The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-333X.

htm

Learning to count: a challenge facing trade unions in their educational role

Bill Lee
Accounting and Financial Management Group, University of Shefeld Management School, Shefeld, UK, and

Learning to count

287
Received 2 August 2010 Revised 3 October 2010 Accepted 4 October 2010

Catherine Cassell
People, Management and Organizations Division, Manchester Business School, Manchester, UK
Abstract
Purpose The purposes of this paper are to explain how the need arose for trade unions to develop accounting systems to monitor learning outcomes and to illuminate how trade unions rose to that challenge. Design/methodology/approach A semi-structured interview study of the full-time educational ofcers of a number of the UK trade unions produced transcripts that were analysed using template analysis and were supplemented by collection of documentary evidence from the trade unions and interviews and documents from related organizations. Findings Trade unions are starting to compile extensive information about the learning opportunities that they are facilitating. Practical implications Information produced by the trade unions accounting systems highlights the value of the governments investment in the union learning fund (ULF). Originality/value This is the only study to address the systems of monitoring developed by trade unions in response to the receipt of funds from the ULF in the UK. Keywords Accounting systems, Public administration, Trade unions, Financing, Learning, United Kingdom Paper type Research paper

Introduction New public management (NPM) created a need for many types of organization to expand their formal accounts. The movement from direct provision of health, education and welfare services by the state, to using state funds to purchase services from private or semi-autonomous bodies under NPM necessitates that those providers be able to demonstrate to public auditors, the existence and value of the services funded by the state if required to do so. Endurance of NPM mechanisms across changes in government leads to the potential for new policies whereby the state funds new activities. Difculties may arise if providers of those services have no previous experience or machinery for monitoring and reporting on their outputs. This was the general context for the introduction of a number of trade union-led, but state-nanced initiatives in the UK in recent years. NPM was introduced into the UK during the long period of conservative party governments between 1979 and 1997 (Goddard, 2002; Oliver and Drewry, 1996), at the same time as trade unions were seen as impediments to the efcient functioning

International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy Vol. 31 Nos. 5/6, 2011 pp. 287-301 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0144-333X DOI 10.1108/01443331111141273

IJSSP 31,5/6

288

of markets and generally excluded from any government-sponsored, policy-making bodies (Ainley and Corney, 1990; Sheldrake and Vickerstaff, 1987). During the subsequent period of labour party governments between 1997 and 2010, NPM endured (Goddard, 2002), but those governments were more sympathetic to trade unions, particularly in areas where the trade union movements learning agenda coincided with their own desires to overcome problems of basic skill deciencies and to up-skill the workforce (Clough, 2004). Government support for trade unions assistance in promoting learning has included granting statutory rights to union learning representatives (ULRs) to allow them to organize learning opportunities for their fellow workers and the establishment of the union learning fund (ULF) for inter alia sponsorship of ULRs learning activities (ACAS, 2003; DfEE, 1998; HMSO, 2002). Re-assimilation of trade unions into social policy presented them with the challenge of recording their learning activities, particularly those supported by government funding. The purpose of this paper is to elaborate the nature of this challenge faced by trade unions and to illustrate the ways in which trade unions responded to that challenge on projects that involved ULRs. The article utilizes an empirical study that included interviews with full-time trade union ofcials responsible for learning at different levels of their union to illuminate the trade unions responses. Both the ULR initiative (Alexandrou and Davies, 2006; Alexandrou et al., 2005; Alexandrou and OBrien, 2008; Cassell and Lee, 2007, 2009; Davies, 2008; Lee and Cassell, 2008a; Moore and Ross, 2008; Moore and Wood, 2005; Wallis et al., 2005) and the ULF (Shaw et al., 2002; Stuart et al., 2010) have been the subject of empirical research. However, this paper makes a unique contribution in illuminating the role that ULRs played in helping to monitor the realisation of learning goals in learning projects, many of which were funded from the ULF. The remainder of the paper is organized in the following way. First, to set the socio-political context, there is an elaboration of how changes in government and policy gave rise to providers of state-funded services having to account for the monies that they received from the state. Next, there is a discussion of the specic policies pursued by successive labour governments between 1997 and 2010, particularly the introduction of the ULF which necessitated that trade unions created new accounting systems to enumerate instances of learning and the introduction of ULRs who played an important role in that counting. Following a description of the methods of data collection and analysis, empirical evidence is offered to illuminate the pressures, realisation and difculties in the ways in which trade unions learned to enumerate learning outputs vis-a-vis inputs. The paper concludes by placing the empirical research in context by outlining the dual achievement of trade unions in realising learning goals and creating systems of accounting for recording those goals. The changing socio-political context Policy orientations of the UK Governments over the last 50 years may be divided into three broad periods. The period between 1960 and 1979 may be described as corporatist. Successive governments accepted the responsibility to oversee a welfare state that provided essential welfare services such as health and education to the population. The period also included incorporation of employers organizations and the trade union movement in tripartite agreements with the state, particularly in areas of the economy and skills development (Sheldrake and Vickerstaff, 1987). The period between 1979 and 1997 was one of neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism assumes the utility of the market so NPM

