human capital theory examining individual returns to training but these studies are frequently based upon general returns to extra years of education, rather than studies of specific returns to company provided training. These studies indicate declining but continuing

15

returns to extra years of education (Mincer 1974; Psacharopoulos and Patrinos 2002). Studies of the returns specifically to VET paint a more differentiated picture and suggest that the acquisition of certified intermediate skills (e.g. trade qualifications) leads to higher returns for individuals, while the attainment of certificates at lower skill levels may confer fewer advantages in earnings growth. Employees at intermediate and higher skill levels tend to receive more continuing training than do those at lower skill levels and they experience greater earnings growth (Cleveland et al 2003; Long and Shah 2008). This evidence suggests, then, that employees have an interest in structured and sequential training that provides opportunities to move from lower to higher skill levels, and that such training is more valuable than training which merely improves their effectiveness in their current work role.

Given these divergent interests between management and employees, it is unsurprising that researchers began to study the nature of the contest between management and unions over training. The ways in which skills are recognised at work and the work design practices that are associated with the development of skills, turned out to be matters of industrial concern and unions began mounting industrial campaigns around these issues. Unions became interested in the training offer of the firm and the ways in which skills were recognised and certified. Skill development was clearly becoming an industrial issue but, in the absence of frameworks for the regulation of skill development, workplace training remained

16

an issue over which managerial prerogative was dominant (Dundon and Eva 1998; Stuart 1996).

TRAINING, PARTNERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE VOICE

In the context of broad managerial prerogative over training, the response of unions to the contest over skill development at work has been to focus upon the development of union-management partnerships for education and training. This has been the principle means through which unions have sought to exercise employee voice over training in response to perceived managerial prerogative. There are good reasons for thinking that employee voice is important when it comes to training (Freeman and Medoff 1984). Employee voice can lead to greater employee engagement and enrolment in training. Employee voice in regards to the organization of training, the timing, location, frequency and duration of sessions, etc. means that both work and non-work obstacles to participation are considered by management in the organization of training. The exercise of employee voice should lead to the creation of training arrangements that are acceptable to the majority of employees and so enhance the prospects of broad participation in training. Voice mechanisms can also be used to influence the design of training programs, to remove learning obstacles to participation. Employees with long gaps in their education who are returning to study, employees with no or few formal qualifications and little experience of study and employees with basic skill gaps in literacy or numeracy, may all require

17

preparatory training before they can participate fully in VET. In some cases, program design may be altered to accommodate the special learning needs of some employees, in other cases separate programs may need to be considered (Leisink and Greenwood 2007). In regards to both practical and learning obstacles to training then, the exercise of employee voice by unions can help to extend participation in training, so as to provide for the development of a more extensively skilled workforce.

The exercise of employee voice may help to remove barriers to participation in training but it may also enhance the quality of training. Employee interest in the provision of formal training leading to recognised qualifications entails the development of broader skill sets than that required for more job focused training. By opening up the scope of the training program, the exercise of employee voice can lead to training that develops broader skill sets, skills that underpin participation in organizational change, innovation and improvement activities and skills that may lead to participation in lifelong vocational learning. The curriculum, learning activities and means of delivery may all be influenced by the exercise of employee voice, leading to the development of workforce training of higher quality than that developed to simply address identified skill gaps.

Employee voice is also significant for the identification of the key benefits to training that are perceived by employees. Do employees value training that leads to greater transferability of the skills acquired, are they interested in training

18

because of the career development opportunities that it offers in the future or are they more interested in the direct benefits of pay progression? Employee voice in the construction of the key benefits of training leads to training that is more highly valued by employees and so may also act to increase employee participation.

