Research Paper 9 - The impact of the ULR: A survey of ULRs and their employers

Research paper 9April 2009

Nicolas Bacon and Kim Hoque, Nottingham University Business School

The impact of the union learning representative:A survey of ULRs and their employers

This survey was commissioned by unionlearn to inform the TUC’s policy development on delivery of learning in the workplace. As such it is not a statement of TUC policy.

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

About the authors

Nicolas Bacon and Kim Hoque are Professors of Human Resource Management at Nottingham University Business School.

1The impact of the union learning representative: A survey of ULRs and their employers

Contents

Contents 1

Foreword 2

Abstract 3

Executive summary 4

Introduction 5

Research method and data 7

ULR characteristics 9

ULR activities 11

Support given to ULRs 13

ULR perceptions of their influence on training levels 17

The drivers of ULR influence on training levels 21

Managers’ views of ULRs 27

Discussion and conclusions 32

References 35

Other research papers in the series 36

Published in the same month as unionlearn trains its 22,000th union learning representative (ULR), and receives glowing praise for the outstanding work of ULRs from Ofsted, this research demonstrates that ULRs add value to training. Most ULRs’ main activity is supporting members by giving information and advice on learning. Many get far more involved and are capable of achieving great advances in the take up of learning in the workplace. But they cannot do it alone; employer support is particularly important.

Unionlearn will continue to recruit and train new ULRs, even in workplaces where there are ULRs already. We will do everything in our power to make sure they have the time, resources, support and respect that they need to deliver even more learning opportunities for their members.

The evidence that ULRs are more effective when their employer deals with a trade union over training issues will be used in the TUC’s ongoing campaign for learning to be formally recognised as a collective bargaining issue.

These issues were first highlighted a year ago in the findings of the ULR survey. Even though the supplementary survey of managers has suggested that the impact of ULRs may not be quite as strong as they themselves believe, the final results lend credibility to the researchers’ conclusions, based on the original ULR survey.

Liz Smith Director, unionlearn

Foreword

2


This paper reports the views of both union learning representatives (ULRs) and managers in relation to the impact ULRs have had on the levels of employee participation in training. It also identifies the factors that are associated with the ability of ULRs to influence participation in training. The analysis, which is based on data from the 2007 unionlearn survey of ULRs and matched data from a survey of managers, shows that 73 per cent of ULRs and

one-half of managers report that ULRs have had a positive impact on either employer-funded or non-employer-funded training. Both ULRs and managers report that ULRs are more likely to have had a positive influence in increasing employee participation in training where ULRs are active, where managers value their activities, and where managers negotiate with union representatives when deciding training matters.

Abstract

3integrating union learning and organising strategies

4

Using data from the 2007 unionlearn survey of ULRs and matched data from a survey of managers, this paper explores the impact of union learning representatives (ULRs) on both employer and non-employer-funded training. It examines ULR characteristics, the activities they engage in, and the level of support they receive from managers. It then explores whether these factors are associated with the ability of ULRs to influence levels of both employer-funded and non-employer-funded training.

ULRs responding to the survey reported their impact on four types of both employer-funded and non-employer-funded training. The findings suggest that 73 per cent of ULRs have had a positive impact on at least one form of either employer-funded or non-employer-funded training. The remaining one-quarter of ULRs reported that they have had no impact on any form of either employer-funded or non-employer-funded training. Overall, 40 per cent of ULRs have had no positive impact on any of the four types of employer-funded training assessed and 41 per cent have had no positive impact on any of the four types of non-employer-funded training assessed.

There are a number of features relating to ULR characteristics, the activities they are involved in and the support they receive from managers that are related to their impact on training. ULRs are more likely to report a positive influence on training levels where: they are valued by managers; they spend more than five hours per week on ULR activity; employers consult or negotiate with union representatives when deciding training matters; ULRs are responsible for no more than 200 employees; they are in workplaces with a learning centre; and they have been involved in a ULF project.

However, a majority of ULRs do not report these features: only one-third of ULRs report that managers at the workplace value their ULR activities; one-quarter of ULRs spend five hours or more a week on the ULR role; 45 per cent report that managers do not involve union representatives at all when deciding training issues; almost three in 10 ULRs

are responsible for more than 200 employees; the proportion of ULRs reporting the presence of learning centres has fallen from 52 per cent in 2005 to 44 per cent in 2007*; and only one-quarter of ULRs are involved in a ULF project.

These results therefore suggest a range of areas where unions could seek improvements; if achieved, such improvements could lead to an increase in the impact of ULRs on the take up of training at the workplace.

The paper also reports findings from the first ever survey of managers’ views of ULRs. Based on a sample of managers in workplaces with ULRs, the findings show that managers’ views of the impact of ULRs on training activity are significantly less positive than the assessments made by ULRs in the same workplaces. Nevertheless, one-half of managers responding felt that ULRs have had some impact on either employer-funded or non-employer-funded training in their workplaces.

Analysis of the survey of managers shows there are a number of features relating to ULR characteristics, the activities they are involved in and the support they receive from managers that are related to the impact of ULRs on training. Managers are more likely to report that ULRs have had a positive impact on employer-funded training where: ULRs are valued by managers; employers negotiate rather than consult with union representatives when deciding training matters; and ULRs are involved in a broader range of activities. Only this last factor – ULR involvement in a broader range of activities – is associated with a positive ULR impact on non-employer-funded training.

Both ULRs and managers therefore report that ULRs have a greater impact on training where ULRs are active, where managers value their activities and where managers negotiate with union representatives when deciding training matters.

Executive summary

* This is believed by unionlearn to reflect changes in FE funding which have meant that free or discounted ICT courses have not been available since 2006. Unionlearn and unions are currently developing strategies to restore the viability of workplace learning centres.


In order to help address Britain’s long-standing skills deficit, a key element of the Labour Government’s training policy since 1997 has been to encourage greater union involvement in stimulating demand for training and skills. The recruitment and training of ULRs, and the subsequent government statutory backing for the ULR role, have been central in attempts to achieve this.

This paper concentrates on the impact of ULRs on employee participation in training. The extent to which the efforts of ULRs have resulted in an increase in training requires careful monitoring over time, not least to identify the elements of support that are particularly important in helping them to carry out their role effectively and to identify the extent to which they have this support.

In considering the relationship between ULRs and training, existing theory suggests reasons why one might expect the relationship to be positive (Hoque and Bacon 2008). Given that an important part of the ULR role is to influence employers to increase training provision, one might expect them to impact positively on training levels as a result of direct union bargaining with employers (Freeman and Medoff 1984). Unionised employees may also be more likely to demand that employers provide training because unions are able to transform training into higher wages (Booth et al. 2003). Increased training provision resulting from ULR pressure may therefore be an important method by which unions can increase members’ wages. Union presence may also increase the likelihood that managers will implement formal procedures to assess training needs and deliver training (Metcalf 2003: 161). This is especially likely to occur where a ULR is present given that training needs analysis is an integral part of the ULR role. The effectiveness of union pressure for more training does, however, depend on the willingness of employers to increase training provision in response to this pressure. It may be

difficult for ULRs in many instances to increase training levels should employers be reluctant to consult and negotiate with union representatives on training matters, or to provide training beyond the vocational skills that workers require in conducting their immediate job roles.

Nevertheless, from an empirical perspective, initial assessments of the impact of ULRs suggest that they are making an important contribution in terms of improving the learning climate in workplaces and helping employees develop the confidence they need to learn new skills - especially among non-traditional (Findlay et al. 2007; Warhurst et al. 2006; Wallis and Stuart 2007; Wallis et al. 2005). One might expect, therefore, the role of ULRs to eventually lead to quantifiable increases in the level of both employer-funded training and also training funded by sources other than the employer. If ULRs are having this effect, this will suggest that they are playing an important role in improving the competitiveness of the British economy by helping meet the targets identified in the Leitch Review of Skills (2006), as well as helping to improve the earnings and career prospects of trade union members.

However, analysis of the Government-sponsored Workplace Employment Relations Survey 2004 (WERS 2004) found that training levels were no higher in workplaces with a ULR than elsewhere (Hoque and Bacon 2008). That said, while the failure to find a positive relationship between ULRs and employer-provided training in WERS 2004 is a cause for concern, it does not necessarily mean ULRs are failing to have any positive impact. This is for several reasons. First, ULRs may have had a greater impact since 2004 when the WERS data were collected. Second, ULRs may be having a positive effect on non-employer-funded training – WERS does not contain data on this type of training. Third, WERS does not contain data on different types of employer-funded training. ULRs may,

Introduction

6

therefore, be having positive effects on specific elements of training (such as training leading to nationally recognised formal qualifications, basic literacy or numeracy skills training, or employee participation on personal interest/leisure courses) while not having a positive impact at the aggregate level. Fourth, WERS does not allow for an identification of all the elements of support for the ULR role or the full range of ULR characteristics and activities that might be associated with increased training levels. As such, while the impact of ULRs may be neutral overall, there may well be specific circumstances in which they are able to have a positive impact.