was adopted to purchase services from organizations not controlled directly by the state. Successive conservative governments used compulsory competitive tendering and privatization to shift responsibility for provision of some welfare services to the private sector and they established internal or quasi-markets with competition between units of a previously integrated whole as a means of delivering others (Clatworthy et al., 2000; Oliver and Drewry, 1996; Rouse and Smith, 1999). Government departments used targets, budgets and measurable units of performance to ensure that appropriate levels of productivity and quality continued at institutions over which they no longer exercised direct control (Hood, 1995, pp. 95-7). The National Audit Ofce was given greater powers to audit the economy, efciency and effectiveness of any public or private bodys expenditure of large sums of government money. This demanded that recipients of public money had their own auditable (Power, 1996, 2003) systems to account for the way in which the services that they delivered matched the revenues received from government. During the period of the corporatist state between 1960 and 1979, trade unions exercised a good degree of inuence over the learning opportunities of their members, particularly in occupations involving apprenticeships, by helping to set standards of training through their membership of tripartite Industrial Training Boards (ITBs) on which employers also sat. In the period of neo-liberalism between 1979 and 1997, trade unions were viewed as impediments to the functioning of markets and so were increasingly removed from inuencing public policy as tripartite bodies including most ITBs were disbanded (Ainley and Corney, 1990; Clough, 2008, pp. 400-1). Towards the end of that period, trade unions sought to re-establish their legitimacy by negotiating locally with employers over learning opportunities (Costino and Garavan, 1995; Heyes and Stuart, 1998, pp. 459-60). These negotiations were to emerge into what some authors have described as learning partnerships (Munroe and Rainbird, 2000; Stuart and Wallis, 2007) which some have seen as a potential opportunity for trade union renewal (Oxenbridge and Brown, 2002, p. 262). The trade unions learning agenda received endorsement and added impetus when the conservative party lost the 1997 general election. The incoming labour party government of 1997 saw the potential of trade unions to help in addressing basics skills deciencies and promoting lifelong learning in the pursuit of an up-skilled workforce (Alexandrou et al., 2005, pp. 10-11; Clough, 2008, p. 415 et seq; Moore and Ross, 2008, pp. 425-6). However, the incoming Labour Party government was to continue with the use of markets to deliver state-nanced services (Goddard, 2002, p. 675). The logical corollary of this set of circumstances was that if the government decided to give trade unions monies to help realise the governments learning objectives, trade unions would have to develop accounting systems to match instances of learning to receipt of government monies. The detail of some of the policy changes that gave trade unions a role in adult learning and receipt of government money will now be documented. The establishment of the ULF and the introduction of ULRs An important document in the 1997 Labour Party governments pursuit of lifelong learning was its Green Paper, The Learning Age (DfEE, 1998). This policy document established the ULF. Initially, the ULF was under direct control of a government department, the Department for Education and Employment and its successor the Department for Education and Skills. In 2001, responsibility for administering the ULF was passed to a new quasi non-governmental organization, the learning and skills

Learning to count

289

IJSSP 31,5/6

council (LSC), that the 1997-2001 Labour Party government had established by the 2000 Learning and Skills Act to play a role in pursuing its skills agenda. When the LSC was abolished, responsibility for administering the ULF was passed to the TUCs Unionlearn division in 2006 (Stuart et al., 2010, p. 5). The purpose of the ULF was dened as to:
[. . .] increase learning opportunities for the whole workforce, and especially for excluded groups of employees such as part-time workers, shift-workers, freelance workers and those with basic skills needs (DfES, 2001, p. 5).

