The Role of Labour Unions in Skills Development in Australia
3. The Role of Labour Union
Australian unions have had a longstanding involvement with all aspects of vocational and work- place training. In the late 1970’s Australian unions led the development of the Trade Union Train- ing Authority (TUTA) and established colleges for training union officers such as the Clyde Cam- eron College. This training focused upon the professionalisation of union development training to provide more highly skilled union representatives, organizers and officials. Improving union train- ing practice and providing a higher quality of union training services were significant factors in the work of unions and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) to develop these new institu- tions (Voll 1997).
In the late 1980’s unions sought to engage with training through social and political action as part of the national accord process. Unions saw education and training as an important element of the social wage to be negotiated through this process. Many unions and the ACTU accordingly, became engaged as social actors in the training system, driving the development of a unified national system of Vocational Education and Training (VET) through the Training Reform Agenda (TRA) of the Australian Government. Australian unions led the development of new social partnership institutions such as the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) at this time.
These institutions were responsible for the development of national qualifications and training programs – many of them in industries with no history of training – that offered skill development opportunities to employees linked to the attainment of transportable, national qualifications (Cooney 2002, Ewer 2000, Mansfield 2004, Phillimore 1997).
1) The Dimensions of Union Interest in Training
Australian unions thus have a multi-dimensional interest in training. Training has regularly featured as part of the industrial campaigning of unions and it has been a part of their broader social agenda Many unions have their own training departments, many are engaged in the regulation of public education and training systems and most unions have policies concerning occupational skills training, workplace health and safety training and other workplace training. (Dundon & Eva 1998).
There are several different dimensions to union interest in training and it is worthwhile exploring these differences in order to understand the nature of union engagement with vocational training issues.
(1) Training for Union Development
Firstly, unions are interested in training because of its role in union development. Union training can underpin the development of union organization by training union officials and union representatives for their industrial and organizational roles. The training of union shop stewards or workplace health and safety representatives provides a good example of traditional union training and this is frequently supported by general member education in the socio-political aspects of unionism. Unions thus provide their own in-house training to develop cadre, to develop union activists and to promulgate the social and political principles of unionism (Nesbit 2003, Spencer 2002).
(2) Unions as Social Actors
In the course of developing their broader socio-political agenda, unions also engage with vocational education and training issues as social actors. Union representatives sit on industry and government bodies and play a role in the development of vocational education policies, curriculum and qualifications. Union representatives may also be found on the boards of educational institutions delivering vocational education programs. As social actors, unions attempt to shape the development of social institutions and social policies concerning the provision of vocational education. Unions also seek to influence the training offer in vocational education, they attempt to
influence the amount and quality of training provision to influence entry into skilled occupations and to address disadvantage in the labour market.
(3) Training as a Member Benefit
Beyond internal union education and beyond their engagement as social actors, unions also have an interest in training because of its role as a benefit of the employment relationship for their members.
Unions have long been concerned with the development of skills for entry to skilled occupations and, more recently, they have been concerned with the accreditation of their member’s skills that are gained at work. In the context of changing skill requirements at work, in the context of the emergence of new vocational qualifications, unions have an industrial interest in training issues.
Vocational training offers union members the opportunity to develop higher skills and transferable skills. Whether the focus is upon internal or external labour markets, vocational education and training offers union members access to more highly skilled and highly paid employment and it enhances their ability to deal with redeployment and redundancy.
This union concern with vocational training as a benefit for union members stimulates union interest in the regulation of training at the workplace as part of the employment relationship.
Unions are interested in how training is conducted, whether it is in paid time or unpaid time, whether it is for a recognised qualification or not. Unions are also interested in how skills are defined, assessed and accredited at work, and they are interested in how these skills are related to pay and job classification systems.
Unions in the workplace also have an interest in how changes in the workplace – changes due to technological, organizational or process restructuring - effect the skills required at work. Do such changes require up skilling, entail down skilling or skill maintenance? How will new skills be acquired, recognised and paid for?
Unions have a broad interest in training issues. They are interested in training for internal union development, they are interested in training as social actors and they have an interest in training at the workplace. These interests are not mutually exclusive and most unions undertake a number of different activities to support their interest in training. Australian unions undertake a range of training related activities. Unions have their own training departments, they are engaged with the training system and they conduct industrial negotiations for the provision of training at work.
Not all of these activities receive equal attention from unions, however, for whilst unions are engaged in a range of activities they often have a particular focus on some activities in preference to others. Some unions focus more upon union development training to support local representatives and build the union strength in the workplace, other unions focus more on union action within the training system to develop vocational qualifications and provision, whilst other unions focus mainly upon the industrial issues associated with training in the workplace. The differing dimensions of union interest in training are all important to unions but one dimension tends to dominate the union approach to training.