Given this, the 2007 unionlearn survey was designed to build upon previous research in order to explore issues not addressed by analyses of ULRs to date. The aim of this paper is, therefore, to address a range of important issues affecting the work of ULRs by assessing ULR characteristics, the activities they engage in and the support they receive, and the relationship between these factors and the ability of the ULR to influence different forms of employer-funded and non-employer-funded training. The analysis produces clear indications of the main issues that unions, employers and the Government need to consider in helping ULRs to perform their role more effectively. The paper also reports the first survey conducted of managers’ views of ULRs in workplaces where ULRs are present, providing an important cross-check of the views expressed by ULRs.


This paper uses data from a 2007-2008 survey of all ULRs on unionlearn’s contact list. The survey included questions on whether the respondent is a ULR, their characteristics, the activities they engage in, the support they receive from management, workplace characteristics and the ULR’s perceived impact on levels of training. Comparisons with earlier surveys conducted in 2005 (unionlearn 2006), 2003 (York Consulting 2003) and 2000 (York Consulting 2000) are made where possible to show any changes over the last few years.

The 2007-2008 survey was initially posted to 11,051 potential ULRs on unionlearn’s database in October 2007 with a repeat mailing in January 2008. In total, returns were received from 1,585 respondents, representing a response rate of 14 per cent. 1,389 observations are used here, after respondents who are not ULRs and ULRs that are not workplace-based are omitted from the sample. While the proportion of reps on the unionlearn database who are not ULRs (or were ULRs previously but are no longer performing the role) is unknown, the proportion of respondents to the survey who were not ULRs suggests that it is 9 per cent at the least (and possibly higher given that non-ULR reps are perhaps less likely to respond to a survey targeted at ULRs). Given this, the actual response rate may well be higher than appears from the figures presented here.

Seven in ten (70 per cent) respondents to the survey worked in the public sector, 28 per cent worked in the private sector and 2 per cent were in the not-for-profit/voluntary sector. The proportion of ULRs that were in the public sector continued to increase from 28 per cent in 2000 to 52 per cent in 2003 and 62 per cent in 2005. The 2007 survey is more accurate in estimating these proportions than before as unionlearn has only recently gained access to the Unison database, which means many public sector ULRs that were not previously surveyed now are. It is important to bear in mind the fact that differences in the composition of the 2007 sample may explain some of the differences in findings when compared to previous unionlearn surveys. In terms of sector, the largest numbers of ULRs in the 2007 survey were located in: public administration and defence (26 per cent); transport, storage and communications (16 per cent); health and social work (15 per cent); manufacturing (15 per cent);

education (10 per cent); other community, social and personal services (7 per cent); and wholesale, retail and motor trade (5 per cent). The lowest numbers of ULRs were found in mining and quarrying (four ULRs), hotels and restaurants (two ULRs) and agriculture, forestry and fishing (two ULRs).

A majority of ULRs (77 per cent) were located in large organisations with 1,000 or more employees. This has not changed from the 2005 survey. Where workplace (as opposed to organisation) size is concerned, nearly three-fifths (58 per cent) of ULRs in 2007 were in workplaces with 500 or fewer employees. The proportion of all ULRs in large workplaces with over 1,000 employees has increased from one-fifth (20 per cent) in 2005 to more than one-quarter (28 per cent) in 2007.

Three-fifths of ULRs (62 per cent) represented non-management/non-professional employees, one-fifth (21 per cent) represented management/professional employees only, and 17 per cent represented both management/professional and non-management/non-professional employees only. The largest groups of ULRs responding to the 2007 survey represented members in Unison (25 per cent), Unite (19 per cent), PCS (12 per cent), GMB (9 per cent) and USDAW (6 per cent).

The analysis of the ULR survey in this paper has several stages. The first stage is to describe ULR characteristics, the activities they engage in, the support they receive and their perceived impact on levels of training. The second stage is to evaluate whether ULRs are more likely to have had a positive impact on training in instances where they possess certain characteristics, engage in certain activities or receive support. This is conducted using maximum likelihood ordered probit. The dependent variables used relate to the impact ULRs state that their activities have had on levels of four types of both employer-funded and non-employer-funded training (training leading to nationally recognised vocational or academic qualifications, job-related training not leading to formal qualifications, training in basic literacy and numeracy skills, and personal interest leisure courses). The analysis controls for: workplace characteristics (workplace size, organisation size, SIC major group, whether the workplace is in the public, private or voluntary sector); the ULR’s

Research method and data

8

gender, race and age; and whether the ULR represents managers/ professionals only, non-managers/ non-professionals only, or a mix of these two categories.

This paper also reports the findings of the first survey of managers’ views of ULRs in workplaces where ULRs are present. The sample group was created from ULRs responding to the 2007 unionlearn survey who supplied the contact details of managers primarily responsible for training matters in their workplace. In the event, over 500 ULRs provided such details and a target group of workplace managers with experience of working with ULRs in a wide range of industrial sectors were surveyed. This produced 90 responses. All respondents confirmed they were involved in training issues in their workplace. Two-fifths (43 per cent) were line/departmental managers, one-quarter (25 per cent) were training/development managers, 23 per cent were human resource managers, and 10 per cent held other posts. The managers’ survey included questions on the impact of ULRs, the working relationship between managers and ULRs, and management attitudes towards ULRs. The first stage of this analysis reports these findings and the second stage uses a maximum likelihood ordered probit analysis to ascertain the factors associated with the impact of ULRs on training activity. The dependent variables used relate to the impact of ULRs on employer-funded and non-employer-funded training as reported by managers. The analysis controls for: workplace characteristics (workplace size, organisation size, SIC major group, whether the workplace is in the public or private sector); and whether the ULR only represents non-managers/non-professional occupational categories.

The next section of the paper explores ULR characteristics, the activities they engage in and the level of support they receive in more detail.


A number of ULR characteristics could influence the ability of ULRs to increase training. This section explores these characteristics in detail.

Levels of experienceMany ULRs may be experienced union reps, while others may be new to the representative role and have no previous experience of union activism. As it is widely acknowledged that active bargaining over skills is essential if unions are to increase levels of employer-provided training (Heyes and Stuart 1998; Kennedy et al. 1994), where ULRs are new to the role and have not held a previous union post, a lack of experience could limit their effectiveness. That said, it is also possible that more experienced reps will adopt the ULR title but will not wholeheartedly adopt the training agenda. This might occur for several reasons: it might form only one part of their broader union role and thus be ‘crowded out’ (hence training comes to be regarded as a secondary issue compared to other bargaining aims); they may adopt the title mainly to gain more statutory time off; or they may adopt the role in good faith but lack the time to adequately concentrate on training issues. Given this, new activists taking the ULR role could well be expected to concentrate more fully on training issues and thus have a greater impact on training levels.

Estimates suggest that in 2000, 9 per cent of ULRs were new activists (York Consulting 2000: 4), although this figure appears to have increased with more recent estimates suggesting that new activists now account for between a quarter (Wood and Moore 2005:11) and a third of the ULR population (TUC 2004: 4; unionlearn 2006: 2). In the 2007 survey, over one-third of respondents (36 per cent) are new activists. This is identical to the 2005 findings, suggesting that a significant proportion of ULRs remain new to union activism.

In terms of the length of time ULRs have been in role, the 2007 survey shows that the average ULR has held the position for three years. This suggests that most ULRs now have considerable experience. 25

per cent of ULRs have been in post for less than 2 years, 38 per cent for 2 to less than four years, 28 per cent for four to less than six years, and 10 per cent for six years or more. One might expect ULRs that have been in role for longer to be more likely to have had a positive impact on training than those that have been in role for a shorter period of time. This is for several reasons. First, experienced ULRs are more likely to have developed the knowledge and skills necessary to become effective. Second, experienced ULRs may be among the most committed, having ‘stayed the course’ and remained in the role, whereas less committed ULRs may be more likely to have relinquished the position. Third, the ULRs that have been in role for a longer time period would have been among the first ULRs to be recruited into the role. It is possible that they are therefore more likely to be in workplaces with latent employee and employer demand for increased training provision – indeed, unions may well have deliberately recruited the first ULRs in these workplaces because they wished to demonstrate the value of the ULR initiative and did not want to see the ULR experiment still-born.

Gender, age and ethnic profile of ULRsWood and Moore (2005) suggest that because the age, gender and ethnicity profile of ULRs is broadly in line with the profile of the workforce overall, they may be better placed to encourage a broader range of employee groups (particularly those that may have been typically overlooked with regard to training provision) to participate in training. The average ULR in the 2007 survey is 48 years old. The gender and ethnicity profiles of ULRs have not changed from the 2005 survey. In the 2007 survey over one-half (58 per cent) of ULRs are male and 42 per cent female, while 7 per cent belong to non-white ethnic minority groups (in comparison with approximately 9 per cent of the British labour force as a whole). However, where new activists are concerned (ULRs that did not previously hold another union post), they are more likely to be female (52 per cent), and are more likely to be under 40 years old (25 per cent in comparison with 11 per

ULR characteristics

10

cent of ULRs that held a previous post). They are not, however, significantly more likely to be from an ethnic minority group (9 per cent) than are ULRs who are not new activists.

‘Hybrid’ vs. ‘dedicated’ ULRsIn terms of the influence of rep characteristics on the relationship between ULRs and training incidence, we might expect to see differences between ‘hybrid’ reps (ULRs that also hold another union post), and ‘dedicated’ reps (who hold only the ULR post). Most ULRs in the 2007 survey (64 per cent) are ‘hybrid’ reps currently holding another union post as well as a ULR position, a similar figure to 2005. One might expect ‘dedicated’ reps to have a greater impact on training given that they are able to dedicate all of their rep time to promoting training activities. That said, it might be that ‘hybrid’ reps that are integrated into broader union networks are better placed to exercise influence, and therefore have a more positive influence on training.