290

Since the inception of the ULF in 1998, there have been 13 annual rounds of funding in which trade unions make bid for funds from the ULF for learning projects. The sum allocated to the ULF increased from 2 million per year at the time of its inception to over 15 million annually in recent years (Clough, 2008, p. 415). To summarise the process for expenditure of the ULF at the time of the research reported below; each year, the funds administrators specify criteria for bids. Trade unions were notied about the start of the next round of bidding. Prospectuses and application forms were made available, when a closing date for bids is specied. Trade union organizations prepare bids for funds for projects. An assessment panel used the criteria laid down for each round of bids to decide on the allocation of funds. Bids would include different measurements indicating the learning outputs along the important criteria. Learning outputs could include the numbers of learning representatives to be trained, skills diagnoses to be conducted, learning episodes to take place, different levels of qualications such as the national vocational qualications to be attained and the number of learning centres to be opened. In addition to the clearly quantiable targets, trade unions are also encouraged to articulate softer, less easily identiable and tangible outcomes such as an employee who has noticeably increased in condence and has taken on additional roles in the community, changed their attitude or become more condent (ULF application form). Signicantly, some ULF funds were ring-fenced for basic skills projects addressed to the most vulnerable sections of the adult population with lower levels of literacy and numeracy (Shaw et al., 2002, p. 8). Trade unions would be expected to set regular targets of outputs over the duration of an ILF-funded project and to offer projections of expenditure of the budget to realise those targets. Clearly, realisation of learning requires a means through which learning opportunities may be publicised and delivered. The Learning Age Green Paper (DfEE, 1998, paragraph 3.10) did not only help to establish the ULF, but it also included the suggestion of partnerships between trade unions and employers around learning. Such a suggestion coincided with the TUCs proposal of a national network of ULRs in 1998. The rst ULRs were trained and accredited in 2000, but they became much more widespread after the 2001-2005 Labour Party government introduced the 2002 amendments to the Employment Act (HMSO, 2002) to provide statutory recognition for ULRs. These legal rights took effect from April 2003 and granted ULRs that had undertaken properly accredited training reasonable paid time off for two main purposes: (1) To analyse learning or training needs of other employees regardless of whether they are union members, advising those employees on learning and training matters, arranging learning and training and generally promoting the value of learning or training. (2) To consult with their employer about matters of training affecting employees.

The legislation also states that ULRs should be paid for the time when they are preparing for the general activities highlighted above. People are also to be provided with paid time off to become ULRs. The objective was to have 22,000 ULRs trained by 2010. Brendan Barber, the TUC General Secretary announced at the TUC Unionlearn Learning for Life Annual Conference on Monday 12 July 2010 that 25,000 ULRs had now been trained. Research into ULRs in the UK has been quite extensive. There have been a number of empirical studies of ULRs in different individual unions including Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), connect, the Educational Institute of Scotland (Alexandrou et al., 2005; Alexandrou and OBrien, 2008; Davies, 2008) as well as general studies across different unions (Cassell and Lee, 2007, 2009; Lee and Cassell, 2008a, b, c; Moore and Wood, 2005; TUC, 2004; Wallis et al., 2005). These studies have reported that ULRs have opened up learning opportunities (Alexandrou et al., 2005; Cassell and Lee, 2007, 2009; Wallis et al., 2005, p. 298) sometimes as part of continuing professional development schemes (Alexandrou and Davies, 2006; Alexandrou and OBrien, 2008). They have achieved these objectives despite sometimes facing resistance from employers (Cassell and Lee, 2009; Moore and Wood, 2005; TUC, 2004). Research into the ULF has been less extensive. A recent study of the ULF that included a survey of employers found a high level of employer engagement. Stuart et al. (2010, p. 14) found that their survey of employers revealed that learning agreements had been signed in 53 per cent of workplaces and in three quarters of such workplaces, there were learning committees on which both employers and trade unions sit. The same survey also found that a high number of employer respondents had experience of ULF-projects with 45 per cent reporting engagement with a current project and higher percentages reporting provision of ULR facility time (88 per cent), funding employees to take work-related courses (78 per cent), addressing the basic skills gap (77 per cent) and introducing qualications (71 per cent) in relation to past projects (Stuart et al., 2010, p. 9). This is encouraging, as in the history of the ULF, the contract for release of funds has been signed between the ULF and the trade union or a trade union ofcial responsible for a project and it is up to the trade union to make agreements with employers. The focus only on trade unions relationships with employers and the extent to which that relationship facilitates success in learning projects assumes that trade unions have systems in place to monitor the success. Given that the ULF was a new innovation that provided government funds for trade union-led learning activities, those trade unions were also faced with the challenge of constructing systems to account for how those funds were spent on learning activities. The purpose of the discussion below is to examine how trade unions created those systems and to consider how they overcame some of the problems that they encountered in that challenge. Empirical study The evidence reported below is taken from a project in an ongoing programme of research into learning representatives in a number of countries (Cassell and Lee, 2007, 2009; Lee and Cassell, 2008a, b, c, 2009a, b). This particular project was carried out between 2003 and 2005. Most data were collected through interviews with full-time trade union ofcials who held responsibility for learning in their respective unions, although interviews were also held with programme leaders at a trade union college that trained ULRs, an accountant who oversaw expenditure of the ULF and representatives of two