There are participation benefits and quality benefits from the exercise of employee voice over training but what, if any, are the benefits to the firm? Firstly, the exercise of employee voice has a positive effect on employee retention and there is reason to think that this applies equally to training. Where there is broad employee participation in quality training programs that have identified benefits for employees then employee turnover is likely to be lower and the business will benefit from the retention of skilled and knowledgeable employees. Management, in other words, is more likely to see a return on its investment in training the longer that employees remain with the firm refining and developing the skills and knowledge acquired through training. This is especially the case where training is given in conjunction with the introduction of new technology and new management practices. The learning effects of training over time enhance the effectiveness of new technology and new practices, thereby continuously improving the productivity of the firm long after the training program is complete (Goldin and Katz 2008).

The development of formal and informal partnerships with management over training are an important mechanism for the exercise of employee voice over

19

training. Whether at the local, sectoral or national level, unions have sought to work cooperatively with employers to develop strategic agreements to regulate workplace training, develop workplace training practice and entrench employee rights in regard to training. In more liberal-market systems the focus has largely been on enterprise level agreements, whilst in more coordinated market systems unions have been able to access social partner institutions to reach peak level agreements over basic rights and principles and works councils at a local level can offer to facilitate the implementation of such agreements.

When looking at enterprise agreements, research suggests that union success is contingent upon local conditions. Enthusiastic local actors on both the union and management side are needed to develop quality training practice, but this comes at a price. Dependence on local actors has led to some mixed outcomes. Where local actors are committed, there have been good outcomes for firms and for employees and exemplary programs of workplace training have been established. Many of these programs are, however, contingent on those self-same local actors and so there have been some questions raised about the sustainability of such programs. In other cases where agreements have been reached, outcomes have been more limited where local actors have not been highly engaged and have been less committed (Stuart and Wallis 2007; Rainbird and Munro 2000, 2003).

Partnerships created at sectoral and national levels have also led to some significant gains for unions, establishing employee rights to training, including

20

rights to time for training and rights to the certification of skills developed at work. These agreements, which are far more prevalent in the highly regulated economies, establish strong frameworks through which unions can argue for the provision of learning and development opportunities for employees. But, the realisation of these opportunities is often dependent upon local union action to complement that at sectoral and national levels. Unions have experienced problems implementing in principle agreements in the workplace and so they have also found it necessary to engage directly with their members to assist them into training, especially those with low skills, low qualifications and a limited experience of learning (Bowman 2005; Méhaut 2005, 2007; Payne 2006).

A consideration of partnership at national levels would not be complete without a consideration of the role of the state. The state has emerged as a significant actor in the creation of partnerships for education and training. The European Commission, for example, argues that the implementation of coherent and comprehensive lifelong learning strategies is dependent upon a series of building blocks, such as partnership working, that reflect the ‘shared benefits of, and responsibility for, lifelong learning’ (Stuart 2007). Such partnership can include arrangements between the social partners, local level bodies and broader multilevel governmental agencies. The British government, likewise, explicitly regards learning as ‘a natural issue for partnership in the workplace between employers, employees and their trade union’ (DfEE 1998: 35).

21

In the context of light regulation of training, however, the role of the state in promoting skill development has often been limited. The emphasis tends to be on supply side measures such as promoting exemplary programs and voluntarily encouraging employers to provide training. Such programs have had some effect, but have often not been sustained once subsidies have been withdrawn or governments and government policies have changed. Where the state has taken a stronger hand in facilitating negotiations between the social partners then stronger frameworks for the regulation of training have been established but, as noted above, problems of the implementation of agreements at the local level remain.

The initial approach of unions to the regulation of workplace training has then registered some gains. Where local actors have been engaged with unions in the creation of partnerships for workplace training and skill development, where employee voice in regards to training has been exercised through formal or informal means, then some positive outcomes have been identified. Where formal collective agreements have been reached at sectoral and national levels new rights to training have been established and where the state has been engaged, funding for innovative programs has been forthcoming. Much remains to be done however. In the absence of institutional support from the industrial relations system and the education and training system, such rights and such programs have not been fully institutionalised. Partnership has been contingent and gains have often been limited and temporary.