There are some general influences on the differing approaches taken by unions. Firstly a sectorial focus on the part of the union makes it easier to focus upon training issues. Unions that serve members in a single sector have a clearer focus upon training issues. They deal with a limited number of qualifications contained in one suite of industry training standards and they deal with one industry training body. Secondly, the skill level of members is a significant influence. Unions representing predominately trades level employees have a long standing concern with the quality of training and are more engaged with training issues. Unions in other sectors that have a much more recent history of training are often less so, particularly where that training is voluntary, firm specific and does not offer many labour market advantages to their members. Third, employer engagement is important. In industries experiencing skill shortages, employers are more focused upon training and there is more support from employers for the union to become involved in skill development and to become engaged in the VET system as social actors. Some employers have, for example, sought to have union representatives included on Skills Councils on an informal grace and favour basis.
Finally, the existence of skill-based pay and classification systems is an important influence. The creation of institutional links between the VET system and the IR system leads unions to focus upon the provision of training in the workplace. Where there are pay and classification systems based upon the attainment of industry qualifications, unions become more focused upon the stan- dards of training, the quality of training, and the local offer of training. Union initiatives for the provision of training (e.g. the negotiation of workplace skill centres) are closely related to the value of that training to members for their pay and career progression.
Different unions make different choices about the ways in which they engage with training issues.
These varying responses reflect not only decisions about strategies for union renewal but also the
industrial circumstances in which unions find themselves. The skill levels of the membership, the structure of industry pay and classification systems and the attitude of employers all act to con- strain or enable union approaches to training. This diversity of approaches to training is perhaps not surprising in a more liberal market system. In the comparative absence of labour market and training market regulation, employer voluntarism in relation to training is the norm and unions must work within the constraints of their particular industry. Unions have few institutional sup- ports available to them to help negotiate training issues with employers and consequently it is not surprising to find a diversity of approaches to training. Training remains a significant issue for Aus- tralian unions but there is seemingly no one best way to approach training issues in a more liberal market system.
2) Training as an Industrial Issue
Understanding the dimensions of union interest in training is useful when it comes to identifying the wide scope of the industrial issues that unions seek to negotiate in regards to training.
(1) Recognition of Union Development Training
Unions, firstly, seek employer recognition of the union development training that they provide.
Unions seek to negotiate access to training for local representative positions, such as that of Work- place Health and Safety (WHS) Representatives, and they seek to negotiate training leave for in- ternal union training. Training leave may be paid or unpaid and some unions also seek employer contributions towards the cost of union development training. In this way unions seek greater rec- ognition of their role in the workplace, including recognition of the training they provide to local representatives to effectively carry out their union duties in the workplace.
(2) Training as a Member Benefit
Union concern with vocational training as a benefit of the employment relationship for union mem- bers also stimulates union interest in the regulation of training at the workplace. The labour market outcomes of training for their members is of great interest to unions, whether those outcomes are realised in internal or external labour markets.
Unions are interested in how training is conducted, whether it is in paid time or unpaid time and whether it is for a recognised qualification or not. Unions are also interested in how skills are de- fined, assessed and accredited at work, and they are interested in how these skills are related to pay and job classification systems. If vocational training is seen as an issue for enterprise bargaining,
then the key issues that arise for unions are the definition and assessment of skill, the matching of skill levels to pay and classification systems, payment for training (training wages, payment for at- tendance, pay relativities for skill differentials, etc.) and member progression through training and hence pay and classification levels.
Unions are interested in the development of firm specific skills for their members but they are also interested in the development of transferable skills. They thus seek training that leads to recog- nized qualifications that are portable within an industry or that give their members some advantage in external labour markets.
(3) Training and Employee Voice
Alongside the benefits that accrue to members through vocational training, unions are also interest- ed in the way in which employee voice in the workplace is expressed. Employee voice in relation to training provision is important (how, when and where it is conducted) but unions also have an interest in how changes in the workplace – changes due to technological, organizational or process restructuring - effect the skills required at work. Do such changes require upskilling, entail down skilling or skill maintenance? How will new skills be acquired, recognised and paid for? What training will be provided to enable members to acquire new skills and to participate in change and restructuring programs initiated by managers?
Unions thus have a broad interest in training issues. They are interested in training for internal union development, they are interested in training as social actors and they have an interest in train- ing at the workplace. This broad interest in training leads unions to seek to negotiate over a wide range of training issues. Unions are concerned to have union development training recognised by employers, they are concerned with the conditions and benefits associated with workplace training and they are interested in the expression of employee voice in regards to training. Unions structure their industrial campaigns around this broad range of industrial issues. Training may become an in- dustrial issue because of its link to pay and classification in internal labour markets, because of its link to qualifications and member employability but also because of its link to union-management relationships in the workplace.
The exclusion of unions as social actors in the deregulated Australian VET system has seen unions focus mainly upon enterprise level industrial negotiations as a way of ensuring that members receive some benefits from workplace training. Unions in Australia have developed a stronger
focus upon training as an industrial issue as their scope for social action has diminished. Australian unions have increasingly focussed upon formal enterprise bargaining as other avenues of influence have been closed off. Legal and institutional change in Australia has made it more difficult for unions to become engaged in training issues.