Number of employees per ULRAnother issue that may affect ULR effectiveness is the number of employees the ULR covers. Almost three in 10 ULRs (29 per cent) are responsible for more than 200 employees, with 22 per cent covering between 101 and 200 employees, 24 per cent covering 51 to 100 employees and 26 per cent covering 50 employees or fewer. Arguably ULRs responsible for a higher number of employees will find it difficult to provide the dedicated advice necessary to increase participation in training. This may be the case, especially where employees require basic literacy and numeracy training and need intensive support and encouragement to undertake such training.


This section considers the activities that ULRs engage in that could influence their ability to influence training levels. The first of these activities concerns the amount of time they spend performing the ULR role. Other ULR activities that might prove important are whether they have carried out a learning needs assessment, whether they have offered advice or information to members or whether they have arranged courses for members.

Time spent on ULR activitiesResearch based on WERS 2004 (Bacon and Hoque 2009) suggests that a large proportion of ULRs (51 per cent of ULRs overall and 64 per cent in the private sector) had not spent any time on issues associated with employee training in their representative role in the past 12 months, and should therefore perhaps be viewed as ‘inactive’ in this regard. While one might reasonably anticipate ULRs that have spent either no time or very little time on employee training to have not influenced training outcomes positively, one might expect those spending a lot of time on ULR activities to have had a greater impact.

Turning to the 2007 survey, comparisons with earlier surveys show the workload of ULRs is rising, with there having been an increase in the number of hours spent on ULR activities in 2007 (Table 1). Indeed, in 2007 almost one-quarter of ULRs (24 per cent) spent more than five hours a week on ULR activities compared to less than one-fifth of ULRs in 2005 (19 per cent) and 2003 (17 per cent). Nevertheless, more than one-third of ULRs (37 per cent) in 2007 report spending less than one hour a week on ULR activities and about one in seven (14 per cent) spent no time on ULR activities.

Table 1 Hours a week usually spent on ULR activities, including both time spent at work or at home (percentages)

2007 2005 2003

More than 10 hours per week 11 10 9

5 to less than 10 hours 13 9 8



Less than 1 hour 23 42 40

No time 14 - -

Another important issue in terms of the amount of time ULRs spend performing the ULR role is whether they receive paid time off from employers, or whether they have to perform the role in their own time. The Employment Act 2002 provided ULRs with statutory rights to paid time off for five key tasks: analysing training needs; providing information and advice on training; arranging training; promoting the value of training; and consulting the employer over these activities. Despite this, more than one-third of ULRs (34 per cent) report that employers do not pay for any time spent on ULR activities while at work (Table 2). In contrast, one-fifth of employers (20 per cent) paid for five hours or more per week for time spent on ULR activities.

Table 2 Hours a week usually paid by the employer for the time spent on ULR activities while at work, 2007 survey (percentages)

More than 10 hours per week 9

Five to less than 10 hours 11

Two to less than five hours 16

One to less than two hours 16

Less than one hour 14

No time 34

ULR activities

12

The amount of paid time ULRs receive from their employer to carry out their ULR role is strongly correlated with the amount of time ULRs spend on their activities. 68 per cent of ULRs were paid for all the time they spent performing the ULR role (an increase from 57 per cent in 2005). Thus, almost one-third of ULRs (32 per cent) in 2007 spent more time on their duties than they were paid for by their employer.

Activities undertakenOne might expect ULRs that have conducted a learning needs assessment to be better placed to influence training levels positively than those who have not. However, the proportion of ULRs conducting a learning needs assessment declined from 62 per cent in 2005 to 47 per cent in 2007. The 2007 survey specifically asked about learning needs assessments in the last two years, however, whereas the 2005 survey did not specify a time period. The 2007 survey question specified a time period because many ULRs may conduct a learning needs analysis after completing their initial training but then do not do so again. This may explain the difference in the results between the 2007 survey and the 2005 survey.

In terms of other ULR activities, 85 per cent of ULRs provided information/advice on learning to members in the past year. This is very similar to the figure in the 2005 survey (83 per cent). Also, 59 per cent of ULRs in the 2007 survey arranged courses for members in the last year. 13 per cent of ULRs neither provided information or advice, nor did they arrange courses for members. One might expect ULRs that have engaged in these activities to be more likely to have had a positive impact on training levels. If not, this could point to one possible difficulty that ULRs face – that is, even if they engage in providing advice and arranging courses, there is no guarantee employees will be prepared to follow the advice or take the courses arranged.


This section of the paper assesses the support given to ULRs that might affect their ability to influence training levels. This includes whether: the ULR has been adequately trained; there is a Learning Centre at the workplace they are responsible for; arrangements for ULRs are set out in a formal learning agreement; the ULR is involved in a Union Learning Fund project; managers provide ULRs with facilities and time off; and managers value the role played by ULRs, communicate with them and involve them in decisions on training.

Turning first to ULR training, most ULRs (98 per cent) have attended initial ULR training courses, an identical figure to that reported in the 2005 survey. One-quarter of ULRs in 2007 (27 per cent) nevertheless feel they have not had sufficient training to carry out their role effectively. ULRs who feel that they have received adequate training might be expected to have a greater impact on the training of other employees than those who do not feel they have received adequate ULR training.

Where learning centres are concerned, the proportion of ULRs reporting the presence of a learning centre declined from 52 per cent in 2005 to 44 per cent in 2007 (Table 3). Also, the proportion of ULRs reporting a learning agreement declined to 51 per cent in 2007 from 61 per cent in 2005 (representing a return to the 2003 level). One might expect ULRs in workplaces where there is a learning centre or where there is a formal learning agreement that sets out the role of the ULR to be better placed to influence training levels positively. Table 3 also shows that 24 per cent of ULRs are involved in a Union Learning Fund project. One might expect this financial backing to have helped ULRs to influence training levels positively.

Table 3 ULR support in the workplace (percentages)

2007 2005 2003

Learning Centre in workplace 44 52 47

Arrangements for ULRs set out in a formal learning agreement

51 61 51

Involved in a Union Learning Fund project

24 - -

ULR facilities, time off and relationships with managersThe support ULRs receive from management could have an important bearing on their ability to influence training levels. Three factors might be central here: whether ULRs are given access to the office facilities they need to carry out their role effectively; whether they receive adequate time off to conduct the ULR role; and the relationship between ULRs and managers.

Turning to the first of these factors, previous research shows that, in the public sector (though not in the private sector), training activity is higher where the ULR had access to office facilities (Bacon and Hoque 2009). A significant proportion of ULRs have in the past reported that they lack access to basic facilities and administrative support (Wood and Moore 2005: 27). Where ULRs lack such facilities, or where they lack access to email or computer equipment that enables them to relay information regarding training opportunities to constituents or to gather information regarding training needs, one might expect their ability to influence training levels to be limited.

Two-thirds (67 per cent) of ULRs in the 2007 survey report that employers provide them with adequate office space, while 73 per cent report that they provide them with adequate office equipment and 75 per cent report that they provide adequate communication equipment.

Support given to ULRs

14

These figures suggest that while many ULRs are given access to basic office facilities, a significant proportion (in the region of one in four) are not.

Turning to time off, the majority of ULRs report that employers provide them reasonable time off to engage in ULR activities (Table 4). Indeed, four-fifths (83 per cent) of ULRs state that employers provide them with reasonable time off to undergo relevant ULR training. Seven in ten report that their employers provide them with reasonable time off to conduct their ULR role, and two-thirds report that they provide them with reasonable time off to discuss members’ individual training needs (66 per cent) and to arrange learning or training for members (64 per cent). What this suggests, however, is that while the majority of employers give ULRs the time off they need to conduct their role, a significant minority of employers do not, with over one-third of ULRs reporting they do not have reasonable time off either to discuss individual members’ training needs (34 per cent) or to arrange learning or training for members (36 per cent).

Table 4 Time off employers provide ULRs, 2007 survey (percentages)

Yes No

Reasonable time off to undergo relevant ULR training

83 17

Reasonable time off to conduct ULR role 70 30

Reasonable time off to discuss members’ individual training needs

66 34

Reasonable time off to arrange learning or training for members

64 36

Union members able to discuss individual learning needs with ULR in normal working time

75 25

ULR has cover for regular job or a reduced workload to enable them to cover the ULR role

46 54

Most ULRs (75 per cent) report that union members are able to discuss individual learning needs with their ULR in normal working time. However, a majority of ULRs (54 per cent) do not have cover for their regular job or a reduced workload to enable them to perform the ULR role.

