research paper 13: co-investing in workforce development

Co-investing in workforce developmentOutcomes from the collective learning fund pilots

Mark Stuart, Bert Clough and James Rees

Research paper 13April 2011

1Co-Investing in Workforce Development

This research paper is based on the evaluation of unionlearn’s Collective Learning Fund project, which was funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The evaluation was led by Professor Mark Stuart of the University of Leeds. The full evaluation report called Evaluation of Stage 2 of the Collective Learning Fund Project. Unionlearn Working Paper 3 is published on the unionlearn website www.unionlearn.org.uk.

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

About the authors

Mark Stuart is Professor of Human Resources Management and Employment Relations and Director of the Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change (CERIC), University of Leeds. Bert Clough is Research and Strategy Manager, unionlearn. James Rees is Associate Member of CERIC.

2

Foreword 3

Abstract 4

Executive summary 5

Introduction 6

The need for co-investment 8

Collective Learning Funds 10

Methodology 13

Overview of the pilots 14

Outputs and outcomes 16

Benefits and beneficiaries 18

Conclusions 20

References 22

Appendices Appendix 1: The Collective Learning Fund Pilots 23Appendix 2: Case Study: Argos Distribution/Unite 24Appendix 3: Case Study: Jobcentre Plus Lincolnshire/PCS 26

Contents


Foreword

At a time when there is to be far less public funding for workforce development the challenge is how to increase the private investment in such learning opportunities. Collective Learning Funds (CLFs) are union-led initiatives to stimulate co-investment in the personal development of the workforce to make such learning affordable. They have been piloted by unionlearn to test different models in different contexts. The pilots involved increasing funding and in-kind contributions from employers and providers, obtaining greater support from unions and enhancing employee commitment. Such co-investment will become increasingly important as overall government funding for workforce development is significantly reduced.

Although CLFs are in their early stages, this evaluation by the Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change at the University of Leeds demonstrates that CLFs have considerable value to employers, unions and learners. They are establishing learning partnerships between employers, unions and providers, which are opening up learning opportunities in a number of workplaces.

Unionlearn is grateful to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills for supporting the project. It is now important that this powerful model is disseminated widely and taken up in unionised workplaces as a whole and a CLF toolkit1 is now available to unions to help them do this.

Tom WilsonDirector, unionlearn

1 Making Learning Affordable: setting up Collective Learning Funds www.unionlearn.org.uk

4

This paper outlines the present arrangements for co-investing in workforce development and the radical changes planned by the coalition government resulting from the public expenditure cuts. It argues that such co-investment needs to be substantially increased if society’s requirements for transferable skills and broader personal development are to be met. This requires establishing a framework of mutual trust and co-operation whereby employers are willing to invest more in the personal development of their workforce provided that the employee and the state also make a contribution and vice versa. One method of doing this is through the introduction of Collective Learning Funds (CLFs). They are union-led initiatives to stimulate co-investment in the personal development of the workforce to make such learning affordable and accessible by levering in cash and in-kind contributions from employers, providers, unions and individuals. The paper outlines unionlearn’s CLF project, supported by DIUS then BIS, which tested a variety of CLF models in 23 workplaces in the North West and the East Midlands. It summarises the evaluation findings and sets out both the outputs and the outcomes of the pilots. The paper also outlines their uses and wider benefits evidenced by the evaluation as well as considering the themes and issues which have arisen. It also includes two case studies that demonstrate how different CLF models have operated in different types of workplaces. The paper concludes that the CLF concept has considerable value but needs to relate to future policy initiatives if it is to be mainstreamed.

Abstract

4


Executive summary

At a time when there is to be far less public funding ❚both to companies and individuals for workforce development the challenge is how to increase the private investment in such learning opportunities. It is in the area of transferable skills and personal development that there is the greatest need for collaboration and co-investment between the employer, the individual and the state.

Collective Learning Funds (CLFs) are union-led ❚initiatives to stimulate co-investment in the personal development of the workforce to make learning affordable and accessible. They are a way of levering in cash and in-kind contributions from employers, providers, unions and individuals. Normally they are jointly and collectively managed by the union(s) and employer. They are thus a mechanism for unions to be directly involved in the planning and delivery of learning.

In total 23 pilots commenced under the second ❚phase of the CLF project in the North West (15) and the East Midlands (8). The prior experience of CLFs in the North West seemed to enhance their progress during the project. The pilots had different combinations of partners coming together and some were on single sites, others on multi-sites and two were sector based. The project was funded through the Union Learning Fund and thus grant aided by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

While 20 had ‘in kind’ contributions from ❚employers (e.g. learning centres), eight received cash contributions from employers (varying from small sums to pay travel expenses to, in one case, £20,000). Six pilots negotiated cash contributions from colleges (based on course completions) and a further two negotiated ‘free’ courses from colleges. Each pilot was given £4,000 by unionlearn to kick-start the CLF.

The aggregated outputs even well before the end ❚of the project were impressive, including 2,719 learning opportunities, of which 721 were related to Skills for Life; 527 to ICT; 884 to NVQs; and 587 were wider/personal development courses. The CLF either helped a number of projects engage

with Train to Gain for the first time, or extended a previous involvement with it particularly in the case of NVQ and Skills for Life provision.

The CLF played an important role in a number ❚of workplaces in terms of initiating partnership working between unions and management for the first time through learning committees and agreements; nine learning committees were established/refreshed.

CLFs can give unions more status and leverage and ❚help to draw in additional resources in cash or kind; fund learning promotions and taster courses during Learning at Work Day events; bridge funding gaps in wider personal development; and can help to make learning affordable by subsidising learning or learners (e.g. through course fee discounts or low- or no-interest loans repaid through payroll).

Benefits arising out of CLFs included improved ❚morale and more confidence for the learners; increased visibility of unions in learning, which helped to demonstrate their added value; improvements in the quality of work; reduced absence; better industrial relations for employers; and more engagement with government initiatives such as Train to Gain.

If CLFs are to be sustained then they need to be ❚valued by the union at site level, with the branch getting fully involved. Although it is not essential to have employers on board it works best if they are since CLFs are more effective when they are underpinned by productive learning partnerships and supportive structures.

The CLF as a concept has considerable value ❚although it is still at an early stage of development. CLFs are only one way of increasing co-investment in workforce development. At a time of severe contraction in public subsidy for such learning, however, it is important that the concept is taken up by as many workplaces as possible, if the level of workforce development is not just to be sustained but substantially increased.

6

Introduction

Co-investment between the state, employer and employee is an intrinsic feature of most vocational education and training (VET) systems (Bosch and Charest, 2010). The term ‘co-investment’ is used in this paper as opposed to ‘co-funding’ to include individual study time and in-kind contributions.

The coalition government’s strategy is to ‘profoundly’ shift more responsibility for funding learning and skills from the state to individuals and employers. The recent Inquiry into the Future for Lifelong Learning has provided robust data on the contributions to the funding of such learning (Williams, et. al 2009). Total expenditure on post-compulsory and adult learning provision was found to amount to £55bn per year, which rises to £93bn when the opportunity cost of learning is added. The £55bn expenditure on learning provision included £25bn of public expenditure, £14bn private employer expenditure on employee development and £5.5bn by individuals. In addition there is the contribution of time, which accounts for £38bn. Analysis of the National Adult Learning Survey found that employers paid all the fees for 37 per cent of those undertaking learning and shared payment with four per cent of those undertaking taught learning (Williams, et. al 2009). Almost 70 per cent of the total of cost of time is met by individuals, and 19 per cent by employers supporting off-the-job training. This means that individuals invest 1.7bn hours of their time in adult learning each year.

Perhaps the best known co-investment model is the apprenticeship. Historically, the employer’s cost of the training is subsidised by the state and the individual forgoes a full wage in anticipation that the training will lead to a skilled job that pays a high premium for the acquisition of such skills.

Co-investment also underpins part-time routes through higher education, such as foundation degrees. In a recent survey of part-time students in employment about a third reported that their employers paid for all their course fees as well as providing other kinds of support such as paid time

off to study or payment of other course expenses. Another 15 per cent of students reported receiving partial fee support plus additional support or fee support with no other kinds of support. Only three out of ten student employees said that they did not receive any kind of support from their employers (BIS, 2011). It was however notable that employer fee support was significantly and positively related to the extent to which students cited job requirements and employer encouragement as factors triggering their decision to study rather than their own desires for change or family-based motives for study.

The remit of the Independent Review of Higher Education and Student Finance chaired by Lord Browne was to “examine the balance of contributions to higher education funding by taxpayers, students, graduates and employers”. The report recommended transferring the burden of funding from the state to the student/graduate. This recommendation was taken up by the coalition government in late 2010 as part of its policy for the funding of higher education. As a consequence, the maximum level of student tuition fees will treble (to a maximum of £9,000pa). But Browne and the coalition government have been silent on the issue of employer contribution to higher education costs.

Government has in recent years also subsidised employers where there was a perceived market failure, which included about a third of the workforce that do not receiving training, mainly those with few or no qualifications. An example of such intervention was the introduction of the Train to Gain programme. The scheme was essentially based on a skills brokerage model with full tuition cost remission for those without a Level 2 qualification and part subsidy for those on Level 3 courses with a wage compensation for small employers to meet their frictional costs of off-the-job training. About a million learning opportunities have been funded through the programme. A major problem however with intervention within a voluntary VET system is the risk of ‘deadweight’. This effect occurs when the state funds training that would ostensibly have


been provided anyway by employers, in one form or another. A report by the National Audit Office found that half of the employers whose employees received training under Train to Gain would have arranged similar training without public subsidy, though it is possible that some of these learners were entitled as individuals to receive full public funding for such training (NAO 2009). The coalition government is phasing out Train to Gain as part of its cuts in public expenditure (see below).

The introduction of Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs) in 2000 was aimed at encouraging individuals to invest more in their own learning. It was essentially a co-investment model, based on a ‘virtual account’, with discounts claimed by each learner who had to contribute £25. It defaulted into a universal subsidy for courses and there was little evidence of employer contribution to the accounts. The demand for ILAs and thus public funding was much higher than anticipated. Furthermore, learning providers were misusing, abusing and in some cases defrauding the system. The result was that the scheme was ended after just one year. There was also evidence of ‘dead weight’, over half (54 per cent) of redeemers said that they would have been able to pay for their most recent ILA supported course without their account. Organisations such as trade unions actively targeted hard-to-reach non traditional learners to get them to open accounts. The House of Commons Select Committee on Education and Skills enquiry into the demise of the scheme recommended that “the successes of trusted intermediaries, such as trade union learning representatives, should be taken fully into account in designing an ILA successor scheme” (House of Commons, 2002, paragraph 106). No successor scheme was however introduced in England.

The present Skills Accounts pilots are not ILAs but are testing essentially an IAG tool to enable individuals to assess their skills, search for courses and find out what public funding is available. They are to be redesigned as Lifelong Learning Accounts, which will be offered to all adults from September

2011, aimed at helping learners to make choices about how and when they learn, and to invest in education and training (BIS, 2010 a). They will bring together information about funding and about learning opportunities, and will be underpinned by a combination of fee subsidies for eligible learners, employer and learner contributions and, from 2013/14, information on access to government-backed fee loans.

The UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) has proposed a more extensive model in the form of ‘personal learning accounts’. These would involve modest contributions with a built-in option to incorporate a broader range of state funding for learning, including apprenticeships, and potential funding for higher education (UKCES, 2010). UKCES has recognised the challenge of providing an incentive for employers to contribute to such accounts held by their employees. It needs to minimise deadweight and maximise additionality by targeting state funding for learning for which there is a ‘market failure’ in terms of skills deficiencies and social inclusion issues and at the same time avoid undue bureaucracy. Any type of voucher system would however have to ensure colleges and other providers on the supply side that they can invest with confidence in developing learning programmes and associated resources that are to industry standard. Equally, it would be necessary to protect some provision for strategic reasons and not rely solely on the market and consumer choice.

8

The need for co-investment

The challenge for policy makers is how to increase more private investment in the skills of the workforce and whether there should be a different balance between private and public investment. The TUC has long argued that employers should increase investment in the development of their workforce if the UK is to improve its productivity, competitiveness and social inclusiveness. There is a powerful argument that if there was a stronger culture of co-investing in adult learning between employers and employees then this would lead to increased expenditure on workforce development and over a wider range of provision leading to more transferable skills. As the Inquiry into the Future for Lifelong Learning has stated:

“Things work best – most support is given financially, but also in terms of genuine commitment – where all parties invest in learning. A society where everyone recognises that they have a stake in learning, and where there are collective as well as individual returns, will produce high rates of investment in it.” (Williams et al, 2009: 35)

The coalition government is however reducing its adult FE and skills budget by 25 per cent over the three year period 2011–12 to 2013–14. This will result in changes to public subsidies to companies and individual learners. Under the previous Labour government there were subsidies to companies to train their workforce through Train to Gain, as well as individual entitlements to free learning for those with low level or no qualifications. As noted above, the coalition government is phasing out Train to Gain with some of the funding transferred to programmes such as apprenticeships and support for small and medium-sized companies.

The previous government introduced entitlements to fully subsidised learning for young people without a first Level 3 qualification and for learners aged 24+ without a first Level 2 qualification. The coalition government is changing some of these entitlements in 2012/13 (BIS, 2010b). There will be no change in

the position of young people aged 19–23 in respect of fully funding their Skills for Life and first Level 2 and Level 3 courses. But there will be changes in respect to those aged 24+. They will still be entitled to fully funded Skills for Life but they will be expected to contribute to the cost of all other learning. Such co-funding involves in the majority of cases individuals paying 50 per cent of the fees with the exception of adult apprenticeships and work-based learning when the employer is expected to pay half the cost. In the year 2013–14 there will further changes with partial subsidy being replaced by loans for those aged 24+ to pay the full cost of courses at Level 3 and above. The level of loan available for apprenticeships and work-based learning will be half of the maximum loan available with the employer expected to pay half the cost.

This steep reduction in public subsidy provides an imperative to promote co-investment. The Independent Review of Fees and Co-Funding in Further Education in England stated that “the total level of investment is sub-optimal, the weight of investment being made is not being shared fairly”. It warned that “the current system for ensuring individuals and employers co-invest alongside Government in this range of further education provision is failing... It is not securing the level of investment expected and required from those who should contribute, and action is essential to change what is widely regarded as unfair and untenable” (BIS, 2010). It stated that a total public investment of £3.5bn was planned for participation in learning for 2010–11. This funding was intended to be complemented by a further £1bn of investment from individual adults and from employers. The Review however predicted that nothing like this amount would be levered in. This is underlined by a propensity for employers to cut back on training investment in economic downturns.

The National Skills Task Force established by the previous Labour government called for “the collaborative commitment of all organisations – employers and employer bodies, trade unions,


education and training providers, and the government – to work together to enable the nation to thrive in the 21st century’s knowledge economy” (DfEE, 2000, paragraph 1.21). It set out stakeholder responsibilities for the costs of vocational education and training. Individuals should co-operate fully with their employer in job-specific training designed to meet business objectives, and those who can afford to should make a reasonable contribution to the time and costs of transferable learning to improve their continuing employability. Employers should bear the cost of job-specific training, and contribute through encouragement, support and investment in developing the transferable skills and continuing employability of their staff commensurate with the benefits which accrue to them by doing so. Government should ensure that all citizens have equitable opportunities to obtain a minimum foundation of learning for their future employability, and to contribute to the cost of continuing learning, through fees grants or loans, according to economic priority and individual need. Trade unions should encourage and support their members to re-engage with learning, and recognise their shared responsibility for their employability.

A similar view was held then by the TUC and the CBI in their joint submission to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his Productivity Initiative in 2001.

“Both the CBI and TUC agree that training and development is a shared responsibility:

Employers are responsible for the training ❚and development of their employees to meet business needs and where possible they should assist in their employees’ long term development.

Employees are responsible for their own ❚development and employability beyond the needs of their current employment but they may need support and encouragement to develop this level of responsibility.

The Government is responsible for the education ❚and training of young people and should

ensure they are employable. It should deal with market failure and support organisations with little capacity to train and individuals with little opportunity to learn.”

CBI/TUC (2001, page 64)

The Inquiry into the Future for Lifelong Learning concluded that there is scope for more co-financing of learning. It recommended that further research should be undertaken on which forms of public investment lever in the most contributions from individuals and employers. It is the area of transferable skills, employability and long term personal development where there is the greatest need for collaboration and co-investment between the employer, individual and the state. This paper argues that this will not come about through government exhortation. It can only be achieved through meaningful dialogue between the employer and the employee. This is best facilitated through intermediaries such as trade unions and their union learning representatives (ULRs) within formal frameworks, such as Collective Learning Funds (CLFs) at the workplace.

10

Collective Learning Funds

Collective Learning Funds (CLFs) are union-led initiatives to stimulate co-investment in the personal development of the workforce to make learning affordable and accessible. They are not just funds held in union or company accounts. CLFs are collective frameworks that facilitate the levering in of cash and in-kind contributions from employers, providers, unions and individuals. The aim is to establish a framework of mutual trust and co-operation whereby employers are willing to invest more in the personal development of their workforce provided that the employee and the state also make a contribution and vice versa. The objective is to create a win-win situation which optimises the investment in workforce development. Key facilitators in such scenarios are trusted intermediaries such as trade unions. Collective Learning Funds are often underpinned by a learning agreement between management and the union(s) and delivered through a joint union/management learning committee. There is robust evidence that in workplaces where there is union involvement in learning, the presence of learning agreements is consistently associated with higher levels of reported organisational learning practice (e.g. employees attaining qualifications) and organisational level indicators (e.g. addressing skills gaps) compared to workplaces where there are no such agreements (Stuart et al, 2010).

The pioneering collective learning initiative was the Ford Employee Development Assistance Programme (EDAP) scheme that was established through a collective agreement between the company and its unions in 1987. It was negotiated as an individual entitlement for funding as part of the pay negotiations. The EDAP allowance was set at a maximum of £200 per year for each employee. The actual amount paid into the scheme by the company initially was £40 per employee. This was subsequently raised to £90, with the ceiling raised by £100 in respect to learning leading to nationally recognised qualifications. The employee contribution is mainly time with all EDAP learning having to take place in his/her own time although they also contribute to the fees. EDAP was set up not

to meet the company’s business requirements but the employee’s needs for personal development. A wide range of lifelong learning was taken up including basic skills, non job-related vocational skills, academic qualifications up to graduate level, and a range of personal interest and leisure courses. The participation rate is phenomenally high. Last year over three quarters of Ford employees on the Dagenham site took up some form of learning. A joint management union committee oversees the programme with overall responsibility devolved to local committees at each site with the unions taking a lead role in running the programme.

The Leitch Review of Skills supported a collective approach to co-investment:

“Collective Learning Funds... would encourage joint employer-union initiatives to increase the scope of training and development opportunities for their workforce and to commit new investment to this. In addition, these funds could encourage employees to co-invest their time along with the employer in a wider range of non job-specific training and development.” HM Treasury, 2006, (paragraph 5.40).

There are a number of possible sources for contributions to a Collective Learning Fund, which can be in the form of cash or in-kind provision such as time off to study (see Figure 1).

Employers can contribute in a number of ways by ❚providing paid time-off for study, paying some or all of the tuition fees or providing loans, establishing and equipping learning centres at the workplace and providing facility time for union learning reps to support learners. Employers are often more disposed to make in-kind rather than cash contributions.

The state can contribute by providing entitlements ❚to free tuition for certain groups of learners and subsidising course provision for learners in general.

Providers can offer free taster courses to potential ❚learners, subsidise courses, help equip learning centres and provide tutors for the centres.

The learner can study in his or her own time. There ❚


EMPLOYER(Facilities, cash, paid time

o� to learn etc.)

PROVIDER(Tasters, cash etc.)

GOVERNMENT(Learning subsidies)

LEARNER(Time, fee etc.)

UNION(ULRs, Project Worker

support, cash)

COLLECTIVE LEARNING FUND

Figure 1 Contributions to CLFs

are many examples of employers offering employees one hour to study in work time, provided that this is matched by one hour study in their own time. Learners also often contribute to the cost of the fees where there is limited public eligibility to funding.

Unions can also make a contribution. Some can ❚contribute cash but the most likely contribution is that of time. For example, ULRs use some of their own time to support learners and run CLF projects.

A project was established by the TUC in the North West to develop joint funding models to support learning in the workplace. It was supported and funded by the then Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS). The project included ten pilots across a number of workplaces in different sectors and unions, and was conducted during 2006/7. The plan was to explore four different models: joint employer-union funds at workplace level; union-led funds for a specific workplace, sector, or geographical area; joint employer-union funds for a specific sector in a specific geographical area; and, joint employer-union funds for a specific learning venue. The most common models focused on some form of learning centre. There was no initial pilot that focused at the sector level.

The pilots showed promise over the initial trial period, but the interim evaluation by the Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change(CERIC) at the University of Leeds noted that momentum was slow and outputs were indicative rather than demonstrable (Stuart and Wallis, 2008). Similarly, there was clear evidence of how Collective Learning Funds could support and be sustained by Learning Agreements, but there was a degree of ‘disconnect’ between wider strategic imperatives in the policy domain, such as Train to Gain. The interim evaluation called for a wider roll out of the CLF, and a need to focus on possible sector initiatives and the way that CLFs may be able to add value to broader strategic imperatives in the field of learning.

On this basis, further funding was provided by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) for a round of second stage CLF pilots. Again, pilots were focused in the North West, but the concept was also trialled in the East Midlands. In total, 25 projects participated in the second stage of the CLF during 2009 (17 in the North West and eight in the East Midlands). A list of the pilots is set out in Apppendix 1. Seven of the North West pilots were extensions of the first stage pilots. Two of the North West pilots were late

12

starting and not included in the evaluation. Unions were asked to make bids to join the project and those that were successful received £4,000 start-up funding for running the workplace pilots. In the North West CLFs were established in an additional nine workplaces in a number of regional projects using a reduced kick-start funding of £1,000. There were also three which had no kick-start funding and three workplaces with CLFs engaged with government Skills Account trials in the region. The Working Tax Credit Allowance trial in the North West, for example, is testing an entitlement of up to £500 for those on low incomes to support their progression in the labour market. These additional 15 pilots were not included in the evaluation, but their outcomes will be key to mainstreaming CLFs.

The overall project was managed by Unionlearn’s research and strategy manager with the pilots managed by the two regional managers with support from two project workers. A BIS official was seconded to provide co-ordination between the pilots in both regions. A national steering committee comprising external stakeholders monitored the project, with reference groups having a similar role in the regions, with the project running up to the end of July 2010.


Methodology

The evaluation of the second stage of the project was carried out by CERIC, which as noted also evaluated the interim stage.

The main objectives of the evaluation were to:

evaluate the outcomes and benefits of all CLF pilots ❚and the barriers that they face

assess the added value of the CLF in terms ❚of: sustaining broad workforce and personal development through increased employer commitment in terms of funding and in-kind contributions; increased participation in government programmes such as Train to Gain, Skills Accounts and Informal Adult Learning

identify good practice that can contribute to the ❚publication of cases and toolkits and broader policy roll out and mainstreaming of the CLF concept.

As with the interim evaluation, four main approaches were taken to the establishment of the CLF: joint employer-union funds at workplace level; union-led funds for a specific workplace, sector or geographical area; joint employer-union funds for a specific sector in a specific geographical area; and joint employer-union funds for a specific learning venue.

The evaluation involved the following methods to collect data:

Mapping exercise ❚ – this charted and assessed the progress of the 23 projects.

Progress questionnaires ❚ – each pilot was asked to complete a short questionnaire at three periods during the course of their projects. In total, 69 questionnaires were elicited from the 23 pilots, a response rate of 100 per cent.

Telephone interviews ❚ – the project managers or lead ULRs of each pilot were also interviewed by telephone at the start and end of their activities. In total 46 telephone interviews were completed for the 23 pilots, a response rate of 100 per cent.

Case studies ❚ – a selection of pilots were also identified for deeper case study research, in order to draw out more qualitative insights into potential models of good practice. In total, six cases were conducted. In each case, a pilot project was visited and interviews were conducted with representatives of management, union reps, learning co-ordinators and, on some occasions, learners. Two case studies are set out in Appendices 1 and 2.

14

Overview of the pilots

The North West workplaces tended to have a longer history of involvement in learning, and in some cases the CLFs had been established during CLF Stage One; a greater proportion of the East Midland sites were new to union learning. There was previous experience of union-led learning in a little more than half of the pilots (13 workplaces) but in a number of cases this needed refreshing. In ten of the pilots there had been no previous experience of union learning. Some of these ‘absolute beginner’ pilots had only just established the infrastructure and begun to start delivering learning, but it was clear these would begin delivering learning at some point in the foreseeable future. Some pilots struggled to get off the starting blocks. For example, one was a multi-employer workplace with low levels of union recognition and density and it was difficult to reach learners because of their varied and long shifts.

Other pilots already had an extensive learning programme involving Skills for Life, NVQs and some personal learning. So, for example, Merseytravel already had an extensive programme of learning, and a strong union/management learning partnership. For Merseytravel the role of the CLF had been to fill a specific gap – to set up a fund to help make personal learning more affordable.

This variety of starting points meant it was difficult to scope the impact of the CLF. For the more experienced sites, which already had developed forms of union-led learning taking place, the CLF tended to be used for a discrete purpose within this broad programme. For sites where there had been no previous union/management learning, the impact of the CLF was to act as a catalyst to launch a union/management learning initiative at the site. These sites credited the CLF with the development of the new relationships and structures and with all the learning that took place on site.

Most projects were associated with large employers and workplaces, with 13 projects located in a single large workplace (500 plus) or a large site with a satellite site nearby. Eight were in multi-site situations, which could involve medium sized workplaces, but also small workplaces, all spread over a wider area (e.g. a bus company in East Midlands). Two others (a retail and a taxi pilot) were sector based – the retail pilot covered a variety of workplaces (larger and smaller) spread over a wide area.

As Table 1 below details, the sites covered a wide range of sectors, occupations, work processes and histories. Any understanding of project success needs

Table 1: Distribution of CLF stage 2 pilots by sector

Sector Total Private Public

Transport 8 7 1

National and Local Government 6 0 6

Manufacturing 3 3 0

Distribution 2 2 0

Construction 1 1 0

Call Centre 1 1 0

Retail 1 1 0

Communications 1 0 1

Grand Total 23 15 8


therefore to be located within the appropriate context and narrative of the pilots.

It was planned that the funds could develop as a particular mechanism that would facilitate the co-investing in learning to help make it more affordable and accessible, by bringing together partners who would develop a synergy that in turn would lead to a greater willingness to pool resources. Different types of learning funds emerged during the pilots involving different combinations of partners and different ways of building and using resources.

In some pilots, the employer, the provider, the union and the individual made ‘in-kind’ contributions to the CLF. Cash contributions were also made by the employer as well as the college. For example, Argos Distribution agreed to add £20,000 to the resources the union had provided through the CLF (see Appendix 2). Together, through the learning committee, the union and management planned and managed the training and development programme involving NVQs, access to ICT training for non-computer users, Skills for Life and personal development programmes. As the CLF pilot developed, the site drew in resources through Train to Gain. Further, after some discussions the provider agreed to make a payment to the CLF for each NVQ completed and to provide some personal development courses as an ‘in-kind’ contribution. These courses took place out of work time, and so individuals also contributed their own time.

In contrast, employers were not involved in the retail sector Check Out Learning pilot. They had their own plans for NVQs and Train to Gain resources so these could not be part of the project. This meant that the CLF was driven by the union in partnership with providers. The union developed a voucher system in partnership with local colleges to help to make learning affordable to shop workers in 25 stores. The union contributed £10,000 into the CLF which supported a learning voucher worth up to £50 to cover half the cost of the learning with the individual paying the rest of the fees. Learning often took place on employers’ premises.

Overall, while 20 pilots had ‘in-kind’ contributions from employers, eight received cash contributions from employers (varying from small sums to pay travel expenses to, in one case, £20,000). Six pilots negotiated cash contributions from colleges (based on course completions) and a further two negotiated ‘free’ courses from colleges. Most of the pilots had used some of their CLF to make learning affordable by subsidising courses, subsidising an individual or providing low interest or interest free loans. In one case the provider paid 20 per cent of the course fee back into to the CLF on the delivery of the ITQ qualification. Where there was no real buy-in or involvement from employers, or where the employer contribution was very small, then the pilots had to seek co-investment from learners, providers and government.

16

Most of the pilots had made significant progress during the CLF pilot period. They had begun to establish, or had built upon already existing, ways of pooling resources to help make learning more accessible and affordable. Some of the pilots, particularly in the East Midlands, were only just up and running when the evaluation was taking place and therefore the outputs listed below are likely to be an underestimate as they do not include subsequent activity. In total, the 23 pilots reported the following achievements as either directly or indirectly resulting from the CLFs.

The outcomes were not positive for all the pilots. Several of the ‘absolute beginner’ pilots were only just getting their infrastructure in place, but it was clear these would deliver learning at some point in the foreseeable future. However, there were also a small number of pilots that struggled to get off the starting blocks. Examples of the latter included a major, multi-employer site with low levels of union recognition and membership. The site contained a large number of employers – the vast majority of whom didn’t recognise a union. Apart from a couple of pockets of membership where unions were recognised, overall there were very low levels of membership and organisation. It was very difficult

to ‘gather’ learners because of the many varied and long shifts. These obstacles had proved too much for what was a very ambitious pilot. However, it was felt that much had been learnt and it was anticipated that these barriers would eventually be overcome.

Two pilots involved extending a successful learning initiative from some larger sites to some smaller satellite sites. One of these cases although the employer was positive, the satellite sites were small with little interest shown in learning. There were no ULRs at these small sites. By the end of the pilots, relatively little learning had developed at the satellite sites. For example, as the Branch Learning Co-ordinator explained:

“We had a lot of learning developing at the core sites. We had little at these peripheral sites. We thought by throwing money at the problem we could solve it – and this didn’t work. We have tried one way, and now we will try another way.”

Two further points can be made about the progress of the CLF second stage. First, time was lost at the beginning of the project because some pilots were not clear about the purpose of a CLF. They had bid for the cash – to help fund their learning activities, rather than bidding to pilot a particular type of mechanism (a Collective Learning Fund) together with a particular approach to resourcing learning (co-funding). This seems to be a continuation of the problem with identity and understanding of the CLF first reported in relation to first round pilots. For some this meant it took a little time to get going.

Second, some pilots were quicker than others to focus on sustainability – keeping their fund sustainable into the future. Some pilots were very conscious about this from the beginning, and this to some extent helped determine the form their CLF took. Most pilots were beginning to become more rigorous about how they addressed this issue as the project went on.

The Collective Learning Funds were used for a variety of purposes. Many of the pilots had stories about how simply having the small pot of money

Outputs and outcomes

2,719 learning episodes, of which 721 were ❚related to Skills for Life; 527 to ICT; 884 to NVQs; and 587 were wider/personal development courses. Eight pilots were run covering 100 of these learning episodes.

Five Workplace Learning Centres established ❚to add to the 11 already existing centres.

Nine Learning Committees established or ❚refreshed to add to the seven joint learning committees/steering groups already functioning.

Learning, either directly or indirectly supported ❚through a CLF, taking place or would shortly take place across all the projects, except three.

Table 2. CLF Pilot Outputs


provided by unionlearn had been enough to open doors to other resources in cash or in kind. Often just having the fund was enough of a carrot for a union to negotiate with others (employers, providers) to make learning either more accessible or affordable. Examples included a company agreeing to provide a learning centre or a college, and in the Usdaw Check Out Learning retail pilot, agreeing to ring fence a matched amount of funding to help make learning affordable. Some pilots had managed to get learning up and running – using the fund as a carrot – but had only had to use very little of it. The funds were also a catalyst to engage with Train to Gain, or extended an already existing involvement with Train to Gain. A number of pilots managed to negotiate cash contributions to the CLF from employers. In the case of the employers, this funding was not ongoing – except at Argos Distribution (see Appendix 2). In the case of providers, it was a reward for the number of NVQs or Skills for Life learners that completed. A lot of the pilots used some of the pump priming money to help with learning promotions, publicity material and newsletters. A number reported funding ‘Learning at Work’ day events – often with the college or the provider making further contributions ‘in kind’.

As the previous government’s funding strategy had focused more and more around employment skills requirements as defined by their employer, and with other courses becoming more expensive, ULRs have found that there was an increasing need to make learning affordable.

“As the funding regime changes began to bite, it was noticeable that the facilities tended to be used more by the ‘white collar’ staff. The CLF project, through subsidising learning, aimed to involve more ‘blue collar’ staff in learning at the site.” ULR, Bombardier

This was particularly noticeable around ICT skills for non-ICT users – where CLF funds were used to subsidise learning. However, this also applied in other circumstances. In one case, the Land Registry, for example, staff going through changes and facing potential redundancies wanted to train/retrain as teaching assistants using the Teaching Assistant Level 2 qualification. This would have been impossible without the CLF.

Many of the pilots had used some of their CLF to help make learning more affordable. This was broadly done in three ways:

Subsidising course/s – this would involve ❚either paying part of the cost of a course, or possibly underwriting the cost of a course so that if numbers fell the course could continue. Alternatively, pilots would negotiate free or low cost courses from providers.

Subsidising an individual – this could take a variety ❚of forms, from providing a learning voucher that the individual could use with a specific provider and so get a discount off the course fees to a straightforward grant.

Providing low interest or interest free loans. These ❚could be repaid through the payroll. This was the chosen path of two of the projects, but others were considering this as well.

18

The outputs of pilots were leading to wider benefits and outcomes in some of the cases where the pilots had been running longer.

Learners Many of the cases report the positive benefit that the CLF has had for learners. This extends beyond the obvious examples where employees had been brought ‘back into learning’ and in some cases have fostered further learning progression. More typical were reports that the learning provided had impacted positively on staff morale and personal confidence. Employees were taking up NVQs at Level 2, ICT and Skills for Life as a result of employers deciding to engage with Train to Gain which resulted from enhanced union/employer engagement through the CLF process. But some pilots were also helping learners to access informal learning for wider personal development and not leading to accreditation. It enabled employees to access provision such as British Sign Language, Dyslexia and Deaf Awareness, Introductory Spanish, Turkish, fashion, bricklaying and plastering, plumbing, digital photography, driving lessons and arts and crafts courses. These are the type of courses that have over the last two decades been taken up by the Ford employees using the EDAP scheme.

Trade unions The most obvious benefit for the unions in the projects was that it increased their visibility and presence in the workplace and in some cases the credibility of the union role in learning and the value of ULRs. The CLF seemed to act as a demonstration effect, to some extent, to both employees (and members), the union structures and employers.

“Bringing something to the table meant we were treated as equals.”Union Project Worker, Jobcentre Plus

In the Jobcentre Plus pilot, the CLF had helped develop a new joint relationship on training between the union and the employer. The branch secretary also felt it was helping to build a different relationship

between the union and its members and potential members, with new ones being recruited as a result (see Appendix 3).

In some cases, union learning representative structures developed from the projects, while in one case it contributed to ‘branch reps coming round’ to the added value of a union role in learning. There were cases where this meant that the union was prepared to take up case work specifically around Skills for Life issues, while in another it meant that there was greater confidence amongst staff to talk with the union rep and a greater willingness to involve the union in personal case work.

“People’s confidence is lifted and morale is better. People are more positive about the union and value their certificates.”Union Learning Rep, Argos Distribution

The CLF was also actively contributing to more positive and partnership-based working around learning, while at the same time giving the union a degree of space, financially, from hierarchical management decisions around learning investment.

Employers In a number of cases managers claimed that the learning undertaken through the CLF had contributed to improvements in the quality of work, reduced absence and improved customer service. In one case, the pilot had explicitly assisted the company in meeting the targets it had set for levels of NVQ accreditation – something that had previously been a problem. The most common benefit for companies was in terms of ‘softer’ outcomes such as ‘improved morale’ and ‘improved employee engagement’. The CLF was also contributing to more positive employment relations and constructive engagement between management and unions.

“The CLF project has enabled a positive way to work alongside the union instead of being on opposing sides. For once we are working together on the same agenda.”H R Manager, Caledonian Building Systems Ltd

Benefits and beneficiaries


“I have been working alongside the union since July 2009 on the CLF project and have enjoyed being involved in this agenda. In my eyes the working relationship has been enhanced through the CLF project.”Customer Services Operations Manager, Jobcentre Plus

Engaging with government prioritiesThe learning outputs show the projects managed to engage with key government skills priorities – in particular the government’s priorities for Level 2 learning and for Skills for Life. It was sometimes difficult to assess where the funding for this learning came from. However, it is reasonable to assume that the bulk of the Level 2 NVQs and the Skills for Life that were accessed were funded through Train to Gain. In many cases the pilots opened or widened the workplaces’ engagement with government skills priorities – leading to a greater knowledge and understanding of the advice and funding streams available. CLFs also opened up informal adult learning opportunities, which was an increasing priority for BIS.

20

The success of the CLF project should not be judged in terms of numerical outputs alone. The project should also be viewed from an industrial relations as well as an educational perspective. In a number of the pilot workplaces CLFs played an important role in initiating partnership working between unions and management for the first time. This was evolving through the embedding of learning activity through joint management/union learning committees and agreements. It is this process work and the institutions that evolve to plan, organise and deliver learning that point to the most significant contribution that the CLF can make to workplace learning. The robustness of these institutions is likely to determine the sustainability of such activity. While some pilots had previously engaged with government strategic priorities using Train to Gain funding, it is noteworthy that the CLF either helped a number of pilots engage with Train to Gain for the first time or extend a previous involvement with it. Learners signed up for 884 NVQs and 721 Skills for Life programmes. The majority of these learners were funded through Train to Gain demonstrating the CLFs potential to help deliver the national skills agenda.

The research found that all parties to the employment relationship, employees, unions and managers appeared to be taking stock of the added value of the CLF and to be buying into the concept. This was not just a case of unions leading and employees and managers buying into the concept. Certainly, unions were initiating and leading the CLF work, but to be effective union branches and shop steward structures also needed to be brought around to the credibility and value of the CLF. This was equally the case with employees and managers. The study presents evidence, at this stage suggestive rather conclusive, of how this ‘buy in’ to the CLF is being achieved and how improved relationships around learning are being forged.

There are good examples of co-funding that have developed from the initial CLF investment. To effectively quantify the extent of co-investment

would need a way to quantify the value of the in-kind contributions that the research uncovered. Critically this would require further work to assess the value of, for example, the employer resourcing a learning centre. There are also good examples where employees that were previously excluded from government strategic imperatives such as Train to Gain have benefited from the CLF offer.

The CLF as a concept has considerable value. However, the idea of co-invested learning is still at an early stage of development. There have however been developments in the North West to establish CLFs in workplaces outside the pilots with reduced or no ‘kick start’ funding (unionlearn, 2010). The outcomes from these projects will be important in identifying factors which lead to sustainability.

Finally, there are a number of challenges that need to be addressed if the CLF concept is to be sustained and developed. With the significant reduction in the public funding of further education and the ending of Train to Gain, CLFs need to become mechanisms whereby employers contribute to workforce development, not just in kind but also through the payment of fees and also the provision of paid time off to train. The range of learning funding through CLFs also needs to be broadened to include employer support for those in the workforce studying higher education courses part-time. Consideration needs to be given to how CLFs can be used to lever in employer contributions to any future ‘save to earn’ and ‘borrow to learn’ schemes which might become a dimension of the new Lifelong Learning Accounts. As noted earlier, almost 70 per cent of the total cost of learning time is met by individuals, and 19 per cent by employers supporting off-the-job training. This means that individuals invest 1.7bn hours of time in adult learning each year. There is a need for a fairer balance between employer/employee contributions to study time. CLFs could provide transparency to such contribution and lead to transactions over such time mediated through unions.

Conclusions


Collective Learning Funds are only one way of increasing co-investment in workforce development. At a time of severe contraction in public subsidy for such learning, however, it is important that the concept is taken up by as many workplaces as possible, if the level of workforce development is not just to be sustained but substantially increased.

22

Bosch, G. and Charest, J. (eds) (2010) “Vocational Training: International Perspectives” Work, Employment and Society Oxford: Routledge

CBI/TUC (2001) The UK Productivity Challenge: CBI/TUC submission to the Productivity Initiative

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2010 a) Further Education – New Horizon; Investing in Skills for Sustainable Growth BIS

– (2010 b), Skills for Sustainable Growth: strategy document BIS

– (2010 c), Co-Investment in the Skills of the Future. Independent review of fees and co-funding in further education in England BIS

Department for Education and Employment (2000) Skills for All: proposals for a national skills agenda. Final report of the National Skills Task Force para 1.21 DfEE

HM Treasury (2006) Leitch Review of Skills: Prosperity for all in the global economy – world class skills HM Treasury

House of Commons (2002) Individual Learning Accounts, Third Report of Education and Skills Committee HC561.1 para 106

Mason, G and Hopkin, H (2011), Employer Perspectives on Part-Time Students in UK Higher Education BIS research paper No. 27

National Audit Office (2009) for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Learning and Skills Council Train to Gain: developing the skills of the workforce Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General/H C 879 Session 2008–2009. 21 July 2009 London

Stuart, M and Rees, J (2010) Evaluation of Stage 2 of the Collective Learning Project Working Paper No.3 Unionlearn

– and Wallis, E (2008). Collective Learning Funds: an interim evaluation of the North West pilot project Unionlearn

– Cutter, J; Cook, H and Winterton, J (2010) Evaluation of the Union Learning Fund Rounds 8 –11 and Unionlearn: Final Report unionlearn

UKCES (2010) Personal Learning Accounts: Building on lessons learnt UKCES

Unionlearn (2010) North West Collective Learning Funds 2010: progress up to July 2010 unionlearn

Williams, J; McNair, S; Aldridge, F. (2009) Expenditure and Funding Models in Lifelong Learning: a context paper Inquiry into the Future for Lifelong Learning, NIACE

References


Appendix 1

North West

Argos Distribution Centre Heywood Unite

Argos Call Centre Widnes Usdaw

New Charter Housing Trust Ashton-Under-Lyne UNISON

CWU Learning Centre Crewe CWU

First Bus Manchester Dukinfield/Oldham Unite

First Bus Manchester Ince/Wigan Unite

Identity and Passport Service/NHS Southport PCS

Land Registry Birkenhead PCS

Liverpool Taxi Project Liverpool Unite

Merseytravel Liverpool UNISON/Unite

McVities Manchester Usdaw

Pensions Service Cheshire PCS

Stagecoach North Lancs/Cumbria RMT

Tameside Council Tameside GMB/UNISON

Usdaw Check Out Learning Merseyside Usdaw

East Midlands

Bombardier Derby CSEU

Caledonian Building Systems Ltd Carlton-on-Trent Unite

DHL Mothercare Northampton Unite

East Midlands Airport Castle Donington Unite

East Midlands Trains Derby ASLEF

Jobcentre Plus Lincolnshire PCS

RF Brookes Leicester BFAWU

Stagecoach Chesterfield Unite

The Collective Learning Fund Pilots

24

BackgroundArgos Distribution is a large distribution centre in Heywood Distribution Park. It handles a wide range of stock for Argos Retail stores across the north of England. The number of staff fluctuates but, at any one time, there are over 400 permanent staff and a further 200 plus temporary agency staff.

Unite has about 96 per cent membership among the permanent staff and a fluctuating level of about 20 per cent membership among the temporary staff. The site has a good team of reps – seven shop stewards and five health and safety reps.

Introducing the fundBefore becoming involved in the CLF, there had not been much involvement by the union in learning and skills issues. A new site manager had been appointed and he proposed a joint learning initiative to the stewards. He had seen a workplace learning centre in action at a previous site.

When the CLF was launched, a union project worker approached the stewards, and encouraged the reps to think about making an application. They agreed to apply for the small pot of funding available to help them set up a CLF.

The format of the fund – single site jointly managed During the first phase, the networking with other sites was extremely valuable – both for the reps and management. A broad understanding was developed about the aims of what was going to happen – and eventually this was formalised into a learning agreement. ULRs were appointed and trained up. A workplace learning centre was established.

A Steering Committee was set up – with the involvement of the General Manager, the Planning Manager, the Learning and Development Manager, the Unite convenor, the ULRs and the Unite project worker. Eventually the main learning provider, Bury College/Business Solutions joined the committee.

The Learning Committee plans the learning that takes place across the site – taking into account the funding that can be drawn in from outside, the funding provided by the company, and eventually the funding and resources provided by the college. Finally, the committee, working within the framework of the learning agreement and the resources available, decides what learning will be in company time, and what will be in the individual’s time. In short, the learning is co-funded (in cash or kind) by the employer, the state, the individual and the provider and the Learning Committee agrees how these resources can be used.

Outputs, outcomes and benefits of the CLFCo-funding learning The fund was started with a £4,000 grant from unionlearn. The employer then put £20,000 in the ‘pot’. Later the provider agreed to donate £110 per completed NVQ into the fund. As well as this funding, the various partners made ‘in-kind’ contributions – the employer contributed resources for the learning centre, the college agreed to provide some free courses, and the learners gave their time. State funding was drawn in through Train to Gain. This fund was then used pay for publicity and promotion, to help with the cost of learning and to contribute to the time off for learning.

From the start it was agreed the fund would be used to encourage a broad range for learning – from vocational to personal development that members may want to become involved in.

But the impact of the CLF cannot just be measured in terms of these outputs. There have been broader changes. “It’s not about the £4000. It’s about what this has triggered” – Site Manager.

Appendix 2 Case Study: Argos Distribution/Unite


Learning outputs

During the period of the project, learners achieved:

204 Skills for Life qualifications ❚ranging from Entry Level to Level 2, and including 66 ESOL qualifications.

138 ICT qualifications including ECDL,CLAIT and ITQ. ❚

104 NVQs in warehousing and other subjects. ❚

85 doing subjects such as Holiday ❚Spanish, Basic Sign Language and other personal development courses.

The learning has helped develop confidence among the staff. Management believes that sometimes they need to ask people from the shop floor to do some screen work with the PCs. “We have seen people more confident at taking on the role. There is a greater pool of knowledge and skills across the workforce.” This greater confidence has encouraged people to apply for jobs that use their new skills.

One thing the CLF has brought is a greater engagement at the site and a more positive feeling. Management believes they should celebrate people’s successes. “About 80 people came to the canteen to support 35 awards being given out. There was a good atmosphere with clapping and cheering. The fund has helped morale, and given people a sense of ownership over the learning they do.”

The lead ULR agrees: “People’s confidence is lifted, and morale is better. People are more positive about the union, and value their certificates”.

Challenges and continuing issuesInitially there was some scepticism on the shop floor – what was all this about? Was it just yet another management initiative? Was the union getting into bed with management? Shouldn’t the union concentrate on more important things like getting better wages and conditions? Similarly, there was scepticism among some on the management team – the learning was all very good but it would take

people off the shop floor for what benefit? A lot of energy was put into promoting the initiative, talking to staff and using a training needs analysis to find out what people wanted.

As the initiative developed, a more positive attitude to learning took shape on the shop floor. The union was more visible and there was a generally more positive attitude to learning and to the union, particularly among the Polish and other migrant workers. Some new members joined. Equally managers began to recognise benefits – greater confidence, more flexibility and better morale.

There has also been a build up of trust on the Learning Committee. The last 12 months has seen the site go through some difficult negotiations – as it moved to a new shift system. Both the management and union reps were clear that the learning partnership should go on – regardless of other difficulties. Both management and reps valued the learning initiative – and were keen that whatever the difficulties, they should continue to meet in the Learning Committee to work together to resolve problems.

A lot of energy still has to be put into engaging learners – promotions, award ceremonies, vouchers as incentives and the personal development programmes can help.

But funding and resources remain a problem. Co-funding learning is expensive. State funding programmes are under pressure. The ULRs and the Learning Committee are preparing a proposal for funding support from the company for the next financial year and this process will need to be repeated each year.

26

BackgroundThe Benefits and Job Centres in Lincolnshire employ about 550 staff, spread across 9 sites varying from 20–100 staff each. The staff are mainly involved in clerical and customer facing work. PCS, the relevant union, has about 80 per cent density of membership, with 15 union reps and 4 ULRs. Very little union led learning had taken place, until the Collective Learning Fund project although both local management and the union were supportive.

Introducing the fundThe Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has a library of e-learning materials and some job-specific, non-accredited training programmes. It also has a very limited number of NVQs available. A learning survey and Learning at Work event identified a high level of interest among staff to do NVQs. While discussing with management the possibility of putting in for funding to set up a CLF, the PCS reps made it clear that NVQs would need to be part of the offer. This led to a slow start because the DWP nationally wanted to have complete ownership of the NVQ (to monitor quality and numbers) and this led to unwillingness to sign up to a CLF.

However, management eventually agreed to sign up to the initiative, and so the CLF went ahead, but it had a slightly delayed start.

The format of the fund – a multi-site fund spread across a wide areaThe CLF is managed by a Steering Group made up of the Learning Co-ordinator from PCS, two ULRs, the PCS Branch Secretary and two managers, one of whom is the Human Resource Manager. The steering group meets every six weeks. The Steering Group plans the various learning events and is a forum for discussing and resolving difficulties, and planning how to use the resources available.

In the words of the Learning Co-ordinator: “The Collective Learning Fund has contributions from all parties in cash, kind or time”. It was clear that

an opportunity to have affordable learning was a key motivator to set up the fund.

Outputs, outcomes and benefits of the CLFCo-funding learning The fund has been ‘kick started’ with the £4,000 pounds from Unionlearn. The employer provides travel expenses for events. The employer also gives assistance in kind – time for assessments/debriefing, flexibility, printing costs, rooms and facilities. The learning is usually in the person’s own time, and the union give time and resources. State funding is drawn down for part of the cost of the learning.

Learning outputsFrom the start, the Steering Group agreed to focus energy on the arrangements for delivering the NVQ. However, other learning was encouraged as well. The result is that the following had commenced or been achieved during the pilot:

22 learners signed up to NVQs in Customer ❚Service or Information, Advice and Guidance at Levels 2, 3 and in one case Level 4.

4 Learners have completed Skills for Life at ❚Level 2.

Series of Deaf and Dyslexia Awareness sessions ❚have taken place in work time.

While all parties agree it is too early to assess the benefits of the NVQ programme, certain benefits from the process can be seen and all the parties are considering how the co-investment arrangement can be sustained into the future.

The District Manager’s previous experience made him positive about the value of training (and the NVQ in particular) and he was keen for the initiative to succeed. On the union side, the Branch Secretary felt that the existence of the fund had been empowering: “the fund helped us be an equal party to decisions about how the learning runs, rather than have to go ‘cap-in-hand’ to management”.

Appendix 3 Case Study: Jobcentre Plus Lincolnshire/PCS


While the CLF helped develop a new joint relationship around training between the union and the employer, the Branch Secretary also felt it was helping to build a different relationship between the union and its members and potential members – with the result that there were some new members and some new reps recruited.

Staff also began to see PCS as having a broader role – the union gains credibility by being in the forefront on learning promotion days, and management get some credibility as well for facilitating the learning. “We break with the stereotype of the union, and reach very different people – younger people or just plain non-union people”. Staff will often talk to ULRs about personal cases or will use the opportunity of a learning promotion to raise personal cases – all of which are taken up by the union rep.

Challenges and continuing issuesThere remain key challenges ahead. The Collective Learning Fund has been in place for barely a year so there will be sometime before the initiative can be said to have embedded itself. The project is very much a local partnership within a large organisation. This kind of bottom-up initiative will need to find its place in what is instinctively a top-down training environment. But a further issue that the Steering Group needs to address is how to build sustainability into the CLF. These discussions have already started but it is too early to say how they will conclude.

28

Paper 1Union Learning, Union Recruitment and OrganisingBy Sian Moore and Hannah WoodWorking Lives Research Institute, London Metropolitan University

Paper 2 Organising to Learn and Learning to Organise: three case studies on the effects of union-led workplace learningBy Chris Warhurst, Paul Thompson and Patricia FindlayScottish Centre for Employment Research, University of Strathclyde

Paper 3A Collective Learning Culture: a qualitative study of workplace learning agreementsBy Emma Wallis and Mark StuartCentre 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 surveyBy Mark Stuart and Andrew RobinsonCentre 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 systemBy Bert Clough Unionlearn

Paper 6 Estimating the Demand for Union-Led Learning in ScotlandBy Jeanette Findlay, Patricia Findlay and Chris WarhurstUniversities of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Strathclyde

Paper 7 Migrant Workers in the Labour Market: the role of unions in the recognition of skills and qualificationsBy 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 Learning and Organising: case studies of good practiceBy Sian MooreWorking Lives Research Institute, London Metropolitan University

Paper 9 The Impact of the Union Learning Representative: a survey of ULRs and their employersBy Nicholas Bacon and Kim HoqueNottingham University Business School

Paper 10 Learning Representative Initiatives in the UK and New Zealand: a comparative studyBy Bill Lee and Catherine CassellUniversity of Sheffield and University of Manchester Business School

Paper 11 Unions and Skills UtilisationBy Francis Green

Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies, Institute of Education, University of London

Paper 12 Union Learning Representatives – Activity, Impact and Organisation: results of the 2009 survey of ULRs and their managersRichard Saundry, Alison Hollinrake and Valerie AntcliffInstitute for Research into Organisations, Work and Employment, University of Central Lancashire.

Other research papers in the series All these research papers are free of charge and can be ordered by going to: www.unionlearn.org.uk/policy/learn-1852-f0.cfm

30

Published by unionlearn

Congress House London WC1B 3LS

Tel 020 7079 6920 Fax 020 7079 6921

www.unionlearn.org.uk

April 2011Cover image by Pixel Photography

Design by Rumba Printed by Precision Printing Ltd

research paper 13: co-investing in workforce development

Documents