Workplace learning: a trade union failure to service needs

The Authors

Dean Stroud, Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

Peter Fairbrother, Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to open up discussion about the relationship between trade unions and workplace learning.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on an analysis of a series of case-studies of restructuring in the European steel industry, incorporating interviews, observation and documentary analysis.

Findings – The paper argues that trade unions often fail to address the significance of workplace learning for members, because they address workplace learning as a service. This approach fails to exploit opportunities and possibilities to extend workplace-learning provisions, and thereby meet the wider learning and employability enhancing needs of members. The outcome is that trade union involvement in skill formation and workplace learning is marginal, and contributes to the perpetuation of traditional sector practices and regressive learning provisions.

Research limitations/implications – The paper focuses on a discussion of trade union involvement in workplace learning in the European steel industry. The implications for workplace learning practices more generally, are limited to industries where trade unions (and companies/industry) organise in relation to training and learning agendas in similar ways – and in relation to industries undergoing similar process of restructuring and “modernisation”.

Practical implications – The paper provides a critique of trade union service approaches to learning agendas and highlights for policy-makers gaps in current learning provisions within industry.

Originality/value – This paper makes an original contribution to debates concerned with trade union involvement and participation in workplace learning. It focuses on workplace inequities in training provision, and the implications for the future of unions and the employability prospects of workforces within the European steel industry.

Article Type:

Research paper

Keyword(s):

Organizational restructuring; Skills training; Trade Unions; Workplace learning; Europe.

Journal:

Journal of Workplace Learning

Volume:

Number:

Year:

2008

pp:

6-20

Copyright ©

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

ISSN:

1366-5626

Introduction

The workplace is becoming increasingly important as a site for workers to acquire skills and qualifications, and enhance employability. However, for some, access to learning opportunities in the workplace is uneven, whilst for others the opportunity to strengthen the ability to find and/or sustain employment through workplace learning is simply not available. Trade unions have long been concerned with education and learning, particularly with regard to membership education and the education of members as employees. However, whilst the latter has been the focus of union activity and union approaches to representation throughout their history (Bridgeford and Stirling, 2002), it would seem that workplace learning is often viewed by unions as an additional objective rather than as core to members' interests and concerns (see Harris, 2000; Dundon and Eva, 1998).

Taking the European steel industry as its context and data from a programme of steel sector research, this paper argues that trade unions operate on the periphery of workplace learning decisions, with the result that workplace learning takes a predominantly regressive form – i.e. workplace learning aimed principally at meeting narrowly focused and immediate workplace related needs (Stroud and Fairbrother, 2006). The outcome is a weakened bargaining position for trade unions, and poorly developed employability profiles for workers. Our argument is that the organisational and structural features of a sector can have a profound influence on the way workplace learning is organised (Stroud and Fairbrother, 2006). Thus, whilst trade unions might have a strong and on-going presence more generally, as they do in the European steel industry, rigid and historically entrenched approaches to negotiating learning agendas can mean that broader questions of “skills enhancement” and “employability”, as part of workplace learning agendas, are not adequately addressed.

As far as the European steel industry is concerned, the argument is that trade unions organise primarily as service organisations, which means that leaders define the concerns of members in restricted and narrowly work related ways. Often the focus is on terms of pay and conditions (including job security), and not more ill-defined questions relating to job development and alternatives (Bronfenbrenner et al., 1998; see also Forrester, 2005). Thus, union leaderships often are not in a position to articulate the interests of members who clearly worry about the future, but who struggle to define their learning needs precisely and in a focused way. To make this argument, we first provide a brief overview of debates concerned with trade unions and workplace learning. Second, we outline the research programme from which our data is collected. Third, we present an account of workplace learning in the European steel industry. Fourth, we show how steel industry unions become involved in shaping workplace learning as service organisations. Fifth, the conditions for a positive union engagement with workplace learning are considered, before concluding.