Learning to count

291

IJSSP 31,5/6

292

regions of what were then called TUC Learning Services (now Unionlearn). Full-time ofcials were chosen as the main respondents because a number of their posts had been funded from the ULF and they were in a strong position to provide an overview of how the ULR initiative was operating across a number of companies. An important dimension of that research was the way in which the trade unions were accounting for learning in the initiative. Interviews were conducted with 15 full-time ofcials who had responsibility for learning at either national or regional level. See Cassell and Lee (2007, 2009) for the list of trade unions visited, their membership and the number of respondents from each trade union. It is sufcient to report that the ofcials represent unions that accounted for around 70 per cent of the TUC afliated membership. At the time of the research visits, documentary evidence including copies of bids for ULF monies and materials used to record learning were collected. Each interview took between 60 and 90 minutes and was conducted jointly by the two authors in each interviewees place of work. All interviews with the trade union ofcials were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. The interview data were analysed by conducting template analysis (King, 2004) on the transcripts. This analysis included organizing all data from interviews and other sources under headings which included accounting and auditing of learning and difculties experienced in that process. Qualitative research methods generally and semi-structured interviews in particular were chosen because there were very few academic studies about ULRs and so any method had to be sufciently exible to capture details of new and emergent practices. Face to face, semi-structured interviews also allowed the researchers to establish a rapport with the interviewees who might have otherwise doubted the motives of researchers from management schools inquiring into trade union initiatives. Although research of this kind will always be faced with the perennial criticism that the ndings cannot be generalized beyond the specic bodies that were studied, the trade unions that were researched were signicant because the advanced nature of their ULR programmes allowed understanding of an emergent change. Moreover, the conduct of case studies of a number of trade unions introduction of ULRs allowed comparisons between the different cases allowed identication and theorisation of any variations (Cassell and Lee, 2009) and common features such as the mechanisms of accounting discussed below. Template analysis was adopted because it provides a exible means of aggregating data from different interviewees and sources of data to identify commonalities and variations across sources. While, there is always a danger that extracts from a source will be interpreted out of the context of a broader interview or case, this drawback can be avoided by constantly revisiting the extract in the context of the original interview. This practice was adopted in the course of this analysis. The account below was then composed. This part of the discussion is organised into three sub-sections. The rst outlines a difculty inherent in ULRs dual role of organizing learning and recording the details of such learning. The second outlines the general approach to the creation of a system of accounting for learning and the collection and recording of data adopted by full-time ofcials in trade unions to help overcome that difculty. The third explores some additional difculties that trade unions experienced in recording outcomes of learning.

(a) ULRs dual role The inception of ULRs and the receipt of government monies creates a dual obligation for those ULRs; to facilitate learning opportunities for their fellow workers and to record that they have done so. This creates a challenge for trade unions of how best to create systems for recording ULRs activities at times that are often simultaneous to when the new representatives are being introduced. Trade unions tended to recognise the ontology of this dilemma, i.e. that it was not possible to have activities of ULRs to monitor without rst having ULRs. Consequently, in the most successful projects, the TUs established the ULRs before seeking to introduce mechanisms to help monitor their activities. A full-time ofcial at PCS explained:
Our priority was to get learning reps established and to get them working and, you know, that was our rst priority before, you know, monitoring.

Learning to count

293

Many of the people who volunteer to become lay ULRs are motivated by the substantive task of facilitating learning rather than documenting the learning that had taken place. Many had not been lay ofcials before (TUC, 2004) and were unlikely to be attracted to taking on an active role by the bureaucratic operations within the trade union. This problem was articulated most clearly by the organiser from the TU college who said:
I was a trade union activist before I came into the work and Im no different to the reps that I train. I want to do the job. I dont want to show on paper how its done. I just want to get in there and do it. [. . .] I dislike it (i.e. the paperwork), but were paid to do it, but the reps arent and my fear is it will put some of them off.