22

TRAINING, UNION STRATEGY AND UNION RENEWAL

In this context the evolution of union strategy becomes important. Do unions seek to have a broader influence on public policy development, on the delivery of programs and the design of training systems, or do they merely seek to solve immediate industrial issues?

Contemporary public policy debates, especially those focused upon employability and lifelong learning, perhaps provide an opening for unions to engage with issues of policy development and system design in ways that take them beyond local partnerships. Concepts such as lifelong learning and employability open up a broad agenda for social dialogue and potentially lead unions into action on a range of issues from the local regulation of learning arrangements to discussion around the design of training systems. Here unions may find opportunities to raise issues dealing with the regulation of training across sectors, regions and countries. While there have been different interpretations of what lifelong learning and employability actually mean, or of how such policies should be enacted and advanced, a common agenda for learning and skill development seems to be evolving. The development of such an agenda on the part of unions gives them broader scope to advance issues of concern and potentially a broader scope for action. Industrial campaigns around lifelong learning and skills policy may complement local enterprise and sectoral industrial negotiations. Unions may find other ways of engaging with training systems, such as becoming training

23

providers and participating in middle-level institutions that regulate training. Experiments and examples of all these kinds of union actions – campaigning, provision, participation - can be found, but as yet they do not add up to a coherent strategy to progress the union interest in the learning and skills agenda. The development of such an agenda is a work in progress with unions and union confederations learning from each other and adapting innovations to suit local circumstances. In the end, however, it will take the development of new institutional forms to consolidate union engagement and underpin union action, in relation to a new education and skills agenda.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK

The chapters that follow explore more systematically the key themes and issues outlined above. They do so by drawing on policy and practice in different countries and different regulatory environments. Building on this opening chapter, the next two chapters, by Rainbird and Cooney, consider the issues that unions are seeking to address in engaging with VET and provide a statement of the means used by unions to advance their learning agenda. In focusing on the British and Australian cases respectively, their analyses are contexualised within the constraints of more liberal market economies.

Focusing on the workplace as a site of learning and development, Rainbird examines the development of workplace partnership for training in the British

24

context of employer voluntarism in relation to training. Innovative workplace training practices are argued to rest on three conditions: a catalytic event that triggers investment in training practice; channels for the expression of employee voice over training; and, enthusiastic local actors to champion training. Partnerships over training are seen to evolve through three stages. They begin with the recognition of employee development and training as an issue in the workplace, then move to the recognition of joint union-management action on training and end with the resolution of potential tensions between management and employee interests in relation to training. Such tensions may be resolved in restricted ways, where business and employee interests are identical, or they may occur in extended ways where the working assumption is more pluralist with recognition of the need to negotiate suitable outcomes for both management and employees.

Cooney takes a different tack. He examines the broad scope of union action in relation to training and finds that it falls into three main areas. Unions take internal action, using training to develop union representatives; they take industrial action to ensure that their members receive some of the benefits of workplace training, and unions are social actors in education and training systems, influencing policy, the training offer and curriculum. The chapter is set in the Australian context, where the significant deregulation of training and industrial relations has influenced the use of action mechanisms by unions. Australian unions had been extensively engaged as social actors in the creation of

25

a national training system in the 1990’s, but deregulation has seen their withdrawal from social action. In common with unions in many comparable liberal market systems, Australian unions now operate in a more decentralised manner, focusing upon local enterprise agreements as a way of regulating workplace training. This regulation is argued to take place through industrial action, specifically via the enterprise bargaining process. Unions focus upon regulating the benefits of training for their members, notably the payment made for attendance at training and the training offer of the firm; there is little evidence of formal partnership over training. The chapter notes the limitations of such a deregulated system and argues that unions are concerned about the limited training offer made by firms, the low quality of much training and inequality of access to training between firms, industries and different groups of employees in a decentralised system.

