Exploring the relationship between union learning representatives and employer-provided training in Britain

Abstract

This paper explores whether the relationship between union learning representatives (ULRs) and employer-provided training is influenced by ULR characteristics and management support. Using linked employer-employee-worker rep data from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey, the results demonstrate that a large proportion of ULRs have not spent any time on issues associated with employee training in their representative role in the past 12 months. Training incidence is however no higher in workplaces where there is an ‘active’ ULR than elsewhere. In both the public and private sectors training incidence is higher where there is a ‘hybrid’ ULR fulfilling other representative roles as well as the ULR role, rather than a ‘dedicated’ ULR. In addition, training incidence is higher in the public sector where ULRs are newer to union representation and it is higher in the private sector where the ULR has 10 years or more rep experience. Training incidence is also higher in the public sector where the ULR has access to office facilities.

Keywords:

• skills
• trade unions
• training
• union learning representatives

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the WERS Sponsors – the Department of Trade and Industry, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, and the Policy Studies Institute – for allowing access to the data. They are not responsible for any of the findings or claims made in the paper.

Notes

1. ULRs and non-ULR reps in workplaces without union recognition are excluded here.

2. Workplaces where the manager states there is a ULR present in the WERS 2004 management survey but the respondent to the worker representative survey is not a ULR are excluded from the analysis, in order to clearly differentiate between ULR and non-ULR workplaces. There are four workplaces in the main management survey where the respondent states a ULR is present and a further four workplaces where the worker rep claims to be a ULR but there is no union recognition. These observations are dropped in order to maintain comparability between the ULR category and the ‘non-ULR rep’ category, which is based on workplaces with recognition. In addition, there are 352 employees in workplaces where there are non-ULR union reps present but there is no union recognition. These observations are excluded from the analysis to clearly distinguish between the union rep categories and the non-union category. The definition for union recognition here is workplaces within which unions have recognition irrespective of whether or not they have members at the workplace.