Trade unions

The relationship between trade unions and learning has received some attention within the adult education and vocational education literature (inter alia Spencer, 2002a, b; Bratton et al., 2004). These literatures provide a comprehensive overview and examination of union involvement and focus on a range of aspects involving these forms of education. There is however, a tension in this literature, between “labour education” which “refers to education and training offered by labour unions (trade unions) to their members and representatives” (Spencer, 2000c, p. 15) and workplace learning, which may be defined as “formal, non-formal, self-directed, collective and even tacit informal learning activities” (Bratton et al., 2004, p. 2). The focus of much of this latter literature is on pedagogical and workplace learning procedures (see for example Nesbitt, 2000; Martin, 1996). One strand of argument that is particularly important to note, focuses on the way in which any analysis of workplace learning should take into account the “milieu of asymmetrical power relationships and the social structures in which people are embedded” (Bratton et al., 2004, p. 2). This strand of analysis raises important questions about the traditions of learning that involve adult workers and the potential to address questions relating to employability (Martin, 1996). In this paper, we keep this caution very much in mind.

Another strand of writing focuses on trade union education. Here the focus is on the way in which education is part of a union approach to the changes that may be taking place in the workplace and the labour market, and the union responses to such developments (see, for example, Dundon and Eva, 1998). Whilst the focus in much of this work is on trade union education and training for members, of equal importance is education and learning for workers qua workers. More recently, one theme that has acquired prominence is the ways in which trade unions have begun to address both a lifelong learning agenda as well as the circumstances of ensuring lifelong employability (Forrester and Payne, 2000; Payne, 2001; Stoney, 2002). Important in this respect, is the recent development of union learning representatives (ULR) in the UK (see Cassel and Lee, 2007; Thompson et al., 2007). This programme provides one example of how representatives promote learning partnerships with employers (Kersley et al., 2006).

Trade unions attempt to engage with workplace learning agendas on a number of levels, in various ways and for a range of reasons – primarily through bargaining processes, partnership and forms of social dialogue. There are of course doubts and concerns about the nature of this engagement. Some unions remain hostile to social partnership approaches, viewing them to be an “emasculation of trade union purpose” and weakening employees' positions, and the collective bargaining process is claimed by some to result in a distortion of learning processes and opportunities so as to be almost meaningless (Sutherland and Rainbird, 2000, pp. 195-200). Key to the discussion in this paper is the argument that (in looking beyond bargaining, related representational activity and union-employer relations) unions often adopt limited servicing approaches to questions relating to workplace learning.

Recent debate about trade unions has focused on questions relating to decline, revitalisation and renewal (Fairbrother and Yates, 2003; Turner, 2006). Central to this debate has been a distinction between union servicing and organising (Bronfenbrenner et al., 1998). In relation to workplace learning, the emphasis in union practice has been on servicing, negotiating agreements and provisions on behalf of members, and with little direct involvement of the members in this process (Forrester, 2005). The important point is that the emphasis is on servicing a membership, rather than developing an active engagement with workplace learning practices. Drawing on this analysis, we explore the challenges facing unions in addressing workplace learning, examining the limitations and the conditions for opening up new policy objectives.

For workers, learning in the workplace (and, in particular, acquiring qualifications) is an important protection against employment instability (Heyes, 2000). However, workforce development is not always a priority for employers, and may even be viewed as a threat to managerial control (see Heyes, 2000). Even where such learning opportunities do exist, access to them may be restricted and the learning agenda regressive in practice (Stroud and Fairbrother, 2006). Indeed, the restriction of access to workplace learning opportunities is one of a number of reasons why trade unions might become involved in the workplace learning agenda – certainly, evidence indicates a greater likelihood of training provision if a workplace is unionised (see Kersley et al., 2006).

Indeed, it is clear that benefits will flow to the membership should a union adopt strategies to strengthen workforce skill profiles, secure employment positions, and enhance organisational positions in product or service markets. Commentators, such as Mahnkopf (1991), identify how the adoption of a progressive “skill-orientated strategy” (as opposed to a regressive and defensive price-oriented strategy) by trade unions challenges employers' prerogatives with regard to training; enhances bargaining positions in the restructuring process; and combats deskilling. Others argue for embracing “skill formation … (as part of a) … new cooperative, and productive strategy”, whilst at the same time insisting on a power base to impose rules and obligations on employers (Streek, 1992, p. 252; Healey and Engel, 2003). A further aspect that concerns this paper is what happens in practice, regardless of strategies adopted and the policies in place.