The second section of the collection is devoted to exploring the institutional frameworks within which unions operate when it comes to VET. Charest examines the Canadian case, which, in common with many other liberal market countries, has a very weak institutional framework over the regulation of training. Training decisions are largely the preserve of management and the state typically plays an ‘informational and promotional role’. Unions have few mechanisms to promote social dialogue with employers over training and fewer mechanisms to develop and enforce agreements. Charest develops an institutional perspective to examine how change might be effected in the Canadian system. As he notes, the

26

dominance of a market-based approach to training and skills development has meant that there has been little change to the institutional framework in Canada for over two decades and that problems of market failure (e.g. skills shortages) keep recurring. He makes a cogent appeal for the development of an institutional framework in Canada that will regulate education and training to provide for the common good, rather than the specific self-interest of the social partners.

The chapter by Le Deist and Winterton presents the situation of institutional regulation in a much more coordinated market economy, that of France. The distinctive features of the French system include a strong state role over initial vocational training, through the public education system, and a limited union role at the workplace level, due to weak organization. Union influence over continuing training is nonetheless significant and unions influence training through their encompassing participation in social partner mechanisms at national, regional and sectoral levels. Collective bargaining over training, for example in relation to training plans and funds, occurs at these levels through the negotiation of quinquennial agreements with peak employer bodies. Union influence over continuing training exists in conjunction with employee rights to individual development plans at work and training leave entitlements to fulfil these plans. Yet union weakness at the workplace means these rights are not always taken up. Participation in workplace training tends to be low and employer investment in training has not been extended, despite the legislation guaranteeing new rights to training. French unions, then, have a strong presence in framework setting and the

27

regulation of training through social partner institutions but have little influence in the workplace over the implementation of training

The chapter by Trappmann, in contrast, presents a picture of multi-level union engagement with education and training, with reference to Germany. Despite German unions having involvement in both framework setting through social partner institutions and a presence at the workplace, they are still engaged in a contest with employers over the provision of education and training. The German model of initial vocational training, via the ‘dual system’, is internationally known, but unions are concerned about its modernization and the potential ‘withdrawal’ of employers, notably in terms of reduced apprenticeship provision. Union campaigns to increase employer investments have had limited success. Employer investment in continuing training has traditionally been more of an area for managerial prerogative, with less leverage for unions. While works councils have the authority to negotiate over continuing training, they are only now beginning to become engaged in this process. Nonetheless, German unions have become significant social actors in relation to continuing training and have embarked on a strategy to establish a right to continuing training for employees and improvements in the quality of continuing training. German unions have used some familiar mechanisms to advance their agenda, including collectively bargained agreements at the industry level and local partnership agreements with individual firms. Despite their success in establishing some innovative

28

agreements, implementation problems have been pervasive, including a low takeup of training by employees.

As social actors, German unions have moved into political campaigning to advance their agenda. They have sought reform of the education and training system and a new federal law that regulates: time off for continuing training; the co-financing of continuing training; career development counselling; and, the certification of continuing training. They have also begun to develop their own workplace learning representatives and career advice services. Trappmann argues that unions need to advance their agenda for VET through such multiple level, multiple initiative approaches, because ‘partnership-based regulation of VET, even in a coordinated market economy such as Germany, is under increasing threat.’

The final chapter in this section, by Kvalsvik Teige and Stuart, explores a long running and largely successful campaign by Norwegian unions to influence public policy on continuing training. The main Norwegian union federation began negotiating with employers in the early 1990’s for a statutory right to continuing training, paid for by employers, as response to the increasing risk of social exclusion for low skilled and poorly qualified workers as a result of social, technological and work design changes. Following the intervention of the state, a broad set of reforms to education and training, known as the Norwegian Competence Reforms, were introduced at the end of the 1990’s. The unions

29

achieved a statutory right to study leave for employees and the certification of skills gained at work, but employers refused to fund a right to training leave. Take-up of the new provisions by employees has been low. The conflict over financing and managerial prerogative meant that the impact of the reforms on workplace training practice in Norway were limited.