The deregulation of industrial award provisions regarding training has also seen unions seek to protect member access to training through enterprise bargaining. Unions have sought to roll over the former provisions of industrial awards into EBA’s as a way of protecting the conditions won in relation to training.
The industrial mechanisms used by unions did vary from firm to firm and in some instances more informal, local mechanisms are used. In some firms informal representations to management are effective, whilst in others workplace consultative mechanisms may be used to deal with training issues. In these workplaces there may be no EBA or local agreement, with centralised industrial awards used instead as the basis of employment. These awards may not specify the conditions and benefits of training and hence these are dealt with by informal local negotiation to supplement the award. In some workplaces there may also be more effective working relationships between management and unions, relationships which mean that consultation in the workplace is an effective means of addressing training issues.
From the union perspective the use of local consultation mechanisms has the potential to enhance employee voice over training, but this potential is only realised in a minority of workplaces. In most workplaces access to training is an industrial issue and employee voice is only expressed through the framing of industrial claims that then become subject to industrial negotiation. Austra- lian unions are mainly focused upon negotiating the conditions of training, including such matters as payment for attendance, the training offer made by the firm and the standards of the qualifica- tions provided. The training offer is important for union members as this leads to the attainment of recognised qualifications which may then have an influence upon pay and career development.
Unions are also interested the conduct of skill assessments as these were often significant for the progress of members through training (and in some cases through pay and job classification sys- tems) leading to the awarding of qualifications.
The extension of employer prerogative in relation to training means that unions in the workplace have little influence over the actual conduct and delivery of training. They have little influence
over the time and location of training (whether it was in normal work hours or outside of work hours, whether it was on-site or off-site) and they had little influence over the training methods used (whether on-the-job or classroom based and so on). Training delivery or the direct provision of training seems to be more a matter of managerial prerogative in the Australian context with unions seemingly having little influence.
Australian unions have a largely industrial focus upon training issues but they do so because they see the labour market benefits for members of participating in training and acquiring vocational qualifications. Skill development helps union members in their career development (pay and classi- fication) in internal labour markets and also helps to develop their employability in external labour markets.
Training in the workplace remains an important issue for Australian unions. Training is a benefit of the employment relationship for members and, in some cases, the development of employee voice about training is an important dimension of union-management relationships.
4. Future Challenges
The deregulation of industrial relations accompanied by the deregulation of training provision has led to a situation where unions see the inequities in access to training growing wider amongst their members. The training offer made by firms is highly variable from industry to industry, from firm to firm, and from one group of employees to another.
1) Training and Labour Market Deregulation
The increasing deregulation of labour markets has meant, for many unions, that employers have paid more attention to reducing the cost of labour and increasing the flexibility of labour, than they have to the skill development of their employees. The provision of formal training has declined as the employer preference for informal and non-formal training that is firm specific has become well established. The cost reduction focus of management has also led to a perceived decline in job redesign efforts on the part of management and this has been associated with a decline in training for multi-skilling and workforce development. This is an issue for many unions and reflects a decline of the initial union stimulus to participate in the negotiation of workplace training. With the demise of job redesign initiatives and a renewed focus upon cost on the part of management, many unions have seen less value in participating as social actors in the VET system and they have paid less attention to training as an issue for their members (Mitchell et al 2010, Quinlan 1996).
Along with the change in employer preference for training, part-time and casual employment had grown and these employees are much less likely to receive training than those in continuing employment (Waddoups, 2012)
2) The Extension of Managerial Prerogative in Regards to Training
The extension of managerial prerogative in regards to training has seen a decline in the provision of formal training by Australian employers. Employers prefer to cut training costs as a way of reducing overall costs and even where skill shortages exist, they have a preference for the use of temporary guest workers over and above the training or retraining of local workers. Australia now has over 1 million temporary guest workers employed across a wide range of industries. Employers are less engaged in training issues and hence there is less union engagement as well.
The provision of formal training by Australian employers is largely driven by compliance obligations and such training does not necessarily lead to the attainment of vocational qualifications. The growing significance of informal and non-formal training has also led to a perceived decline in the quality of training. The deregulation of the curriculum for recognised qualifications has meant that more training has been delivered on-the-job and that skill assessments conducted by quick observations have replaced detailed instruction
The extension of managerial prerogative in regards to training has also led to great fragmentation in the provision of training by employers, even those in the same industries. Training provision is highly variable with some employers providing training that is negotiated in local industrial agreements but other refusing to enter into such agreements. The adoption of different approaches to training, even by companies in the same industry, meant that many qualifications were not as portable as might first be thought. Some employers recognise vocational qualifications, whist others look mainly for work experience: Even where unions have secured recognition of training in enterprise agreements this did not necessarily lead to improvements in training practice. In some cases training clauses were so broad as to be of limited value.
Australian unions are faced with a new set of issues when dealing with workplace training in a deregulated market environment. They face widening inequalities in the offer of training that is made and they face the expansion of managerial prerogative with the consequent diminution of employee voice. In a training system marked by employer voluntarism – there are few mandatory requirements upon employers to train – and in the context of a deregulated IR system, there are