Two core themes come out of this brief review. First, unions face an employment and educational terrain that is largely defined by the employer. This power relation both provides opportunities for unions to explore ways of actively promoting and facilitating education and learning by workers as workers and at the same time sets the parameters for union activity and involvement in workplace learning. Second, unions often prioritise labour (trade union) education rather than workplace learning. We focus on the latter form of education, analysing the limits and possibilities of trade union policies in this area. This is done with reference to the European steel industry.

The study

The data for this paper comes from the Cardiff Steel Research Programme[1]. The principal focus of the research is to study the processes of employment restructuring, the re-composition of steel workforces, skills formation and workplace learning. The research programme employed a two-stage research methodology. First, aggregate data was collected on the socio-demographic profile of the European steel industry. Whilst not directly discussed in this paper, the aggregate data provided contextual information for the second stage of the research methodology and the focus of this paper: a series of case studies. Between one and three steel companies were visited in eight countries: the Czech Republic, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy, Poland, Spain and the UK in 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2006.

The case studies involved interviews with production workers, team leaders, apprentices, training staff and section/production managers, trade union officials or officers, human resources managers and company directors or senior managers. The field studies lasted between three and seven days (occasionally involving more than one visit). Every case study involved at least two researchers. The interviews made use of semi-structured interview schedules, enriched and informed by observation of production processes, learning centres, work routines, informal discussions and documentary analysis. Two types of interview were conducted: individual interviews with key informants and key workers (trainers, managers, trade unionists); and, panel interviews (focus groups) with what might be more broadly defined as “production workers”. The production workers' interviews comprised up to six respondents per panel, and were primarily conducted with operators, team leaders and apprentices (see, for example, Smithson (2000) for a discussion of such methods). Altogether 103 one-hour (or longer) interviews with 286 respondents were conducted – see Table I (with 243 respondents in 60 panel interviews and 43 individual interviews).

In all cases, follow up discussions took place with the key informants about the research questions – in formal and informal settings. Where possible the interviews were conducted in English, but an interpreter was used when this was not the case. All the interviews took place within the steel plants or at trade union offices and were transcribed in full (and translated where necessary). This methodology permitted us to make an examination of the social relationships that define the workplace (in a particular sector). Central to our approach was the aim of exploring what are often opaque arrangements, but which begin to be revealed through a succession of engagements between the researchers and the populations of the steel plants. The mode of analysis involved a series of alternating inductive and deductive steps, involving a content analysis of the interview material, supplemented by data from extensive field notes.

Workplace learning in the steel industry

As it becomes more internationally focused, the steel industry continues to experience upheaval and change. This process involves the privatisation of sections of the industry and other major institutional developments, which emphasise productivity, technological innovation, down-stream activity and a re-composition of the industry via mergers and acquisitions (for a general survey of these themes, see Ranieri and Gibellieri, 1998). In Europe, a direct consequence of this restructuring is large cuts to steel workforce numbers. For example, the number of people employed in the EU (15) steel industry in 2003 is just 33.9 per cent of the figure for 1980 (www.worldsteel.org). Some of the job losses occurred because the industry did not replace those leaving it voluntarily (through retirement or for other reasons), whilst other job losses were the result of closure and mass redundancy (see Fairbrother et al., 2005).

Large cuts in workforce numbers have been paralleled by the introduction of new technologies (see, for example, Cortilli, 1998) and changes in work organisation (on teamworking, for example, see Bacon and Blyton, 2000), which has created the conditions for the development of workforce skill and qualification profiles. Massive investment in training and retraining has become a feature of the European steel industry's continuing process of change and restructuring, as it struggles to meet its skill needs (Hertog and Mari, 1999). New recruitment and retention strategies signal moreover, a break with traditional routes and patterns of employment to and within the industry. These developments could be expected to stimulate appropriate responses from the trade unions representing steelworkers, not only to respond to change but also to shape processes of restructuring, including learning (see Bacon et al., 1996).