The Canadian, French, German and Norwegian unions studied in this section of the book had some common aspirations in response to some common problems. They all sought expanded employee access to training and the certification of the knowledge and skills acquired. They sought to enhance the position of their members in internal and external labour markets through extended VET. The institutional context in which the unions found themselves, however, influenced the extent to which they realised these aspirations and the action mechanisms they used to get there. The chapters also point to the need for unions to develop multilevel responses.

The final two chapters examine union innovations in VET. Greater union involvement in education and training at work has been seen by many as an essential aspect of the work of a modern union (Stuart 2001) and as a path to union renewal and so it is worthwhile looking at the kinds of innovations that have been made. The chapter by Marschall examines the situation of American unions and suggests that unions in many established sectors of the economy (autos, steel, communications, construction) have long been involved in the

30

development of union-management partnerships for workplace learning. Unions dealing with large corporations in these sectors have developed some long running, collectively bargained, joint training programs. These programs have been developed with single and multiple employers and have covered both initial vocational training through apprenticeship and continuing vocational training through skill upgrading. These partnerships have been successful, Marschall argues, because they have forced unions to engage in ‘constructive conflict’ with employers to develop programs that deliver improved work systems and enterprise productivity but also enhanced career opportunities and improved labour market outcomes for employees. Such programs have extended job control unionism to include individual learning and development and employee participation in organizational change and development, giving unions’ greater leverage in the workplace. The benefit of these union approaches are seen to be two-fold: firstly, a reinvigoration of the existing union membership who become more active advocates of renewal within their own union; but, secondly, the attraction of learning and development opportunities for groups of potential new union members, in particular the young and migrant employees. The chapter then explores how emerging forms of union action are developing through social and community partnerships for regional development or for the furtherance of new occupations.

Clough explores innovations in the British liberal market economy. British unions have sought to develop a new social role in relation to VET by taking advantage

31

of New Labour’s Third Way (‘regulation light’) approach to the delivery of skills. This eschewed the implementation of new statutory constraints on employers, but fostered new systems of incentives and opportunity structures, most notably for unions through the Union Learning Fund and rights for Union Learning Representatives (ULRs). Likewise, New Labour promoted social partnership between management and unions over workplace training, but did not support this through the creation of formal social partner institutions. In the context of such light regulation, unions have sought to develop their role in VET by developing partnerships for education and training and by becoming significant agents in the training system. There have been some successes. Unions have developed partnerships with firms, employees and training providers and they have played a lead role in establishing new facilities for employee development, using Union Learning Fund (ULF) projects to develop workplace learning centres. More importantly, however, unions have directly enhanced employee demand for training by strengthening their member representation over training through the evolving ULR network. ULRs have the same rights as other union representatives in the workplace and have a key role in assisting new learners into education and training. This development in union supported training has been a notable innovation, with an estimated quarter of a million learners annually entering the education and training system through this route.

The innovations discussed in this section of the book are all drawn from union practice in more liberal market countries. Unions in these countries have a greater

32

focus on the workplace, because of the underdevelopment of social partner institutions. Few formal social partner institutions exist in such countries to negotiate rights to training and so unions are forced to focus on practice at the local level. This has led to much innovation in practice, such as innovations in the development of local partnerships for education and training and innovations in the methods of union representation of members’ interests with regard to education and learning at work. To some extent such innovations also pose potential policy options for unions in the more coordinated systems faced with implementation problems, which appear to be pervasive no matter the institutional complex.

CONCLUSION

Unions have faced a new set of circumstances in the workplace in the past few decades. Work has been changing for many groups of employees and changed requirements for skill development have been a significant part of that change. Unions have responded to this change by incorporating member concerns about skill development into their industrial work. The emerging contest over skill development at work is being addressed by unions. but the question remains about the extent to which training and learning issues really do represent ‘a new and modern role for unions’ (DfEE 1998).

33

Certainly, there are many examples where trade unions, faced with broader problems of membership decline and employer antipathy, have sought to develop the training agenda as a central component of a ‘new bargaining agenda’. Unions have sought to develop education and training as the basis of more consensual, integrative bargaining that can support the development of effective local partnerships with management. Successful examples of partnership can be found, but if unions are to extend their engagement with skill development and training at work then they need to continue to innovate. Unions have created innovative industrial campaigns to develop public policy responses around the lifelong learning agenda, they have forged innovative agreements with employers and groups of employers around training and they have created new forms of union representation to implement such agreements. These innovations can perhaps form the basis of new institutional forms of union action in relation to education, training and skill development, action that will give unions a stake in the skill development of their members.

The chapters that follow all explore how unions are looking to innovate and develop new institutional forms of action with regard to VET. They all consider how unions look to develop new practices within the contested terrain of skills development and the underpinning collective good problems facing training investments. Together, the chapters help to advance our understanding of key concepts underpinning union attention to education and training, the key role of social institutions in the development of training practice and potential areas of

34

innovation in union practice. How the union agenda for training and learning - for the creation of education and training opportunities for their members and for the recognition of skills and knowledge acquired – develops, is however, very much a work in progress.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler, P. (1986) ‘New Technologies, New Skills’, California Management Review, 29(1):9-28.

d'Arcimoles, C-H. (1997) ‘Human Resource Policies and Company Performance: A Quantitative Approach Using Longitudinal Data’, Organization Studies, 18(5):857-874.

Barley, S R. (1996) The New World of Work, London: British-North American Committee.

Bartel, A. P. (1994) ‘Productivity Gains from the Implementation of Employee Training Programs’, Industrial Relations, 33(4):411-425.

Bosch, G. and Charest, J. (2010) Vocational Training. International Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

35

Bowman, J. (2005) ’Employers and the politics of skill formation in a coordinated market economy: collective action and class conflict in Norway’, Politics and Society, 33(4): 567-594.

Campbell, A. and Warner, M. (1992) New Technology, Skills and Management. Human Resources in the Market Economy, London: Routledge.

Capelli, P. (1993) ‘Are Skill Requirements Rising ? Evidence From Production And Clerical Jobs’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46(3):515-530.

__ (1996) ‘Technology and Skill Requirements. Implications for Establishment Wage Structures’, New England Economic Review. May/June. pp. 139-154.

Capelli, P. and Rogovsky, N. (1994) ‘New work systems and skill requirements’, International Labour Review, 133(2):205-220.

Cleveland, G., Gunderson, M. and Hyatt, D. (2003) ‘Unions Effects in Low-wage Services: Evidence from Canadian Childcare’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56(2):295-305.

Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. (1990) America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages, Washington: National Centre on Education and the Economy.

36

Conti, R F. and Warner, M. (1997) ‘Technology, culture and craft: job tasks and quality realities’, New Technology, Work and Employment, 12(2):123-135.

Cooney, R. (2010a) ‘Australian Unions and Vocational Training: Theory and Cases’, Labour & Industry, 21(2):529-544.

__ (2010b) ‘Workplace Training in a Deregulated Training System. Experiences from Australia’s Automotive Industry’, Economic & Industrial Democracy, 31(3):389-403.

Crouch, C., Finegold, D. and Sako, M. (1999) Are Skills the Answer: The Political Economy of Skill Creation in Advanced Industrial Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Darrah, C. (1994) ‘Skill Requirements at Work’, Work and Occupations, 21(1):64-84.

Department for Education and Employment (1998) The Learning Age: A Renaissance for a New Britain, Cm3790. London: HMSO.

Dundon, T., and Eva, D. (1998) ‘Trade Unions and Bargaining for Skills’, Employee Relations, 20(1):57-72.

37

Freeman, R B. and Medoff, J L. (1984) What Do Unions Do? New York: Basic Books Inc.

Goldin, C. and Katz, L F. (2008) The Race Between Education And Technology. Cambridge Massachusetts: Belknap Press.

Grugulis, I. (2006) Skills, Training and Human Resource Development. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hendry, C. (1990) ‘New technology, New careers: the impact of company employment policy’, New Technology, Work and Employment, 5(1):31-43.

Hirschorn, L. (1990) Beyond Mechanization. Work and Technology in a Postindustrial Age. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Holzer, H. J., Block, R. N., Cheatham, M. and Knott, J. H. (1993) ‘Are Training Subsidies For Firms Effective ? The Michigan Experience’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46(4):625-638.

Leisink, P. and Greenwood, I. (2007) ‘Company-level strategies for raising basic skills: a comparison of Corus Netherlands and the UK’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 13(3): 341-360

38

Locke, R., Kochan, T. and Piore, M. (1995) ‘Reconceptualising Comparative Industrial Relations: Lessons from International Research’, International Labour Review, 134(2):139-162.

Long, M. and Shah, C. (2008) Private returns to Vocational Education and Training Qualifications. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

Martinez Lucio, M., Skule, S., Kruse, W. and Trappmann, V. (2007) ‘Regulating skill formation in Europe: German, Norwegian and Spanish policies on transferable skills’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 13(3): 323340.

Mathews, J. (1994) ‘The Industrial Relations of Skill Formation’, in Niland, John R., Lansbury, Russell D. and Verevis, Chrissie. (eds.), The Future of Industrial Relations. Global Change and Challenges. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 239-255.

Méhaut, P. (2005) ‘Reforming the training system in France’, Industrial Relations Journal, 36(4): 303-317.

39

__ (2007) ‘New developments in continuing vocational education and training reform in France’, in L. Clarke and C. Winch (Eds) Vocational Education: International approaches, developments and systems, London: Routledge, 175-189.

Mincer, J. (1974) Schooling, Experience And Earnings. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

National Board of Employment, Education and Training. (1992) The Australian Vocational Certificate Scheme. Canberra: Employment and Skills Formation Council, Australian Government Publishing Service.

Olney, S L. (1994) Unions in a Changing World. Problems and Prospects in Selected Industralised Countries. Geneva: International Labour Office.

Osterman, P. (1994) ‘How Common Is Workplace Transformation And Who Adopts It ?’, Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 47(2):173-188.

__ (1995) ‘Skill, Training and Work Organization in American Establishments’, Industrial Relations, 34(2):125-146.

40

Psacharopoulos, G. and Patrinos, H. (2002) Returns to Investment in Education. A further update. World Bank policy research working paper No. 2881. SSRN (viewed 25th March 2010).

Payne, J. (2006) ’The Norwegian competence reform and the limits of lifelong learning’, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25(5): 477-505.

Prais, S J. (1995) Productivity, Education and Training, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rainbird, H. (1990) Training Matters. Union Perspectives on Industrial Restructuring and Training, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Rainbird, H., and Munro, A. (2000) ‘The New Unionism and the New Bargaining Agenda: UNISON-Employer Partnerships on Workplace Learning in Britain’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(2):223-240.

Rainbird, H., and Munro, A. (2003) ‘Workplace Learning and the Employment Relationship in the Public Sector’, Human Resources Management Journal, 13(2):30-44.

41

Regini, M. (1995) ‘Firms and institutions: the demand for skills and their social production in Europe’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 1(2): 191202.

Streeck, W. (1989) ‘Skills and the limits of neo-liberalism: the enterprise of the future as a place of learning’, Work, Employment and Society, 3(1): 89-104.

Stuart, M. (1996) ‘The Industrial Relations of Training: a reconsideration of training arrangements’, Industrial Relations Journal, 27(3):253-265.

__ (2001) ‘Contesting Partnership: evaluating the demise of a national training agreement’, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 53(1): 5-20.

__ (2007) ‘The industrial relations of learning and training: a new consensus or new politics’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 13(3): 269-280.

Stuart, M., and Wallis, E. (2007) ‘Partnership Approaches to Learning: A Seven Country Study’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 13(3):301-321.

Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W. Jnr. and Lepak, D. P. (1996), ‘Human Resource Management, Manufacturing Strategy And Firm Performance.’ Academy of Management Journal, 39(4):836-866.

42