Some trade unions full-time ofcials were sensitive to the possibility that the onus for ULRs to provide records could discourage them from engagement in ULR activity. Consequently, the TUs sought to introduce systems of recording that were quite simple for the ULRs to use. An ofcial of PCS said:
I suppose when we started we didnt want to overburden them. We didnt want to sort of put people off by [. . .] you know, with bureaucracy and so on and we may have put something in place that was too complicated or too burdensome for them.

The next part of the discussion considers how trade unions constructed the systems of accounting for learning without discouraging ULRs from engaging in their work. (b) Trade unions collection and recording of data: the creation of a system of recording learning outputs Although, there were some variations depending on the particular aim of a project and whether it was administered at a national or regional level, a general approach to monitoring and compiling information of the realisation of outputs against targets could be identied. Different component parts of the trade union organisation covered by a bid for ULF monies such as regions, districts or branches would be allocated targets of outputs that, when aggregated, corresponded with the quarterly targets in the successful bid for funds from the ULF. Some of these targets, such as the numbers of ULRs recruited, trained and engaged on follow-up training may be compiled by full-time staff at a higher level. There was clear evidence from the interviews that the full-time ofcials were compiling this information. For example, a respondent from PCS said weve been doing basic monitoring, so we can track learning reps, we know where they are, we know what training theyve done, etc. However, many other activities such as learning interviews

IJSSP 31,5/6

294

conducted, learning episodes booked, etc. arise from the activities of the individual lay ULR. ULRs are an important source of intelligence. It was thus, necessary to get the individual learning representatives to compile this information. Some trade unions have built an obligation for ULRs to record instances of learning episodes and interests into a description of local ULRs and for the branch learning ofcial to collate statistics from individual learning representatives (Davies, 2008, p. 302). A number of trade unions produced learner interview forms to assist the ULRs to help in the recording and compilation of this information. A particular example is shown in Figure 1. The ULRs might then either send the completed forms directly to the next ofce in the TUs hierarchy, so that the gures could be collated, or collate the information themselves each month using a form such as that shown as Figure 2. As noted above ULRs are motivated by facilitating learning, rather than by engaging in paperwork. The consequence was that sometimes low numbers of forms were returned to full-time ofcials. Instances were
TU learning Rep document Learner Interview Form Name Membership number Telephone Branch Gender: Male Female Grade: Employer and workplace Contract: part-time full-time part year shift worker other Temporary permanent Learning needs or interests identified: Foreign language Information technology Learning for fun . Continuing Professional Development Further education GCSE A level Skills for life Numeracy Literacy NVQ Foundation Higher education ICT Degree Post graduate English for Speakers of Other Scottish qualifications please list Languages (ESOL) .. Other .. .. .. Action taken (e.g. information offered or where referred to) and agreed outcome

Learners signature Age group: under 25 Ethnicity: Asian Black

2545 Chinese

date over 45 White other

Figure 1. TU learning rep document: learner interview form

Do you consider that you have a disability? Yes No (this information is needed by the TU to enable us to monitor the effectiveness of the Learning Rep initiative) Follow-up interview date:

TU Learning Rep document Union Learning Representative Summary Form Branch name Union Learning Rep ID Gender of learners Number of interviews Grade of learners A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 Male Female Total Month ending

Learning to count

295

Employer and workplace A Contract Part time Temporary Age group Under 25 Ethnic group Asian Black Chinese White Other 25 45 Over 45 Full time Permanent Part year Shift worker B C D E F

Number of identified disabled learners Number of learners attending IT courses Number of learners on Continuing Professional Development related courses Number of learners attending other FE courses (GCS Es, A levels, NVQ) Number of learners attending higher education courses (Degree, Diploma, etc.) Number of learners attending other courses Number of Skills for Life screenings undertaken Number of people attending awareness/dissemination events Number attending Information, Advice and Guidance sessions

Figure 2. TU learning rep document: union learning representative summary form

reported of getting less than fty replies from 330 learning representatives (PCS ofcial). Trade unions had to build a safeguard for when small numbers of forms were returned. This generally involved full-time ofcials phoning the ULRs to ask them about the activities. The full-time ofcials would then have the responsibility for collating the information from whatever number of ULRs fell into their constituency, using paperwork such as the Branch Learning Ofcer Form, shown as Figure 3. The full-time trade union ofcials at this level would then forward the collated gures to the next level of the hierarchy, up to a point where the administrator of a successful bid to the ULF was situated, so that the gures could be reported to the nance providers. As noted above, it was also expected that TUs would report on qualitative data. This responsibility also tended to fall on the full-time ofcials. For example, a regional organiser for Transport Salaried Staffs Association reported:

IJSSP 31,5/6

TU Learning Rep document Branch Learning Officer form Branch name Gender of Learners Total number of learners A1 Grade of Learners Total number of learners A Employer and Workplace Total number of learners Under 25 Age group Part time Contract (temporary) Total number of learners Part time Contract (permanent) Total number of learners Asian Ethnic group Total number of learners Disability Profile of measurable outcomes IT courses FE courses (GCSEs, A levels, NVQs) Other courses Continuing Professional Development ULRs trained ULRs trained in TUC Basic Skills module Skills for Life screenings undertaken ULRs trained in satellite/other modules Number of awareness/dissemination events Number attending Information, Advice and Guidance sessions ULR1 ULR2 ULR3 Total C/F Black Chinese White Other Full time Part year Shift worker Other Full time Part year Shift worker Other 2545 Over 45 B C D E F A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 Month ending Male Female Total

296

Figure 3. TU learning rep document: branch learning ofcer form

It is slightly more difcult dealing with more qualitative data and trying to capture that. [. . .] So they [ULRs] get regular phone calls [from Regional Organisers] saying: Can you just tell me what youve been doing recently? and they can jot down a quote or a few sort of a few sentences about what that persons been doing and how they feel about things.

The procedures described helped to establish systems of accounting for learning. The data could be reported back to the ULF. The systems could also be audited if required to demonstrate that trade unions know how they were spending ULF monies. (c) Additional problems in recording Although trade unions created systems of recording learning outputs, there were some forms of information that were more elusive than others for a variety of reasons. One important reason was condentiality. Condentiality issues sometimes arose because of the low level of education that many learners had attained previously. Many suffered from poor levels of basic literacy and numeracy, even to the extent that they were unable to read safety notices. This placed their employment in jeopardy and they were not prepared to disclose their limitations to their employers. They were prepared to conde in their fellow workmates who were agents of a TU organisation that had been established to represent them. However, they expected that condentiality to be protected. A full-time National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) ofcial explained both the problem and the way in which it was being resolved:
Ive got reps coming to me saying, Ive got 10 people doing a basic skills course, and the question is what to do about their names and addresses. I know that some of them wont give them to me or there are certainly a few people whove made it very clear they want to do a course, but no one is to know their name. They dont want managers to know, they dont want the union to know and they are very secretive about it, particularly in the case of literacy and numeracy. And weve decided, well, weve just spoken to the union learning fund whos come back saying that we dont need names. We just need numbers and we need the name of the college and then they can [. . .] you know, weve got a paper trail to lead them back to the college.

Learning to count

297

As Power (1996, p. 298) has argued, the concept of auditable systems is tied up closely with the veriability of the outputs that the system measures. In this instance, the outputs could not be measured directly, but their existence could be veried by reference to another system that was considered to be auditable. A second reason why it was not possible to record the product of ULR activities was because there was not a simple progression that could be traced from inputs to outputs. For example, people would either hear a discussion or receive advice about learning from a ULR. Only later would people subsequently enrol on college courses, but they would not necessarily inform the ULR of that action. Consequently, the benets were hidden and progress was not recorded. Some ofcials highlighted that even where the benets of ULR activity were recognised and recorded, capturing the output of the acquisition of a new skill did not necessarily capture sufciently the outcome of the way that the learning undertaken had transformed someones life. For example, using e-mail was not simply a skill, but an opportunity to communicate more frequently with relatives in distant countries. Similarly, learning mathematics did not simply allow someone to apply different computational functions, but it enhanced their relationships with signicant others such as their grandchildren whom they were subsequently able to assist with their homework. A third reason why trade unions systems of monitoring learning did not capture the full nature of outputs was because the systems were designed to capture local outputs, but some benets materialises at a national or more removed level. For example, ULRs and the ULF as a whole were addressing basic skills deciencies in a highly effective way, enabling the government to up-skill the workforce generally

IJSSP 31,5/6

to a level that was comparable with its competitors and changing the culture of companies. A representative of RMT expressed this last benet in the following way:
I think on a slightly less tangible level it would be breaking down some of the barriers to learning that exist [. . .] and changing the culture [. . .] People are a lot more open about going and doing courses and admitting that theyve got skills needs and I think that is one of the real strengths of it and I think thats a good measure of success, but obviously its quite hard to measure that kind of culture change of people being a lot more open to learning.

