The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER THREE SULF INVOLVEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

INVOLVEMENT WITH SULF

Survey Findings

3.1 For unions that had achieved SULF funding, the main reasons for making an application to SULF are detailed in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Main Reasons for Applications to SULF (No., %)

* Based on multiple responses

3.2 Although all of the above reasons were strongly endorsed as 'key' reasons for getting involved in SULF, the main reason was to increase opportunities for learning and skills development (93%). This reason was also rated as the most important by nearly half the sample (48%). Raising the union's profile in the workplace was also a prominent reason (88%), and rated as the second most important reason by nearly two-fifths (38%). Consequently, unions also saw SULF as having a promotional role within the workplace as a means of encouraging new members (78%). Finally, unions were keen to use SULF as a means of improving the range of support for non-traditional learner groups (84%) and for training ULRs (81%).

3.3 These figures are also generally consistent with the main reason given by employers about why they became involved in SULF. Employers mainly supported SULF activity because they saw it as an opportunity to encourage employee learning (N = 15), improve IT skills (N = 14) and to raise employee awareness of the benefits of lifelong learning (N = 14), resulting in a more confident workforce (N = 12) with more skills to help them in their career (N = 12).

Significant Others

3.4 Significant Others were also asked to indicate the nature and level of their involvement in SULF. The degree of involvement varied considerably. Employers representative organisations had very little knowledge of, or involvement in, SULF. Learning providers were varied in terms of their involvement. The Enterprise Network organisation indicated a considerable range of knowledge of and involvement in SULF, as did other public organisations with an interest in learning and skills.

3.5 Amongst most Significant Others, there was considerable understanding of the reasons for the introduction of SULF and its prime objectives. These objectives were universally supported and reflected important objectives in their own organisations. There was also broad support for the way in which SULF priorities had developed over the rounds. However, unions were concerned to emphasis that capacity-building was still a high priority for most unions and sectors.

UNION-LED LEARNING?

Significant Others

3.6 The appropriateness of a union-led learning initiative was endorsed by virtually all of the Significant Others, irrespective of their organisational affiliation. A range of benefits arising from the particular role and position of unions in relation to workplace learning was identified, and are listed below.

• Union presence in the workplace allows wide-ranging access to learners, particularly those who are difficult to access, and those who are least likely to get training from employers.
• Unions understand individual and collective employee needs.
• Unions understand specific learning and skills needs.
• Learning initiatives benefit from the strong trust relationship between members/potential learners and unions.
• Union learning representatives are part of workers' peer group and this encourages engagement with learning.
• Workers have fewer concerns over divulging skills/literacy/numeracy needs to union representatives.
• Unions are able to influence employers to generate more support/resources for learning.
• Unions can provide the only focus for learning in sectors where specific patterns of work and employment militate against employer provided training ( e.g. where self employment, agency employment or subcontracting is the norm) - i.e. where there is not just a skills gap but market failure.

"Unions are good at creating demand amongst individuals and also pretty good at reaching the parts that other people can't reach."

"If it was employer led, it would just collapse. Some people would benefit from it, but the majority would not see benefits to themselves as clear as they did when it's the union."

3.7 Whilst there was wide support for union-led learning, developing the capacity to do so within unions is, in many cases, new. As a consequence, some unions, whilst successful in winning awards, initially struggled to develop that capacity and then progress, as the T& GWU case study below highlights. Some of the problems that this case study reveals are subsequently raised in the remainder of this chapter.

Case Study 1: T&GWU and initiating SULF¹⁵

The T&GWU is Britain's largest general union. Around 80,000 of its members are in Scotland. The union organises primarily semi-skilled and unskilled workers in 4 industrial sectors: transport, food and agriculture, manufacturing and services. The range of occupations and skill levels, and consequently the range of learning needs represented within the union's membership presents a particular challenge in designing and delivering specific learning projects.

Members of the public services are the largest single grouping in the union, with most of these members employed in local government. While the union has membership across the skill range, the bulk of this workforce is made up of semi-skilled or unskilled manual workers, many of whom are non-traditional learners with significant adult literacy and numeracy skills needs. This group was targeted by the union's application to SULF in 2000 and that aimed to train ULRs and develop learning opportunities in 4 large Scottish councils. The objectives of the project were to train 8 lay tutors in project delivery; recruit and train 40 ULRs (10 per council), and for each of these ULRs to conduct 10 training needs analysis on their fellow employees. While a union steering group was established to manage the project, there was no significant employer involvement.

The project largely met its objectives. 8 tutors were trained in project delivery. 31 of the targeted 40 ULRs were recruited and provided with basic ULR training and training in undertaking training needs analysis. While some ULRs failed to meet their target of 10 training needs analyses, others exceeded this figure, resulting in an overall shortfall of 9 ( i.e. 310 were undertaken). These analyses uncovered a range of training needs. The majority of blue-collar workers responding had no job-related or non-job-related qualifications. While the majority had received some job related training, around half felt that their training was not adequate. The project significantly raised awareness about lifelong learning and participants reported an interest in acquiring training/learning in IT skills, literacy and numeracy and languages.

However, there was no evidence of action beyond the end of the SULF project to progress beyond the identification of training needs to addressing these needs, either from the union, the ULRs or any of the local authority employers. According to the union, the project failed to deliver beyond the end of the project for a number of reasons. Firstly, despite having some positive local management involvement in some authorities, there was no significant employer involvement in either the project bid or the operation of the project. Secondly, the relatively new role of ULR had not, at that point, been properly incorporated into union structures such that these individuals could rely on union support to maintain the momentum of the original project. Ironically, the outcome of these deficiencies may well have been the raising of expectations among non-traditional learners which were not subsequently met.

This case raised important issues in relation to sustainability, to the importance of positive employer engagement with learning initiatives, and to the crucial role of the wider union in supporting union learning representative activities.

While the TGWU were successful in a Round 2 bid aimed at identifying the training and learning needs of agricultural workers, this was a particularly ambitious project given the nature of the workers and their employment context. Some of the same difficulties as in the Round 1 project arose in relation to this project. The union has acknowledged that a number of important lessons were learned from both, resulting in a third bid which not only featured significant employer co-operation and support, but was also aimed at an occupational group that has traditionally been more powerful within the union. The latter development has added to the impetus to fully incorporate ULRs into branch and national union structures.

3.8 In addition, a number of respondents raised the link between firm size and union presence. As small firms are considerably less likely to be unionised, workers in small organisations are less likely to encounter SULF-funded learning. On a more positive note, however, some union officers indicated that support for learning activities might provide a way for unions to engage with small organisations and their employees.

SUPPORT FOR SULF BIDS

Survey Findings

3.9 Early projects had a steeper learning curve than those in subsequent rounds in terms of the information and resources available to set up and run projects. In later funding rounds, materials and experience were available to help with project management. ¹⁶ Table 3.2 shows those sources of information used by unions and which were thought to be of most help in setting up and running SULF projects.

Table 3.2: Sources of information used and most helpful in running projects (%)

3.10 All of these sources were used to a relatively high degree. However, the extent to which they were seen as useful varied considerably. Around four-fifths used sources such as the Scottish Executive, the STUC and its Toolkit, and existing union staff in Scotland and Head Office as sources of information for projects. Previous experience was also used and this was the source most likely to be rated as essential in project management (83%) as was support from union staff in Scotland (66%) and the Scottish Executive (59%).

3.11 Information supports arising from contacts with other unions and from STUC sources were more likely to be rated helpful than essential. The most likely source of information to be rated as being of little or no value were union staff at head office (21%), not surprising since these staff may be at some distance from projects. ¹⁸

3.12 Most projects were not the union's first SULF project (56%) and these projects were linked to, and extensions and refinements of, previous SULF activity ( e.g. extending the geographical, occupational or workforce coverage of the earlier project, utilising the ULRs who were recruited and trained as part of the earlier project, etc). There were also links with wider internal union initiatives in lifelong learning activity in 80% of projects ( e.g. to other ULF¹⁹ activities in the union and national lifelong learning policies and strategies).

3.13 SULF also enabled learning partnerships between unions. Two-fifths (40%) of projects involved other unions: 72% of these projects involved 1-3 additional union partners. The main types of contributions made by partner unions were:

• Direct financial contributions and assistance
• Participation in the project steering group
• Staff time, equipment and resources
• Recruitment and training of ULRs

3.14 The figures suggest that SULF projects had strong elements of direction and planning in terms of the links between early and later unions projects. Critically, they also have a link to wider union lifelong learning strategies and the activities of other unions.

LEVEL AND NATURE OF FUNDING

Significant Others

3.15 There was little concern raised by the Significant Others over the level of funding available under SULF, or the way in which funding could be used. Even amongst unions, few respondents argued that a higher level of funding in total was required. They acknowledged, however, that this view would change if a particular round was to be highly oversubscribed.

3.16 There were concerns, however, over the funding available for individual projects, particularly in terms of the constraints raised in terms of employing project management staff and ensuing instability in learning activity, though some complained that awards were too small and too time-bound. This point is returned to below in the discussion of the problems encountered by individual SULF projects.

3.17 There was also a predominant view that resources obtained through SULF were most appropriately spent on staff to support learning, rather than other physical resources such as buildings or capital equipment. A minority view suggested that the prohibition on spending on capital equipment raised particular difficulties for learners in remote rural areas and who might be better served with e-learning for example.

« Previous | Contents | Next »