Traditionally, the steel industry has relied on the recruitment of generations of poorly educated men living local to a plant. Some countries and regions have also had a reliance on low skilled migrant labour (for example, The Netherlands and Germany) – although this situation is changing. The age profile of the industry is particularly mature (45 years plus) and the majority (in aggregate terms, between 50 and 60 per cent of the workforce is aged 45 years and over, with the next largest group aged 40-45 years – see Fairbrother et al., 2004) of those recruited to the industry are skilled by experience, having learnt their skills in an ad-hoc way, on-the-job, usually from co-workers. A small number sat apprenticeships and newer recruits tend to be qualified to intermediate and high levels. Indeed, the industry has more recently focused on raising the skill profile of its workforce and recruiting more highly qualified individuals. Comprehensive training strategies have been introduced to support this development, and training provisions increased and broadened. However, it is our contention that whilst training provisions vary by company and from country to country, it continues to be generally characterised by outmoded and outdated learning strategies. This situation is particularly pronounced where trade unions have seemingly failed to seek influence over training and learning issues (for example, Italy and the UK), but also is evident where unions have pursued skills-orientated strategies (Germany and The Netherlands).

Management approaches the question of skills needs within the European steel industry, particularly in respect of the corporate agenda for modernisation, in highly instrumental ways. The prevailing strategy is to meet the most pressing deficiencies in short term and informal ways, and plug skill gaps. The European steel industry environment is thus characterised by organisations that operate regressive learning strategies (see Stroud and Fairbrother, 2006, for a fuller discussion of this typology; see also Fuller and Unwin, 2004, on restrictive and expansive learning environments), which derive from the organisational and structural features of the European steel industry and foster particular types of learning environment. Regressive practices take the form of limited opportunities to acquire qualifications and rely on informal arrangements, such as learning-by-doing, to ensure that production workers have the capacities to undertake work tasks:

Unfortunately we don't have equal opportunities (to training courses), office workers can have them, the others can't. This is still a problem in Italy (Production Worker, Italy, 2005).

Such practices are underscored by a process of filtering and restricted access to learning opportunities, and have an incapacitating and devastating impact on the employability of production workers, especially in the context of rapid restructuring and reorganisation.

There is, however, evidence of a set of more progressive training practices and policies for distinct groups of workers, which increase skills and enhance employability and opportunity within the same organisation. Progressive opportunities are defined by multiple opportunities, including credentialisation, off and on-site learning, informal arrangements within formal settings, and career opportunities. Such practices co-exist alongside regressive practices, but benefit far fewer workers – mainly those already highly skilled and qualified knowledge workers.

Regressive and progressive practices establish distinct learning environments and, what are termed, “communities of practice” for particular groups of workers (see, for example, Fuller and Unwin, 2002; Billet, 2001; Eraut et al., 1998). In this way, it is possible to distinguish between learning practices and policies actively promoted within the same organisation. The level of training provision – particularly in terms of resources and facilities – will differ by organisation. Moreover, the organisational structures and institutional arrangements will have a bearing on the shape of provision, too – especially with regard to Vocational Education and Training (VET) structures (Ashton, 2004a; Rubery, 1994; Maurice et al., 1986). Nonetheless, it would appear that these “communities of practice” are less shaped by national VET systems or training resources, than they are by the organisational practices pursued by the major European steel companies. Critical in this respect is the hierarchical structuring of relationships within the sector and the way steelworkers have been traditionally recruited, trained and progressed their careers (Stroud and Fairbrother, 2006).

These arrangements provide the context for union engagement with workplace learning, and the associated training and retraining provisions that characterise the European steel industry. Companies pursue a focused and instrumentally defined set of policies and practices with regard to training and learning, which benefit staff and specialist employees (otherwise termed white-collar) and provide the bases for skills enhancement and employability within and beyond these corporations. For many production workers however, particularly those in the latter stages of their careers and working lives, the result is a relatively ad hoc and narrowly job specific set of training arrangements. These broad set of workplace arrangements provide the context for trade unions to engage with company training and learning strategies.

Trade union strategies

Trade unions seem unable or unwilling to develop strategies that challenge regressive practices and the associated inequities in workplace learning provision. Indeed, it seems to us that the limited ways in which unions have been able to engage with the workplace learning agenda, is a consequence of entrenched (sector based) practices with regard to training and learning in the steel industry.

Wider steel industry developments have resulted in specific responses from steel companies with regard to changing employment needs. The outcome is refocused policies of recruitment and retention and the development of more advanced training and learning strategies. Industry developments necessitate the need to up-skill poorly educated members of the existing workforce, whilst new recruits, familiar with the currency of credentials and the benefits of training and learning, increase the demand for more sophisticated training opportunities. Thus, in general, companies across Europe are devoting increased levels of resources to learning opportunities (if not qualification accumulation) in the workplace. It remains the case however, that workplace learning in the steel industry remains largely regressive. The level to which trade unions become involved in workplace learning agendas as part of restructuring processes and tackle (longstanding) inequities in provision is not uniform and depends on a number of factors, but it would appear that there are similarities in the failure of outcome across the European steel industry.

Broader sets of institutional arrangements and organisational structures shape training provision. The higher levels of co-determination evident in Germany for example, as opposed to the UK, allow for the trade unions in Germany to generate greater influence over such agendas (see Bacon et al., 1996; see also Bacon and Blyton, 2004). Thus, Industriegewerkschaft Metall's (IG Metall) more integrated role to management policy making, as a response to restructuring, and the culture of co-determination in shaping crisis management and work reorganisation policies, creates a favourable context for the pursuit of skills-orientated strategies by trade unions (see Bacon et al., 1996, p. 43):

The future occupational profiles for the steel industry are developed in an institute for vocational training in Berlin … and they have representatives there from trade unions and employers … . The trade unions make sure these professions are multi-functional … trade unions are also putting in effort (to) get a much stronger relationship to their company during training (IG Metall Officer, Germany, 2002).

It is the same in The Netherlands, where the Works Council and the Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging (FNV) trade union (and affiliate trade unions) adopt more pro-active and co-determined strategies with regard to workforce development. This resulted in the development of a Practical Craftsmanship Programme (PCP) for low-skilled workers (see also Trappman and Stuart, 2004).

Where more voluntarist arrangements with regard to the learning in the workplace are adopted by employers (and, it might be argued, unions) or unions fail to infiltrate formal structures and institutional arrangements with regard to training, unions fail even to establish the broad based service elaborated above. Indeed, the UK union Community (formerly Iron and Steel Trades Confederation) continues to follow what Bacon et al. (1996) refer to as “traditional methods and lines of representation”, which largely ignores training and learning perspectives in the workplace – this is despite the development of the training arm Communitas (formerly Steel Partnership Training and Knowledge Skills Partnership), which tends to act as a community based training broker). Other evidence from Italian metalworkers' trade union section of the Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (FIOMCGIL) suggests an adversarial relationship concentrated less on the development of training than on the negotiation of pay, safety and work organisation:

No we are not participating (in training). It is entirely a matter for the company (FIOMCGIL Official, Italy, 2001).

In Poland, the trade union Solidarnosc and trade union federation Ogólnopolskie Porozumienie Zwięzków Zawodowych (OPZZ) share similar approaches to the management of change:

Not really (involved in training programmes related to technical restructuring). We do not know whether suitable training programmes will be available at all (Solidarnosc Official, Poland, 2001).

Clearly, trade unions across Europe become involved in different ways in training and learning agendas, and yet regressive workplace learning strategies persist across all the case study companies.

It is evident that trade unions become involved in training decisions in some countries. However, it would seem that decisions on the organisation of training – particularly with regard to the traditional practices that predominate within the industry (for example, learning-by-doing) – do not by and large involve unions. Trade union involvement in training decisions within the steel industry is mainly concerned with some new initiatives and some formalised programmes, such as apprenticeships or the dual education system in Germany. The problem is that for majority of predominantly middle-aged and time-served workers, the primary way of training and learning is through regressive and informal practices, such as learning-by-doing. The systems of training that derive from institutional and formal structures, which might or might not include trade union in-put, serve some of the workers some of the time. Thus, the workplace learning practices that predominate within the steel sector, such as learning-by-doing and on-the-job training, often referred to as “sitting by Nelly” or “father and son”, are systems of workplace learning that have become entrenched within the industry over time and derive from the often unquestioned – by trade unions, workers or management – practices of tradition.