298

A consequence of that has been that trade unions have succeeded in leveraging more resources for learning and up-skilling from employers (Stuart et al., 2010, p. 15). It is not only the intangibility of some of the changes, but also the length of time before such changes became sufciently manifest to warrant comment. A full-time ofcial from Amicus (now unite) explained:
Were getting reports back from the members. Also reports back from the company itself saying that this is being useful, helpful, you know. The difference in the way that the staff may well be more interested in what the hecks going on and the direction the companys taking or whatever, so that sort of thing is the information that were getting back and I think they are doing quite a good job.

Nevertheless, these different benets have materialised in addition to those recorded by trade unions systems of monitoring. Conclusion At the TUC Unionlearns Learning for Life Annual Conference on Monday 12 July 2010, the Director of Unionlearn, Tom Wilson reported that one million learning opportunities had been accessed through the ULF since its inception at a cost of 100 each. Given the difculty in reaching many of the people who beneted from that learning, the value offered by each learning opportunity created is impressive. Yet, what is equally signicant is that the claim could be made with some accuracy when the apparatus for both the creation and monitoring of those learning opportunities including the ULRs was not in place ten years previously. Both dimensions of that apparatus have had to be created almost simultaneously. The contribution of this article has been to help illuminate the nature of the apparatus for monitoring and how some of the potential difculties in its creation have been overcome. The paper has clear implications for policy makers. Both the ULF and ULRs have been extremely effective in helping to spread learning opportunities more widely and any government that is serious about promoting equality would continue to provide nancial assistance to extend these initiatives. Furthermore, the 2005-2010 Labour Party governments promise to provide workers with the right to request their employers to provide them with time to learn while being paid would, if honoured by the Conservative and Liberal Democratic Parties coalition government, extend learning opportunities to the parts of the workforce denied learning opportunities to date. The paper also has implications for academic audiences. The learning agenda has been seen as central to trade unions potential for renewal (Oxenbridge and Brown, 2002). The establishment of ULRs will help trade unions to appeal to new members and attract new activists who are interested in promoting learning. However, trade unions will always have their critics. Establishment of the legitimacy of trade unions in the eld of learning is dependent in part on trade unions being able to record what they have achieved

to illustrate their success. The institution of accounting mechanisms documented above has helped in this. A question of academic interest is now that ULRs have existed for a lengthy period whether it is possible to develop suitable mechanisms for measuring the longer term economic and social benets of the learning that ULRs have facilitated. Notably, there have also been some parallel developments in the area of trade union-led learning in other countries with learning representatives being introduced in New Zealand and a comparable representative in the form of competence pilots in Finland, each being supported through nance from their respective governments. This raises potential research questions of whether similar forms of accounting were developed by trade unions in those countries and if not why not?
References ACAS (2003), Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities (Including Guidance on Time Off for Union Learning Representatives), The Stationery Ofce, London. Ainley, P. and Corney, M. (1990), Training for the Future: The Rise and Fall of the Manpower Services Commission, Cassell Educational Limited, London. Alexandrou, A. and Davies, J.D. (2006), Union learning representatives a new source of professional support for Scottish teachers, Research in Post-Compulsory Education, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 175-90. Alexandrou, A. and OBrien, J. (2008), Partnerships out of conict: the emerging relationship of teacher learning representatives and local authority continuing professional development quality improvement ofcers in Scotland, Journal of In-Service Education, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 483-96. Alexandrou, A., Davies, J.D. and Lee, J. (2005), Union learning representatives: a case study of the public and commercial services union, Journal of In-Service Education, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 9-26. Cassell, C. and Lee, B. (2007), Re-vitalising learning and development? Exploring the role of the trade union learning representative, Personnel Review, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 781-99. Cassell, C. and Lee, B. (2009), Trade union learning representatives: progressing partnership? Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 213-30. Clatworthy, M.A., Mellet, H.J. and Peel, M.J. (2000), Corporate governance under new public management: an exemplication, Corporate Governance, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 166-76. Clough, B. (2004), The Emerging Role of Unions in the UK Learning and Skills System: From Spearholders to Stakeholders, TUC, London. Clough, B. (2008), Unions and learning: an historical overview, Journal of In-Service Education, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 399-422. Costino, P. and Garavan, T.N. (1995), Trade union attitudes to training and development: the road to a more positive and proactive approach, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 38-44. Davies, S. (2008), Union learning reps in a high tech industry, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 297-315. DfEE (1998), The Learning Age: A Renaissance for a New Britain, Green Paper, DfEE, Shefeld. DfES (2001), Providing Statutory Rights for Union Learning Representatives, DfES, Shefeld. Goddard, A. (2002), Development of the accounting profession and practices in the public sector a hegemonic analysis, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 655-88.