The nature of working relationships between ULRs and managers is likely to be another issue. One might anticipate that where there are good relationships, ULRs will be better placed to influence training outcomes. Indeed, given that British legislation does not require the employer to negotiate or consult with unions or ULRs on training matters, it is perhaps unlikely that they will be able to positively influence training in the absence of good working relationships, especially in instances where they seek to promote a training agenda separate from employer requirements (Wallis et al. 2005). It is therefore a potentially positive sign that a majority of ULRs in Wood and Moore’s (2005: 34) survey stated that a focus on union learning had encouraged co-operation between employers and unions. It is also encouraging that the CIPD (2004: 2) supports the role of ULRs, stating that they “provide a significant new source of expertise and engagement in promoting the learning agenda at work”. Given this, three elements of the relationship between ULRs and managers are considered here: first, whether managers consult, negotiate or inform reps when deciding training issues; second, the regularity of contact between ULRs and managers to discuss training issues; and third, whether managers value the ULR role.

Turning first to negotiation and consultation, the 2007 survey of ULRs suggests that managers normally negotiate or consult with union representatives when deciding training issues in only a minority (37 per cent) of cases (Table 5). Managers do not involve union representatives at all in training issues in more than four in 10 cases (45 per cent). Given the lack of a legal requirement for employers to negotiate and consult over training, this result is perhaps unsurprising.


However, if ULRs in workplaces where managers consult or negotiate with union reps over training have a greater impact on training levels, this will provide support for union calls to impose duties on employers to consult or negotiate with unions on training matters. We must keep in mind, however, that employers that are willing to consult or bargain voluntarily over training are likely to be among those that are more favourably disposed to ULR activity. Therefore, if ULRs in such workplaces are more likely to report that they have a positive impact on training, this could be more a reflection of management attitudes rather than a reflection on the impact of consultation and bargaining per se. This issue will be tested later in the report.

Table 5 Union involvement when managers decide training issues in workplaces with ULRs, 2007 survey (percentages)

Negotiate with union representatives 15

Consult union representatives 22

Inform union representatives 17

Not involve union representatives at all 45

The second related issue in terms of relationships between managers and ULRs is the level of contact ULRs have with managers. While there might not be formal consultation or negotiation over training, informal contact and liaison between ULRs and managers might nevertheless enable the ULR to influence training outcomes. Indeed, the ACAS Code of Practice (2003: 14) on time off for trade union duties states that employers and ULRs should liaise to ensure their training activities are complementary rather than duplicative. Given this, it is perhaps a matter of concern that although one-third of ULRs (34 per cent) report contact with management to discuss training matters at least once a month, many ULRs report infrequent contact and in some cases no contact at all. Indeed, over one-quarter of ULRs (28 per cent) had no contact

with any level of management to discuss training matters during the last 12 months (Table 6).

Table 6 How often ULRs had contact with any level of management to discuss training matters affecting the employees represented during the last 12 months, 2007 survey (percentages)

Daily 3

At least once a week 7

At least once every two weeks 5

At least once a month 19

At least once every three months 16

At least once every six months 11

Once a year 11

Not at all 28

Turning to the third issue concerning the relationship between managers and ULRs, given that many ULRs report that managers often do not involve union representatives in training issues and also that contact between ULRs and managers is often infrequent or non-existent, it is perhaps unsurprising that many ULRs feel undervalued. Indeed, only one-third of ULRs (34 per cent) report that managers at their workplace value their ULR activities (Table 7). The remaining two-thirds report that managers do not value ULR activities in their workplace or are ambivalent towards them.

Table 7 Do managers at the workplace value ULR activities? 2007 survey (percentages)

Strongly agree 7

Agree 27

Neither agree nor disagree 33

Disagree 18

Strongly disagree 15

16

SummaryThere are a number of factors relating to ULR characteristics, the activities they engage in and the support they receive that might influence the ability of ULRs to carry out their role effectively and thereby positively influence training levels. So far, we have provided a descriptive analysis of these factors from the 2007 survey of ULRs. Later in the paper we test whether these factors are associated with the likelihood that the ULR has influenced training levels positively.

Although each of these factors may affect the ability of ULRs to influence training levels, the relative importance of each factor is currently unclear. It is possible that some of them will be associated with the ability of the ULR to influence all forms of training, while others are associated with the ability of the ULR to influence either employee participation in employer-funded training, or training funded by sources other than the employer. To address this, we will evaluate the relationship between these factors and the ability of ULRs to influence a range of types of training. Before turning to this analysis, however, the next section considers training levels in ULR workplaces, and the extent to which ULRs state they have had a positive influence on different types of both employer-funded and non-employer-funded training.


Turning first to training levels in workplaces with ULRs, a significant proportion of ULRs report that the members they represent received little or no time off from their normal work duties to undertake training during the past 12 months (Table 8). Over one-quarter of ULRs (26 per cent) report that employers provided no union members in their workplace with time off from their normal work duties to undertake training and a further one-quarter of ULRs (26 per cent) report that employers provided fewer than 20 per cent of their members with time off to undertake training.

Table 8 Proportion of union members given time off from their normal work duties to undertake training during the past 12 months, 2007 survey (percentages)

All

None (0%) 26

Just a few (1-19%) 26

Some (20-39%) 12

Around half (40-59%) 9

Most (60-79%) 8

Almost all (80-99%) 9

All (100%) 11

The survey also asked about training duration (Table 9). Over one-third of ULRs (34 per cent) report that the union members they represent had undertaken five days or more training during the past 12 months. Nevertheless, 43 per cent received less than two days training during the past 12 months.

Table 9 Average days training for union members undertaken during the past 12 months, 2007 survey (percentages)

All

Ten days or more 16

Five to less than ten days 18

Two to less than five days 23

One to less than two days 15

Less than one day 10

No time 18

Overall, the evidence suggests that significant proportion of employees in workplaces with a ULR received little or no training in the 12 months prior to the survey being undertaken.

The impact of ULRs on trainingIn terms of the impact that ULRs state their activities have had on training levels, Table 10 shows the impact of ULR activity on different types of employer-funded training, while Table 11 shows the impact of ULR activity on different types of training funded by union members, Government, unions or a source other than the employer.

Table 10 The impact of workplace ULR activity on the number of union members involved in employer-funded training, 2007 survey (percentages)

Increased Stayed the same

Decreased

Training leading to nationally recognised vocational or academic qualifications (eg NVQ, City & Guilds)

39 51 9

Job-related training not leading to formal qualifications

38 53 8

Training in basic literacy and numeracy skills

36 55 9

Personal interest/leisure courses

25 62 13

As demonstrated in Table 10, two-fifths of ULRs (39 per cent) report increases in employee participation in employer-funded training towards nationally recognised vocational or academic qualifications as a result of their ULR activity. Almost two-fifths (38 per cent) report increases in participation in employer-funded job-related training not leading to formal

ULR perceptions of their influence on training levels

18

qualifications as a result of their ULR activities. More than one-third (36 per cent) report increased participation in employer-funded basic literacy and numeracy skills training as a result of their ULR activity. Fewer ULRs (25 per cent) report that their activities increased participation in employer-funded personal interest/leisure courses. This figure is lower than for other forms of training - probably because employers are less willing to fund training of this nature.

In terms of training funded by union members, Government, union or a source other than the employer (Table 11), approximately two-fifths of ULRs report that their activities have resulted in increases in participation in: training towards nationally recognised vocational or academic qualifications (42 per cent); basic literacy and numeracy skills training (39 per cent); and personal interest/leisure courses (41 per cent). Less than one-third of ULRs (32 per cent) report that participation in job-related training not leading to formal qualifications increased as a result of their ULR activities.

Table 11 The impact of workplace ULR activity on the number of members involved in non-employer-funded training, 2007 survey (percentages)

Increased Stayed the same

Decreased

Training leading to nationally recognised vocational or academic qualifications (eg NVQ, City & Guilds)

42 52 6


32 61 6


39 54 7


41 51 8

What Tables 10 and 11 do not show, however, is the proportion of ULRs that have had a positive effect on training outcomes. It is possible, for example, that a high proportion of ULRs may have had a positive impact, but this is limited to only specific forms of training. Alternatively, only a minority of ULRs may have had a positive impact, but these ULRs have had a significant across-the-board effect. This issue is addressed in Table 12. What the table shows is that with employer-funded training, only 11 per cent of ULRs had a positive impact on all of the forms of training questioned about, while 11 per cent had a positive impact on three types, 18 per cent had a positive impact on two types, and 19 per cent had an impact on only one type. Overall, 40 per cent of ULRs had no positive impact on any type of employer-funded training. Where non-employer-funded training is concerned, 17 per cent of ULRs had a positive impact on all of the forms of training asked about, while 13 per cent had a positive impact on three types, 14 per cent had a positive impact on two types, and 15 per cent had an impact on only one type. 41 per cent of ULRs had no positive impact on any types of non-employer-funded training. It would therefore appear that while some ULRs have had a positive impact across several forms of training, for many others, their impact would appear to be considerably narrower.

Table 12 The number of training activities ULRs have positively influenced, 2007 survey (percentages)

Employer-funded

Non-employer-funded

All forms of training 11 17

Three forms of training 11 13

Two forms of training 18 14

One form of training 19 15

No positive impact 41 41


It is also possible from the data to calculate whether ULRs have had differential success in terms of influencing employer- and non-employer-funded training. It may be the case, for example, that even though a significant number of ULRs have been unable to influence employer-funded training, they may nevertheless still have been successful in raising non-employer-funded training. This is explored in Figure 1. It shows that 44 per cent of ULRs have had an impact on both non-employer-funded training and employer-funded training (defined as having positively influenced at least one of the four types of both employer-provided and non-employer-provided training). A further 15 per cent have had a positive impact on employer-funded training only, while 14 per cent have had a positive effect on non-employer-funded training only. 27 per cent of ULRs have had no impact on any form of either employer-funded or non-employer-funded training.

Figure 1 The impact of ULRs on employer and non-employer-funded training, 2007 survey

15 per cent(employer-focused)

27 per cent(no effect)

44 per cent(dual effect)

14 per cent(non-employer-focused)

No positive effect Positive effect

No positive effect

Positive effect

Impact on employer-funded training

Impact on non-employer-funded training

Note: Definition of ‘positive impact’ = ULR has had a positive impact on at least one of the four types of training asked about

These figures have a number of important implications. First, it would appear that there is only limited support for the argument that ULRs that have not influenced employer-funded training may nevertheless still have been successful in raising non-employer-funded training. Only about one-third of the ULRs that were unable to increase employer-funded training had positively influenced non-employer-funded training (in comparison with about three-quarters of ULRs who had a positive impact on employer-funded training). One explanation for this could be that employer support for training affects the ability of the ULR to influence both forms of training – employees could be less willing to engage in non-employer-funded training if they feel that the employer will not value that training, or if they feel that they will not be able to use the skills they learn once they return to the workplace.

A further interpretation of this result is that in instances where ULRs have been unable to raise employer-funded training but have nevertheless had a positive impact on non-employer-funded training, union-led training may well be providing a substitute for training that employers would otherwise provide. To test for possible substitution effects further, we examined the extent to which employer-provided training has decreased in instances where ULRs have increased non-employer-provided training. The analysis reveals, however, little evidence of substitution effects of this nature. In instances where ULRs increased non-employer-funded training leading to a nationally-recognised vocational qualification, employer provision of such training decreased in only 7 per cent of cases. Where they increased non-employer-funded job-related training not leading to a formal qualification, employer provision of such training decreased in only 3 per cent of cases. Where they increased non-employer-funded basic literacy and numeracy skills training, employer provision of such training decreased in only 5 per cent of cases, and where they increased participation in non-employer-funded personal interest/ leisure courses, employer provision of such training

20

decreased in only 6 per cent of cases. Therefore, in instances where ULRs have been successful in raising non-employer-funded training, this has been in addition to, rather than instead of, the training employers provide.

It is also notable that in excess of one-quarter of ULRs report that they have had no positive impact on either employee participation in both employer-funded and non-employer-funded training (Figure 1). This is higher than the one-fifth of ULRs in 2000 who reported that they had failed to have a positive impact on learning in their workplace (York Consulting 2000: 23). The more positive findings reported in 2000 could be explained by the possibility that the ULRs recruited in the early days of the ULR initiative were recruited in workplaces where managers were highly supportive and willing to respond to calls from ULRs for higher training provision. In contrast, ULRs that have been recruited more recently may have been recruited in workplaces where managers are not as supportive of the ULR role, thus rendering it more difficult for them to have a positive effect. There is no evidence, however, to support this argument – in tables 13 and 14 presented later in this paper, ULRs that have been in post for longer are no more likely to report having had a positive impact than are ULRs that have been in post for a shorter period of time.

Another possible explanation for the high proportion of ULRs stating that they have had no positive impact on training is that there is already a large amount of training taking place in the workplaces for which they have responsibility, hence they have been unable to raise it further. There is, however, no evidence to support this argument – training levels are no higher (and indeed are often lower) in workplaces where ULRs state they have had no positive impact than in workplaces where they state they have had a positive impact.


This section presents the results of the multivariate analysis carried out to estimate the relationship between different ULR characteristics, the activities they engage in and the support they receive, and whether ULRs state that they have been able to influence participation in both employer-funded and non-employer-funded training.

Employer-funded trainingEarlier, we reported that 39 per cent of ULRs stated that their activities have helped to increase employer-funded training leading to a nationally-recognised vocational or academic qualification; 38 per cent stated that their activities have helped to increase job-related training not leading to formal qualifications; 36 per cent stated that their activities have helped to increase training in basic literacy and numeracy skills; and one-quarter stated that their activities have helped to increase participation in personal interest/leisure courses (Table 10).

Table 13 explores the factors that are associated with the ability of ULRs to influence employer-funded training. First, with regard to ULR characteristics, ULRs who are responsible for 200 employees or fewer are more likely to report a positive impact on employer-funded basic literacy and numeracy skills training than are ULRs who are responsible for more than 200 employees. However, almost three in ten ULRs (29 per cent) cover more than 200 employees, which suggests that recruiting more ULRs in large workplaces with few ULRs may help to boost this form of skills training.

Second, with regard to the activities ULRs engage in, it is notable that ULRs spending one hour a week or more on ULR activity are more likely than those spending no time on ULR activities to report a positive impact on employer-funded training leading to nationally-recognised vocational and academic qualifications (though the association is weak for ULRs who spend between two and less than five hours a week on ULR activities). Those who spend five to less than ten hours per week are slightly more likely to report a positive impact on participation in employer-funded personal interest/leisure courses.

Third, with regard to the support ULRs receive, the results suggest that support from management for the ULR role is particularly important. There is a consistent positive relationship between managers valuing the ULR’s activities and the ability of the ULR to influence all four types of employer-funded training. Given this fact, it is perhaps notable that only 34 per cent of ULRs report that managers value their role (Table 7).

The results also suggest that management willingness to inform, consult and negotiate over training issues is important in determining whether ULRs are likely to have a positive effect. In particular, ULRs are more likely to report increases in levels of employer-funded training leading to nationally recognised vocational or academic qualifications and job–related training not leading to formal qualifications if managers inform or consult union reps or negotiate with them when deciding training matters. In addition, they are more likely to report a positive impact on basic literacy and numeracy skills training where managers consult or negotiate, and they are more likely to report a positive impact on employer-funded personal interest and leisure courses where managers consult. However, given the apparent importance of negotiation and consultation, it is perhaps notable that managers normally negotiate or consult over training matters in only 37 per cent of workplaces with ULRs (Table 5), and in two-fifths of workplaces managers do not involve union representatives at all when deciding training issues.

It is also notable in considering the importance of consultation and negotiation that the equations include measures of both management attitudes towards ULRs as well as measures of whether managers negotiate, consult or inform reps when deciding training matters. As argued earlier, employers that are willing to consult or bargain voluntarily over training are likely to be among those that are more favourably disposed to ULRs – therefore an association between consultation and bargaining and training could be more a reflection of management attitudes rather than a reflection on the impact of consultation and bargaining per se. The results suggest, however, that negotiation and consultation have effects on training levels independent of management attitudes. This in turn suggests that requiring employers to consult or negotiate over training could enable ULRs to have a positive impact on training irrespective of whether the employer values the ULR role.

Also in relation to the support ULRs receive, a further factor that stands out is that ULRs are more likely to report a positive impact on employer-funded training leading to nationally recognised vocational academic qualifications, basic literacy and numeracy skills training and personal interest and leisure courses where there is a learning centre at the workplace. Given this, it is perhaps notable that the proportion of ULRs reporting a workplace learning centre has declined from 52 per cent in 2005 to 44 per cent in 2007.

The drivers of ULR influence on training levels

22

Table 13 Issues associated with changes in the number of members involved in employer-funded training as a result of ULR activity in the workplace, 2007 ULR survey

Training leading to nationally recognised vocational or academic qualifications




ULR characteristics

Other union post held -*

Union post previously held +*

Time spent as ULR (reference category: 0 to less than 2 years)

2 to less than 4 years -**

4 to less than 6 years +*

6 years or more

ULRs per number of employees (reference category: 1 ULR for every 200+ employees)

1 ULR for every 101-200 employees +***

1 ULR for every 51-100 employees +** +***


ULR activities

Hours per week spent on ULR activity (reference category: no time)

Less than 1 hour

1 to less than 2 hours +**

2 to less than 5 hours +*

5 to less than 10 hours +*** +*

more than 10 hours per week +***

Learning needs assessment conducted in last 2 years

+*

Information/advice provided on learning in last year


TUC or own union’s initial ULR training course taken

+*

Sufficient training to carry out ULR role effectively

+*

Learning centre at workplace +** +*** +**

Arrangements for ULRs set out in formal learning agreement

+*

ULR involved in ULF project +***

Employer provides sufficient office space

Employer provides sufficient communication equipment






Support given to ULRs (continued)


Members have formal right to time-off for training

Contact with any level of management to discuss training matters affecting members represented (reference category: not at all)

Once a year -** -*

At least once every 6 months


At least once a month

At least once every two weeks

At least once a week

Daily +*

When deciding training issues do managers normally inform/ consult/ negotiate with union reps? (reference category: union reps not involved)

Union reps informed +** +**

Union reps consulted +*** +*** +*** +***

Negotiated with union reps +*** +*** +***

Management value ULR’s activities at this workplace (reference category: strongly disagree)

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree +** +*** +** +***

Agree +*** +** +*** +***

Strongly agree +*** +*** +*** +***

822 observations included. Note *** Significant at 1 per cent ** Significant at 5 per cent * Significant at 10 per cent The more significant relationships are at 1 per cent and 5 per cent. + positive relationship - negative relationship All equations control for: workplace characteristics (workplace size, organisation size, SIC major group, whether the workplace is in the public, private or voluntary sector); the ULR’s gender, race and age; and whether the ULR represents managers/ professionals only, non-managers/ non-professionals only, or a mix of these two categories. Given the high level of correlation between time spent on ULR activities and the time spent on ULR activities paid for by employers, the latter is dropped from the analysis.