Our contention is that while the initiatives of some unions, for example IG Metall, is comprehensive in focus, they are predicated on “servicing” approaches to trade unionism – in this case, defining the question of workplace learning by “expert” officials on behalf of the membership. This approach, we claim, sets down training and learning needs in conjunction with managers (usually trainers), rather than engages the union membership in the process of defining educational needs. The problem is that steel industry managers adopt instrumental strategies with regard workplace learning, which trade unions often fail to question. The result is that union involvement in workplace learning is marginal and consolidates outdated and historically entrenched (regressive) practices. The outcome is that regressive practices continue to dominate training and learning across the European steel industry, including where skills-orientated strategies have been pursued (Stroud and Fairbrother, 2006). Trade unions neglect the importance and significance of training and education as the industry restructures and “modernises”, which weakens the ability of unions to respond to and shape change within the industry – including the ability to enhance members' employability profiles at times of considerable levels of employment vulnerability.

Trade unions have, it would seem, failed to challenge traditional and often regressive organisational practices with regard to workplace learning – even where skill-orientated policies and strategies have been adopted (by IG Metall in Germany, for example):

You must … school your own. On your own (Production Worker, Germany, 2002).

It is not that learning on-the-job or in informal ways (“school your own”) is by definition a regressive practice. However, such practices become so when: they are the primary means of learning; they fail to enhance employability profiles; other learning opportunities are restricted; and, new skill needs are not being met by means of conventional practices – as was the case across all the steel plants. For example, with regard to restricted access to language training:

… all the manuals are in English, so you should at least be able to know that much of the language in order to understand those (Production Workers, Germany, 2002).

What is necessary is to understand how unions have seemingly failed to penetrate organisational policy decisions on workplace learning and skill formation, and thereby foster practices aimed at enhancing skills and employability profiles.

Assessment

The specific organisational and structural features of the European steel sector shape the way its workforce is skilled, trained and organised (on some of these issues, see Bacon and Blyton, 2000). This is irrespective of the way societal and institutional arrangements (for example, VET) mediate workplace provision (see Ashton, 2004a; Rubery, 1994). More significantly, it extends to the way trade unions and workers have positioned themselves in relation to industry restructuring. It is in this respect that the power relationships that define steel employers and their trade unions mean that employers prevail, with regard to both the focus of workplace learning and its mode of delivery (Bratton et al. 2004). Thus, workplace learning in the European steel industry is characterised by a set of regressive practices, for the majority of workers (Stroud and Fairbrother, 2006). A smaller number of workers benefit from approaches to training and learning in the workplace that are more progressive. These arrangements have been largely defined by employers.

The steel industry learning environment exemplifies informal on-the-job learning, particularly for production workers. It is aimed at addressing task specific, short-term needs that characterise the hierarchical structuring of relationships within the sector. Workplace learning processes thus reflect traditional processes of recruitment, training and career progression. Thus, whilst workers may voice concerns about employability and complain about restricted opportunities and regressive practices, they are at the same time reluctant to engage with new learning opportunities when they arise (Stroud and Fairbrother, 2006).

Further, trade unions across Europe have responded in different ways to industry developments (see Bacon et al., 1996; Bacon and Blyton, 2004). Critically, however, their perspectives on learning have seemingly failed to disrupt organisational practices and procedures on learning in the workplace that are harmful to workers' future employment possibilities (and union positions in relation to change). The problem is that trade unions have not addressed the impact of institutional practices on employment security and hence training and skills development (on this thesis, see Lloyd, 1999). Indeed, unions and workers are in some ways complicit in the continuing implementation of such policies and practices (cf. Stoney, 2002).

The problem is that the union responses have become “institutionalised” and they are unable or unwilling to respond imaginatively or effectively to change. To date no more than lip-service has been paid to workplace learning issues, and where more robust strategies have been pursued they have merely reinforced the status quo. Instead, as Munro and Rainbird (2000) suggest, it is important to consider the historical context from which the union derives, before assessing the success with which a union learning initiatives might penetrate. Indeed, Fuller and Unwin argue that for employing organisations to promote progressive systems of workplace learning, they need to understand the way their “cultures, histories, and work organisation combine to create (particular types of) learning environments” (Fuller and Unwin, 2004, p. 34). The same argument also can be applied to the trade union movement; a condition for the promotion of progressive forms of workplace learning is for unions to re-examine their position in relation to the management of change and begin to argue for and to foster progressive types of learning environments.

However, in discussing the limitations of the trade union response to the workplace learning practices and in some cases initiatives within the European steel industry, it is necessary to note the barriers that unions face. First, in the context of the restructuring of the European steel industry over the last 20 years, trade unions have attempted to develop policies that ameliorate the harsher consequences of redundancy and restructuring. It is in this respect that unions have embraced various forms of partnership in facilitating this restructuring and seldom been able to qualify the manner in which restructuring has taken place. Second, these unions have tended to address workplace learning as a benefit to workers, one in which the unions have seldom played an active role in defining the parameters of workplace learning (Bratton et al., 2004). Indeed, it is this latter point that Bratton and others draw our attention to when they emphasise the ways in which organisational politics both skew power relationships and affirm a managerialist approach to education (Bratton, 2001; Bratton et al., 2004; Garrick, 1998). More generally, this analysis points to the tension within contemporary trade unionism between an organising (and thus outward looking engagement in the workplace) and a servicing approach (where the employers set the parameters for action).

At a time of great upheaval in the steel industry, trade union engagement with the learning agenda offers the potential for increased influence over aspects of industrial relations – particularly with regard to skill formation and the organisation of work. Indeed, such strategies lay the foundations for a more extensive involvement of workers in production activity: further developing and using their skills, and for processes of union renewal. What is suggested is that unions representing workers in the steel industry across Europe need to develop effective and localised responses to processes of restructuring, if they are to make the future more secure for their membership and thus strengthen their position in relation to change. It is important for unions to recognise the need for pro-active policies with regard to lifelong learning agendas and, in particular, the way workplace learning within the industry is organised (see Bacon et al., 1996, p. 45, on the more general need for pro-active policy development).

It is more important to recognise however, that the specific organisational and structural features of a sector have the potential to limit the scope for “pro-active” policy development on learning (see Ashton, 2004b). Indeed, unions might be restricted by their vision in this regard, or constrained by the forms of organisation they adopt or resources they have at hand. However, even where pro-active (and skill-orientated) policies have seemingly been developed, regressive policies and practices remain unchanged. This suggests that despite extensive restructuring within the sector there is a level of rigidity to some aspects of the organisational and structural features of the sector, such as on skill formation for example, with which trade unions remain complicit. Thus, the conditions for union advocacy of progressive forms of workplace learning require policy shifts and an organisational reassessment at a local/national level.

Conclusion

This project suggests that trade unions across Europe fail to influence workplace-learning agendas. One consequence is that they do not contribute to skills enhancements and employability profiles – including situations where skill-orientated strategies are pursued. Where there is a strong trade union presence and institutional and organisational arrangements that favour union involvement, it is still the case that workplace learning will be organised in ways that fail to optimise employability profiles. Further they fail to lead to increased union influence over processes of restructuring. Based on this analysis, we argue that the reason for this neglect is the intersection between institutional forms and patterns of restructuring coupled with the way unions approach questions of training/retraining in terms of a service to members. The alternative strategy would be to promote workplace learning via a direct engagement with members' experiences and needs.

Workplace based learning in the European steel industry is largely narrow in focus and regressive in practice, even where the rhetoric (and training policy) is more inclusive and encompassing. It is part of the fabric of work organisation and practice. This approach is the challenge for trade unions. While there are a range of possibilities, from the comprehensive “partnership” based provision in Germany, to the reliance on voluntarist and learning-by-doing procedures evident elsewhere, in practice the provision remains limited. For unions to open up this domain of activity, they need to look to the broad concerns and needs of their members, as well as looking to their own organisational bases and policy objectives.

Table INumber of interviews by method of data collection (2001 to 2006)

References

Ashton, D. (2004a), "The political economy of workplace learning", in Rainbird, H., Fuller, A., Munro, A. (Eds),Workplace Learning in Context, Routledge, London, pp.21-37.