Learning to count

299

IJSSP 31,5/6

300

Heyes, J. and Stuart, M. (1998), Bargaining for skills: trade unions and training at the workplace, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 459-67. HMSO (2002), Employment Act 2002, available at: www.hmso.gov.uk/acts2002/20020022.htm (accessed 2 August 2010). Hood, C. (1995), The new public management in the 1980s: variation on a theme, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 20 Nos 2/3, pp. 93-109. King, N. (2004), Using templates in the thematic analysis of text, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (Eds), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, Sage, London, pp. 256-70. Lee, B. and Cassell, C. (2008a), Employee and social reporting as a war of position and the union learning representative initiative in the UK, Accounting Forum, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 276-87. Lee, B. and Cassell, C. (2008b), In-service learning in the emergent learning representative initiative in New Zealand, Journal of In-Service Education, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 497-512. Lee, B. and Cassell, C. (2008c), Learning representative initiatives in the UK and New Zealand: a means to exicurity?, Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 341-61. Lee, B. and Cassell, C. (2009a), Learning organizations, employee development and learning representative schemes in the UK and New Zealand, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 5-22. Lee, B. and Cassell, C. (2009b), Learning Representative Initiatives in the UK and New Zealand: A Comparative Study, TUC Unionlearn, London. Moore, S. and Ross, C. (2008), The evolving role of union learning representatives, Journal of In-Service Education, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 423-40. Moore, S. and Wood, H. (2005), The Union Learning Experience: National Surveys of Union Ofcers and ULRs, London Metropolitan University Working Lives Research Institute, London. Munroe, A. and Rainbird, H. (2000), Opening doors as well as banging on tables: an assessment of UNISON/employer partnerships on learning in Great Britain, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 223-40. Oliver, D. and Drewry, G. (1996), Public Service Reforms: Issues of Accountability and Public Law, Pinter, London. Oxenbridge, S. and Brown, W. (2002), The two faces of partnership? An assessment of partnership and co-operative employer/trade union relationships, Employee Relations, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 262-76. Power, M. (1996), Making things auditable, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 21 Nos 2/3, pp. 289-315. Power, M. (2003), Evaluating the audit explosion, Law and Policy, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 185-202. Rouse, J. and Smith, G. (1999), Accountability, in Powell, M. (Ed.), New Labour, New Welfare State: The Third Way in British Social Policy, Polity Press, Bristol, pp. 235-55. Shaw, N., Armistead, C., Rodgers, J. and Hopwood, V. (2002), Evaluation of the Union Learning Fund Year 4, Queens Printer, Norwich. Sheldrake, J. and Vickerstaff, S. (1987), The History of Industrial Training in Britain, Avebury, Aldershot. Stuart, M. and Wallis, E. (2007), Partnership approaches to learning: a seven-country study, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 301-21. Stuart, M., Cook, H., Cutter, J. and Winteron, J. (2010), Evaluation of the Union Learning Fund and Unionlearn: Preliminary Findings, Unionlean, London.

TUC (2004), New Faces: The Changing Prole of Union Learning Reps, TUC, London. Wallis, E., Stuart, M. and Greenwood, I. (2005), Learners of the workplace unite!: An empirical examination of the UK trade union learning representative initiative, Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 283-304. Further reading Hood, C., James, O., Jones, G., Scott, C. and Travers, T. (1998), Regulation inside government: where new public management meets the audit explosion, Public Money & Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 61-8. About the authors Bill Lee is a Senior Lecturer in Accounting and Financial Management at the University of Shefelds Management School. He has a long standing research interest in the area of vocational learning as well as in accounting and accountability. Bill Lee is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: w.j.lee@Shefeld.ac.uk Catherine Cassell is Professor of Organizational Psychology and Head of the People, Management and Organizations Division at Manchester Business School, the University of Manchester. Her research interests focus upon organizational change, learning, diversity and development.

Learning to count

301

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints