Union representation and training: The impact of Union Learning Representatives and the factors influencing their effectiveness

Abstract

This article provides an assessment of the impact of Union Learning Representatives (ULRs) on both employer-funded and non-employer funded training in Britain. The findings, based upon the largest and most comprehensive national survey of ULRs conducted to date, suggest that while a significant proportion of ULRs have influenced training levels positively, a further 26 percent have had no positive impact on either employer-funded or non-employer funded training, and a further 13 percent have had a very limited impact. The article also develops an 'Activity-Support-Characteristics' (ASC) framework, and uses this framework to identify the factors that are associated with the ability of ULRs to influence training levels. The analysis shows ULRs are more likely to have had a positive impact on training where: they spend five hours a week or more on the role; they are supported by a workplace Learning Centre or a Union Learning Fund project; managers value their ULR activities; consultation or negotiation over training occurs; or the ULR represents no more than 200 employees.

The influence of trade union Disability Champions on employer disability policy and practice

“…Also concerning activity, the findings support previous work suggesting that the impact of new specialised union representatives depends on the number of hours per week they spend on the role (Bacon and Hoque, , ). Only 22 per cent of Disability Champions report spending 5 or more hours a week on the role, suggesting their effectiveness might be enhanced considerably by statutory rights to time off.…”

“…The first aim (to estimate Disability Champion effectiveness in encouraging employers to amend and improve disability policy and practice) was addressed using self‐report measures of the respondents' impact on the employer's: willingness to conduct disability audits of documents, buildings or procedures; willingness to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees; and equal opportunities practices with regard to disability (on a four‐point scale where 1 = none and 4 = a lot). Analyses using self‐report measures are common in both surveys and interviews for assessing the impact of new types of union representatives and have produced similar results to analyses using non‐self‐report measures (Hollinrake et al ., ; Hoque and Bacon, ; Bacon and Hoque, ), suggesting that self‐report measures provide reliable estimates of impact.…”

“…As suggested elsewhere, one might argue that the key determinants of union representative effectiveness (Disability Champion or otherwise) are: the activities they engage in; the support they receive; and their characteristics. This ‘Activity‐Support‐Characteristics’ (ASC) theoretical framework – previously applied to the study of Union Learning Representatives (Bacon and Hoque, ) and union Equality Representatives (Bacon and Hoque, ) – is developed further below and applied to the area of disability equality to explore the potential correlates of Disability Champion effectiveness.…”

The Role and Impact of Trade Union Equality Representatives in Britain

“…As suggested above, identifying the correlates of equality representative effectiveness has potentially important implications in terms of how best to develop and support the equality representative initiative in the future, especially in the absence of statutory backing. As we argue elsewhere (Bacon and Hoque 2011) in our analysis of ULRs, the key determinants of representative effectiveness (ULR or otherwise) are likely to be the activities representatives engage in, the support they receive and their characteristics. Hence, we propose an ASC framework, by which the effectiveness of union representatives might be analysed.…”

“…The response rate to the survey is in itself notable. Similar large‐scale surveys (of the population of ULRs, for example) have often yielded response rates in the region of 15 per cent (see, e.g., Bacon and Hoque 2011; Wood and Moore 2005: 8), and this has been interpreted by McIlroy (2008) as indicative of high levels of representative inactivity. Following this line of argument, the response rate of 46 per cent to the equality representative survey in itself suggests that a large proportion of equality representatives are playing the role with considerable vigour.…”