24

Non-employer-funded trainingEarlier we reported that 42 per cent of ULRs state that their activities have helped to increase non-employer-funded training leading to nationally recognised vocational or academic qualifications, 32 per cent state that their activities have helped to increase non-employer-funded job-related training not leading to formal qualifications funded by sources other than the employer, 39 per cent state that their activities have helped to increase non-employer-funded literacy and numeracy skills training, and 41 per cent state that their activities have helped to increase participation in non-employer-funded personal interest/leisure courses (Table 11).

Table 14 explores the factors that are associated with the ability of ULRs to influence different forms of non-employer-funded training. First, where ULR characteristics are concerned, ULRs who are responsible for 200 employees or fewer are more likely to report that their activities have increased employee participation in non-employer-funded basic literacy and numeracy skills training than are ULRs who cover more than 200 employees. ULRs responsible for 101-200 employees or 50 or fewer employees (but not those who were responsible for 51-100 employees) are also more likely to report a positive influence on non-employer-funded personal interest and leisure courses.

Second, as far as ULR activity is concerned, ULRs who spend five hours or more per week on ULR activity are more likely to report increased participation in non-employer-funded training leading to nationally recognised vocational or academic qualifications and basic literacy and numeracy skills training than are ULRs who spend no time on ULR activities. ULRs spending more than ten hours per week on ULR activities are more likely to report increased participation in all four forms of training.

Third, as with employer-funded training, management support for the ULR role would appear to be important, with ULRs who report that managers value their activities being more likely to report a positive influence on non-employer-funded training than ULRs who report that they are not valued by managers. Also in relation to the support ULRs receive, ULRs are more likely to report a positive impact on all four types of training in instances where they are involved in a ULF project. This suggests that the funding such projects provide is invaluable in helping ULRs to raise levels of training. It is notable, however, that involvement in a ULF project does not influence the ability of the ULR to raise employer-funded training, with the exception of personal interest/leisure courses. There is a possible suggestion here, therefore, of a substitution effect, in that ULF projects could be bringing in external funding for training that employers would otherwise provide.


Table 14 Issues associated with changes in the number of members involved in non-employer-funded training as a result of ULR activity in the workplace, 2007 ULR survey

]\





ULR characteristics

Other union post held +*

Union post previously held

Time spent as ULR (reference category: 0 to less than 2 years)

2 to less than 4 years

4 to less than 6 years

6 years or more -* -**

ULRs per number of employees (reference category: 1 ULR for every 200+ employees)

1 ULR for every 101-200 employees +*** +**


1 ULR for every 1-50 employees +*** +***

ULR activities

Hours per week spent on ULR activity (reference category: no time)

Less than 1 hour

1 to less than 2 hours

2 to less than 5 hours +*

5 to less than 10 hours +** +** +*

more than 10 hours per week +*** +** +*** +**

Learning needs assessment conducted in last 2 years

Information/advice provided on learning in last year


TUC or own union’s initial ULR training course taken

Sufficient training to carry out ULR role effectively

+***

Learning centre at workplace +*

Arrangements for ULRs set out in formal learning agreement

ULR involved in ULF project +*** +*** +*** +***

Employer provides sufficient office space +**

Employer provides sufficient communication equipment

26





Support given to ULRs (continued)


-* -*

Members have formal right to time-off for training

Contact with any level of management to discuss training matters affecting members represented (reference category: not at all)

Once a year



At least once a month

At least once every two weeks

At least once a week +*

Daily

When deciding training issues do managers normally inform/ consult/ negotiate with union reps? (reference category: union reps not involved)

Union reps informed

Union reps consulted +** +*

Negotiated with union reps

Management value ULR’s activities at this workplace (reference category: strongly disagree)

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree +** +**

Agree +*** +** +*

Strongly agree +*** +** +*** +**

Note: *** Significant at 1 per cent ** Significant at 5 per cent * Significant at 10 per cent The more significant relationships are at 1 per cent and 5 per cent. + positive relationship - negative relationship All equations control for: workplace characteristics (workplace size, organisation size, SIC major group, whether the workplace is in the public, private or voluntary sector); the ULR’s gender, race and age; and whether the ULR represents managers/ professionals only, non-managers/ non-professionals only, or a mix of these two categories. Given the high level of correlation between time spent on ULR activities and the time spent on ULR activities paid for by employers, the latter is dropped from the analysis.


This section provides the results of a follow-up survey to the main ULR survey, which sought to elicit managers’ views of ULRs and to explore the extent to which managers believe ULRs have had a positive impact.

Managers’ reports of ULR impactTurning first to the managers’ views of the impact of ULRs on training activity, Table 15 demonstrates that 37 per cent of managers stated that ULR activity has increased employer-funded training, while 41 per cent stated that it has increased non-employer-funded training. Managers’ views of the impact of ULRs on training activity were significantly less positive than were the views of ULRs in the same workplaces. As demonstrated in Table 15, 58 per cent of ULRs in the matched sample stated that they have had a positive impact on employer-funded training (in comparison with 37 per cent of managers); while 55 per cent of ULRs stated that they have had a positive impact on non-employer-funded training (in comparison with 41 per cent of managers). The differences between the responses given by managers and ULRs were significant in chi2 tests at the 5 per cent level for both employer-funded (Pr=0.016) and non-employer-funded training (Pr=0.047).

Table 15 Reports of ULR impact on employer-funded and non-employer-funded training, 2008 survey (percentages)

Training funded by the employer

Training funded by sources other than the employer

Management response

ULR response

Management response

ULR response

Increased a lot 5 12 2 14

Increased a little 32 46 39 41

Stayed the same 62 38 57 44

Decreased a little 0 2 1 1

Decreased a lot 1 1 0 0

n 85 82 84 73

In addition, the survey asked whether employer expenditure on employee training had increased as a

result of ULR activity. 25 per cent of managers stated that expenditure had increased, 73 per cent stated that it had stayed the same, while 2 per cent stated that it had fallen.

As with the survey of ULRs, the survey of managers also enabled an analysis of whether ULRs have had a differential impact on employer-funded and non-employer-funded training, and whether ULRs that have not been able to influence employer-funded training have instead been successful in raising non-employer-funded training. The results are given in Figure 2. This demonstrates that 27 per cent of managers stated that ULRs have impacted on both employer and non-employer-funded training, while 8 per cent stated that they have impacted on employer-funded training alone and 14 per cent stated that they have impacted on non-employer-funded training alone. As was also demonstrated by the survey of ULRs, this suggests that there is little evidence that ULRs who have failed to influence employer-funded training have instead had a positive effect on non-employer-funded training. It is also notable that 50 per cent of managers stated that ULRs have had no impact on either employer-funded or non-employer-funded training. This is considerably higher than the corresponding figure of 27 per cent of ULRs who stated they have had no positive effect (Figure 1).

Figure 2 Managers’ reports of the impact of ULRs on employer and non-employer-funded training, 2008 survey

8 per cent(employer-focused)

50 per cent(no effect)

27 per cent(dual effect)

14 per cent(non-employer-focused)

No positive effect Positive effect

No positive effect

Positive effect

Impact on employer-funded training

Impact on non-employer-funded training

Managers’ views of ULRs

28

Managers were also asked whether they thought ULRs have contributed towards addressing employee skills gaps, staff retention and improving organisational efficiency and productivity (Table 16). 61 per cent stated that they have contributed towards addressing skills gaps, while only 25 per cent stated that they have contributed towards staff retention. 37 per cent stated that they have contributed towards improved efficiency and productivity.

Table 16 Managers’ views of the contribution of ULRs in their workplace, 2008 survey (percentages)

Helped address employee skills gaps 61

Helped with staff retention 25

Helped improve organisational efficiency and productivity

37

Managers’ reports of ULR activityIn order to gauge the extent and breadth of ULR activity, managers were asked about the activities of ULRs in their workplace (Table 17). Managers stated that ULRs in their workplace have been involved in: identifying individuals’ training needs (46 per cent of managers); arranging any type of training for employees (68 per cent); increasing overall employee demand for training (63 per cent); offering advice to managers on training issues (47 per cent); increasing the participation of non-traditional learners in training (64 per cent); and raising awareness of the benefits of training (79 per cent).

Table 17 Managers’ reports of ULR activity in their workplace, 2008 survey (percentages)

Identifying individuals’ training needs 46

Arranging any type of training for employees 68

Increasing overall employee demand for training 63

Offering advice to managers on training issues 47

Increasing the participation of non-traditional learners in training

64

Raising awareness of the benefits of training 79

Overall, 29 per cent of managers stated that ULRs had engaged in all of these activities. By contrast, 16 per cent stated that ULRs had engaged in only one or

two activities, while 12 per cent stated that ULRs had engaged in none of them. As also demonstrated by the survey of ULRs, this further highlights the extent to which a significant proportion of ULRs should be viewed as ‘inactive’.

Factors limiting the role of ULRsIn terms of the factors that limit the role of ULRs (Table 18), managers stated that the ULR role was limited because: the employer already provides sufficient training (48 per cent of managers); the ULR lacks the skills to make a valuable contribution (34 per cent); ULRs do not share the same training agenda as managers (33 per cent); the majority of employees do not require training (10 per cent); and the majority of employees at the workplace require low skills (8 per cent of managers).

Table 18 Managers’ reports on factors limiting the role of ULRs in their workplace, 2008 survey (percentages)

The employer already provides sufficient training

48

The ULR lacks the skills to make a valuable contribution

34

ULRs do not share the same training agenda as managers

33

The majority of employees do not require training

10

The majority of employees at the workplace require low skills

8

Managers’ views on ULRsRespondents to the survey were asked whether they agree or disagree with the statement that managers overall at their workplace valued ULRs. As demonstrated by Table 19, 43 per cent stated that managers overall value ULRs, while 15 per cent stated that they do not value ULRs. The difference between the ULR responses to this question and managers’ responses to this question is not quite significant in a chi2 test (Pr=0.103), thus suggesting that ULRs have neither over or underestimated the extent to which managers value them.


Table 19 A comparison of managers’ and ULR views on whether managers overall at the workplace value ULRs, 2008 survey (percentages)

Do you agree or disagree that managers at this workplace value ULRs?

Management response

ULR response

Strongly agree 9 16

Agree 34 26

Neither agree nor disagree

42 31

Disagree 7 17

Strongly disagree 8 10

n 86 88

Respondents were also asked whether, when deciding training issues, managers normally negotiate or consult with trade unions, inform the trade union or do not involve the union at all (Table 20). 5 per cent of managers stated that they negotiate, 48 per cent stated that they consult, while 20 per cent stated that they inform. However, 28 per cent stated that they do not involve unions at all.

Table 20 Managers’ reports of union involvement when managers decide training issues in workplaces with ULRs, 2008 survey (percentages)

Negotiate with union representatives 5

Consult union representatives 48

Inform union representatives 20

Not involve union representatives at all 28

Factors influencing the impact of ULR activity on trainingTable 21 explores the factors that are associated with the extent to which ULRs have influenced both employer-funded training and non-employer-funded training. In this analysis, the data is taken largely from the survey of managers, although the control variables are taken from the matched data in the ULR survey. As far as employer-funded

training is concerned, a number of results stand out. First, ULRs are more likely to have had a positive impact where managers either support ULRs or are ambivalent about them. Where managers state that ULRs are not valued in their workplace, they are less likely to report that ULRs have had a positive impact. This supports the results from the survey of ULRs, which also point to the importance of managers valuing ULRs if they are to have a positive effect.

Second, ULRs are more likely to have had a positive impact in instances where managers negotiate rather than consult with unions over training. There is also weak evidence (at the 10 per cent significance level) that they are more likely to have had a positive impact where managers are willing to negotiate with trade unions rather than where they do not involve trade unions at all.

Third, the evidence suggests that where ULRs are involved in a broader range of activities they are more likely to have had a positive impact on employer-funded training, with ULRs that are involved in at least two of the six activities asked about (these being: identification of individuals’ training needs; arranging any type of training for employees; increasing the overall demand for training; offering advice to managers on training issues; increasing the participation of non-traditional learners in training; raising awareness of the benefits of training), being more likely to have influenced employer-funded training than ULRs that are involved in either none or only one of the activities questioned about.

Some of the control variables also reveal notable results. In particular, the results suggest that ULRs are less likely to have had a positive impact in small workplaces with 50 or fewer employees. There is no evidence that the impact of ULRs varies either by industry sector or by public or private sector.

Turning to the factors associated with the impact of ULRs on non-employer-funded training, only one factor stands out as important. Here, managers are more likely to report that ULRs have had a positive impact on training where ULRs are involved in all six of the ULR activities asked about. This suggests that ULR involvement in a wide range of activities that seek to promote training activity is important if the ULR is to have a positive effect on non-employer-funded training.

30

Table 21: Factors associated with the impact of ULRs on employer-funded and non-employer-funded training, 2008 management survey

Employer-funded training Non-employer-funded training

Factors influencing the ULR role

The majority of employees here require low skills

The employer already provides sufficient training

ULRs lack the skills to make a valuable contribution

ULRs do not share the same training agenda as managers

Managers’ views on/involvement with ULRs

When deciding training issues, do managers normally: Reference category: Negotiate with the trade unions

Do not involve trade unions at all -*

Inform the trade unions

Consult with the trade unions -***

Management attitudes to ULRs Reference category: Disagree that managers here value ULRs

Neither agree nor disagree +**

Agree that managers here value ULRs +***

ULR activity

Number of activities ULR involved in (Reference category, zero/one activity)

Two activities +**

Three activities

Four activities +**

Five activities +**

All six activities +** +***


Notes: *** significant at 1 per cent; ** significant at 5 per cent; * significant at 10 per cent

Employer-funded training Non-employer-funded training

Control variables

Workplace size (reference category: 50 or fewer employees)

51-100 employees +**

101-250 employees +***

251-500 employees

501-750 employees +***

751-1000 employees +***

>1000 employees +***

Organisation size: Reference category: 250-999 employees

1000-4999 employees +*

5000-9999 employees

10,000+ employees

Private Sector

Standard industrial classification (Reference category: public administration and defence)

Education

Health and Social work

Transport, storage and communications

Manufacturing

Other community, social and personal services

Other

ULR only represents non-management occupational categories

Pseudo R2 0.593 0.415

Obs 73 73

32

The aim of this paper was to explore the impact of ULRs on training outcomes, and then explore their characteristics, the activities they engage in and the support they receive, and the impact of these factors on the ability of ULRs to influence both employer-funded and non-employer-funded training. Overall, 73 per cent of ULRs stated that at least one form of either employer-funded or non-employer-funded training had increased as a result of ULR activity. 44 per cent of ULRs had a positive impact on at least one type of both employer-funded and non-employer-funded training, while 14 per cent had an impact only on non-employer-funded training and 15 per cent had a positive impact only on employer-funded training.

It is perhaps worrying, though, that over one-quarter of ULRs reported that their ULR activities have not had a positive impact on any form of either employer-funded or non-employer-funded training. It is also worrying that only 22 per cent of ULRs have had a positive effect on three or more of the four types of employer-funded training asked about, and only 30 per cent have had a positive influence on three or more of the four types of non-employer-funded training asked about, suggesting that a large proportion of ULRs have been able to influence only a limited range of training activity. The results also suggest that training levels are low in a significant proportion of workplaces with a ULR. More than one-quarter of ULRs stated that employers provided none of their members in the workplace with time-off from their normal work duties to undertake training during the past 12 months, and more than one-quarter of union members represented by ULRs received less than two days training in the past 12 months.

These findings (which, it is important to remember, are based on ULRs’ own reports of their impact) are not out of line with the failure to find a relationship between ULRs and employer-funded training in the WERS 2004 data (Hoque and Bacon 2008). In 2007 over a quarter of all ULRs still felt they had

not been able to increase employee participation in either employer-funded or non-employer-funded training. Managers’ views of the impact of ULRs on training activity are significantly less positive than the assessments made by ULRs in the same workplaces. Nevertheless, one half of managers stated that ULRs have had some positive impact on either employer-funded or non-employer-funded training in their workplaces.

It is also important to note that two-thirds of the ULRs that had not positively influenced employer-funded training also reported a lack of success in influencing non-employer-funded training. By contrast, three quarters of ULRs that had a positive influence on employer-funded training also reported a positive influence on non-employer-funded training. Similar findings emerge from the management survey. There is therefore only limited evidence to support the argument that where ULRs have not been able to influence employer-funded training, they may nevertheless have been successful in raising non-employer-funded training.

Turning to the factors that are associated with the ability of ULRs to influence training levels, the findings have a number of important implications. First, it is clear that ULRs are more likely to report a positive influence on both employer-funded and non-employer-funded training where they are valued by managers. Yet only 34 per cent of ULRs either agree or strongly agree that managers at the workplace value their ULR activities. In the many workplaces where managers do not value ULRs, it would appear that the benefits of managers working with ULRs to jointly increase employee participation in training are being missed. There would appear, therefore, to be a need for the Government to generate greater employer support and buy-in to the ULR concept. Although there has already been some government acknowledgement of the need for this (see: BERR 2008; DTI 2007), the results here suggest that there is considerable scope for further Government intervention in this regard.

Discussion and conclusions


Second, the results suggest that ULRs who spend more than five hours a week on ULR activity are more likely to have a positive impact on training levels than are those who spend less time on the role. Employers have an important role to play here, particularly in terms of ensuring that ULRs receive sufficient paid time off to conduct ULR activities. Currently ULRs are legally entitled to ‘reasonable’ time-off, but the law does not define what is meant by ‘reasonable’, and the Government has recently rejected union proposals to set out minimum entitlements (BERR 2007: 4). Our analysis suggests that five hours time-off per week might represent an appropriate benchmark to assess whether employers are meeting their statutory duty.

Third, the results suggest that where employers negotiate and consult with union representatives when deciding training matters, ULRs are more likely to have a positive influence on training levels, particularly where employer-funded training is concerned. This is perhaps unsurprising – after all, it may well be difficult for ULRs to exert a positive influence on managers where they are not involved in decision-making. The management survey suggests that negotiation rather than just consultation with unions when deciding training matters is required for ULRs to have an impact on employer-provided training.

However, given how seemingly important it is that managers involve ULRs, it is worrying that 45 per cent of ULRs report that managers do not involve union representatives at all when deciding training issues. Furthermore, negotiations with unions on training matters are reported by managers in only 5 per cent of workplaces in which ULRs operate. The Labour Government has to date resisted union pressure to make training an issue over which unions have the right to bargain in union recognised workplaces. The evidence presented here, however, suggests that a statutory right for unions to bargain over training could prove important in supporting the efforts of ULRs to increase employee participation in training.

Fourth, there is some evidence to suggest that ULRs are better placed to positively influence training in instances where they are responsible for no more than 200 employees. One implication of this finding is that unions need to engage in ‘in-fill’ recruitment by recruiting more ULRs in larger workplaces to ensure that ULRs cover no more than 200 employees. A second implication is that the ACAS Code of Practice on time-off for trade union duties and activities should provide more specific guidelines on this issue as part of the current review of the code (BERR 2007). An appropriate guideline might be to state explicitly that there should not be less than one ULR for every 200 employees. This guideline would affect the approximately 29 per cent of ULRs who currently represent in excess of this number of employees.

Fifth, the results point to the importance of learning centres, particularly in terms of the ability of ULRs to influence employer-funded training. The 2007 survey does not require respondents to specify whether the learning centre is funded by the employer or funded by alternative means. However, given that learning centres affect the ability of ULRs to influence employer-funded training but not non-employer-funded training, the implication is that the learning centres ULRs refer to within the survey are employer-funded. If this is the case, there may well be scope to encourage employers to make further funding available to establish learning centres. Given their apparent effectiveness, there is also an argument for the establishment of more union-funded learning centres that might have a broader effect in terms of raising levels of non-employer-funded training.

Sixth, the results point to the importance of ULF projects, with such projects being particularly strongly related to the ability of the ULR to influence non-employer-funded training. This result provides strong grounds to argue in favour of the continuation and extension of the ULF.

34

To summarise, the results presented here suggest that there are a number of features concerning ULR characteristics, the activities they are involved in and the support they receive from managers that are related to their effectiveness. These are as follows: the number of members the ULR is responsible for; the amount of time the ULR spends performing ULR activities; the range of activities ULRs are involved in; whether they are involved in a ULF project; whether there is a learning centre in the workplace; whether managers value the role ULRs play; and whether managers negotiate and consult with them over training.

These findings have implications for unions, ULRs and the Government. For unions, it would seem that there is considerable scope to carry out ‘in-fill’ recruitment of ULRs to ensure that individual ULRs are not responsible for more than 200 members. There is also scope for both unions and employers to extend provisions for learning centres. It is also important for unions to ensure that managers are willing to provide ULRs with sufficient paid time off to be able to perform their role.

As far as ULRs are concerned, in instances where they have not increased employee participation in employer-funded training in 2007, the results suggest that they should, where possible, seek to increase the hours spent on ULR activity, and recruit additional ULRs in the workplace if they are currently covering more than 200 employees. Seeking greater consultation and negotiation with employers on training might also prove important. They should also consider, where possible, increasing the hours they spend on ULR activity, applying for a ULF project grant and recruiting additional ULRs in the workplace if covering more than 200 employees.

Where Government policy is concerned, given that ULRs are more likely to report having a positive influence on training in instances where they are involved in a ULF project, there is clear support for an extension of ULF funding. Possibly most

importantly, however, the results suggest that the Government needs to turn its attention towards the generation of greater employer support and buy-in to the ULR concept. First, in terms of ensuring ULRs have adequate paid time-off in which to undertake their activities, the Government could encourage ACAS to include in their Code of Practice a guideline that each ULR should cover no more than 200 employees and the introduction of a statutory minimum of five hours a week paid time-off for ULRs to undertake their duties (in conjunction with greater union encouragement of ULRs to spend more time performing the role). Second, in terms of ensuring that employers value ULR activity, the Government needs once again to reconsider how to encourage employers to consult and negotiate with unions when deciding training issues. Given the apparent importance of employer attitudes and ULR involvement in decision-making, it is worrying that only 34 per cent of ULRs feel that managers value them, and 45 per cent state that managers do not involve union representatives when deciding training. Given this, there would appear to be clear scope for the Government, both through persuasion and also through the introduction of a statutory right for bargaining over training, to encourage greater employer support for the ULR initiative, and to help develop greater understanding among employers of the positive effects that ULRs can have within the workplace in terms of raising training levels. It is perhaps only if the Government is prepared to take these steps that ULRs will be able to fulfil their potential and thereby play a significant role in helping to meet the targets identified in the Leitch Review of Skills (2006).


References

ACAS Code of Practice 3 (2003) Time-off for trade union duties and activities. London: TSO.

Bacon, N. and Hoque, K. (2009) ‘Exploring the relationship between union learning representatives and employer-provided training in Britain’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, forthcoming.

BERR (2007) Workplace representatives: a review of their facilities and facility time: Government response to public consultation. Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. URN 07/1464, November.

BERR (2008) It’s time to talk training: How to develop a dialogue on skills at the workplace. Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. URN 08/1093, July.

Booth, A.L., Francesconi, M. and Zoega, G. (2003). ‘Unions, work-related training, and wages: Evidence for British men’. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 57, 1: 68-91.

CIPD (2004). Trade Union Learning Representative: The Change Agenda. London, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

DTI (2007) Consultation document workplace representatives: a review of their facilities and facility time. Department of Trade and Industry URN 06/1793, January.

Findlay, J., Findlay, P. and Warhurst, C. (2007) Estimating the Demand for Union-led Learning in Scotland. London: unionlearn.

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

Heyes, J. and Stuart, M. (1998) ‘Bargaining for skills: Trade unions and training at the workplace’. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 36, 3: 459-67.

Hoque, K. and Bacon, N. (2008) ‘Trade unions, union learning representatives and employer-provided training in Britain’. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 46, 4: 702-731.

Kennedy, S., Drago, R., Sloan, J. and Wooden, M. (1994) ‘The effect of trade unions on the provision of training: Australian evidence’. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 32, 4: 565-80.

Leitch Review of Skills (2006). Prosperity for All in the Global Economy- World Class Skills. Final Report. London: HMSO.

Metcalf, D. (2003) ‘Unions and productivity, financial performance and investment: international evidence’. In J.T. Addison and C. Schnabel (eds.) International Handbook of Trade Unions. Cheltenham, Glos.: 118-171.

TUC (2004) New Faces: The Changing Profile of Union Learning Representatives. London: TUC.

Unionlearn (2006) Making a real difference: Union learning reps: A survey. London: unionlearn.

Wallis, E. and Stuart, M. (2007) A Collective Learning Culture. London: unionlearn.

Wallis, E., Stuart, M. and Greenwood, I. (2005) ‘“Learners of the world unite!”’: an empirical examination of the UK trade union learning representative initiative’. Work, Employment and Society, 19, 2: 283-304.

Warhurst, C., Findlay, P. and Thompson, P. (2006) Learning to Organise. London: unionlearn.

Wood, H and Moore, S. (2004) The Union Learning Experience: National Survey of Union Officers and ULRs, Summary Report, Working Lives Institute, London Metropolitan University.

York Consulting (2000) Union Learning Representatives Survey. TUC Learning Service Evaluation Report 1. London: TUC.

York Consulting (2003). Union Learning Rep Survey. TUC Learning Services. London.

.

36

Paper 1Union learning, union recruitment and organising

By Sian Moore and Hannah Wood

Working Lives Research Institute, London Metropolitan University

Paper 2 Organising to learn and learning to organise: Three case studies on the effects of union-lead workplace learning

By Chris Warhurst, Paul Thompson and Patricia Findlay

Scottish Centre for Employment Research, University of Strathclyde

Paper 3A collective learning culture: a qualitative study of workplace learning agreements

By Emma Wallis and Mark Stuart

Centre for Employment Relations, Innovation and Change, University of Leeds Business School

Paper 4 Training, union recognition and collective bargaining: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey

By Mark Stuart and Andrew Robinson

Centre for Employment Relations, Innovation and Change, University of Leeds Business School

Paper 5 From voluntarism to post-voluntarism: the emerging role of unions in the vocational education and training system

By Bert Clough

unionlearn

Paper 6 Estimating the demand for union-led learning in Scotland

By Jeanette Findlay, Patricia Findlay and Chris Warhurst

Universities of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Strathclyde

Paper 7 Migrant workers in the labour market: the role of unions in the recognition of skills and qualifications

By Miguel Martinez Lucio, Robert Perrett, Jo McBride and Steve Craig

University of Manchester Business School and University of Bradford School of Management

Paper 8 Integrating union learning and organising strategies

By Sian Moore

Working Lives Research Institute, London Metropolitan University

All these research papers are free of charge and can be ordered at:www.unionlearn.org.uk/researchpapers

Other research papers in the series


38

Published by unionlearn

Congress House London WC1B 3LS

Tel 020 7079 6920 Fax 020 7079 6921

www.unionlearn.org.uk

April 2009

Design by Rumba Printed by Precision Printing Company Ltd

Documents

Research Paper 9 - The impact of the ULR: A survey of ULRs and their employers