Tag Archives: CERIC

Brexit and worker’s rights: should workers and trade unions be concerned?

DSC_4741

Dr Liz Oliver

Brexit creates uncertainty for important employment rights. Very many of the employment rights that have come to be expected as part of an employment relationship in the UK derive from EU law. Should the UK no longer be obliged to maintain these as part of its obligations under whatever relationship it has to the EU, then their future becomes much less certain. Could, on the other hand, Brexit create an opportunity for employment rights? An opportunity to re-think the way that employment law and other forms of regulation (such as collective bargaining) work together in a way that suits the economy in UK and responds to the national and global challenges that workers face? The answer to that question very much depends on the opportunity for an open and informed democratic debate. Whilst the Government is making assurances about protecting the workers’ rights, the mechanism by which it is doing this – ‘a Great Repeal Bill’ – potentially contains a back door through which such provisions could be readily amended or repealed without the full scrutiny of Parliament. Unfortunately therefore both workers and trade unions are right to be concerned.

What is at stake?

The impact of EU law on employment in the UK reaches far and wide, encompassing equality legislation; pregnancy; maternity and parental leave; paid holiday; employee rights in the context of insolvency; collective consultation in the context of redundancy to name but a few areas. Others have mapped this in great detail.

The impact of Brexit on this body of workers’ rights depends on two main contingencies;

  • the nature of the future relationship with the EU and
  • the political climate with regard to employment regulation at national level

It seems unlikely that the UK’s future relationship with the EU will entail obligations in the area of employment and other social law but much remains to be seen. As details of the Prime Minister’s negotiating strategy emerge in particular the intention to leave the single market and customs union and not to contemplate existing models such as ‘the Norway option’ which would entail continued membership of the European Economic Area. It becomes clearer that the overriding goal is for the UK’s future relationship with the EU to entail minimal to non-existent obligations. Nevertheless much remains to be seen. The Prime Minister’s speech and the subsequent white paper set out her unilateral intentions ahead of the negotiation with the other Member States of the EU. As such, it is aspirational and projects an intention for Theresa May to have her cake and eat it too. Any concessions around key objectives such as the “greatest possible access” to the single market and “tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible” will come with considerable strings attached.

In terms of the political climate with regard to employment regulation, the picture here is mixed. The current Government has not taken the overtly deregulatory stance of the Coalition Government or previous Conservative Government and the Prime Minister and her government have made assurances about protecting workers rights. Nevertheless concrete legal steps to ensure that current standards are maintained are lacking. Of particular significance is the distribution of power between the Executive (Government) and Parliament in decision making in the area of employment law. This important matter will shape extent to which matters of employment law will be opened up to democratic debate.

To what extent will worker’s rights be protected and maintained through the Brexit process and beyond?

The EU law that is relevant to employment takes different forms and takes effect at national level in different ways. Whilst some employment law derived from the EU can be found in Acts of Parliament (primary law) other provisions have been transposed using secondary legislation based on the European Communities Act 1972 and others still take effect automatically because they are directly applicable (The European Communities Act 1972 allows such provisions to have effect without further enactment).

Brexit poses two types of issues 1) technical issues about the form and function of different provisions and 2) issues of substance about what role employment law should take within the UK.  As the discussion below will show. The two issues interrelate.

Following the referendum result some called for a repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 (in order to ‘undo’ EU law), but it was clear that that position would be unworkable. The Prime Minister has instead announced a bridging mechanism in the form of a ‘Great Repeal Bill’ which will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and transpose existing EU law into national law. The Government’s white paper on the UK’s exit from the EU contains assurances about worker’s rights:

“The Great Repeal Bill will maintain the protections and standards that benefit workers. Moreover, this Government has committed not only to safeguard the rights of workers set out in European legislation, but to enhance them”

On the one hand this looks like a sensible idea. It maintains legal certainly and potentially opens up a space to review what provisions to keep and whether or how to change or remove them. But an important question is who gets to make these decisions. Will it be Parliament or will it be the Government?

Constitutional lawyers have identified the proposed use of enabling provisions within Great Repeal Bill as a stumbling block to achieving enhanced Parliamentary sovereignty. The Department for Exiting the European Union’s announcement states “The Repeal Bill will include powers for ministers to make some changes by secondary legislation, giving the Government the flexibility to take account of the negotiations with the EU as they proceed.” Such enabling provisions may give ministers the power to amend or repeal former EU law based on the Great Repeal Act using ‘light touch’ secondary legislation. Of particular concern are so called ‘Henry VIII’ clauses which would allow for the repeal of primary law without further Parliamentary scrutiny, these could open up employment law that is already enacted by Acts of Parliament to amendment or repeal. It raises concerns that the ‘back door’ is left open for the Government to make significant changes to employment law without full debate or scrutiny. The scope and exercise of such powers will delineate the potential for Parliamentary (democratic) debate about what employment standards are expected by workers and employers within the UK.

The size and shape of the ‘back door’ is yet to be seen but talking about assurances that the Government has given on worker’s rights one legal expert notes

“There’s a definite “fox in charge of the henhouse” vibe here – quite literally so, if we remind ourselves of cabinet minister Liam Fox’s attitude to EU employment regulation”.

Workers and trade unions are right to be concerned and to seek legal mechanisms to guarantee employment rights.

Attempts to assure worker’s rights

Labour MP Melanie Onn introduced a private members Bill ‘The Workers’ Rights (Maintenance of EU Standards) Bill’ as an attempt to ensure that the current legal regime remains in place, however this was ‘talked out’ of Parliament on Friday (13th January).

Several amendments to the ‘Article 50 Bill’ (European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016-17) seeking to protect employment law were tabled. These took different forms, some sought to ensure  that the Prime Minister have regard to the public interest in existing social rights and others sought to ensure that current provisions are maintained and that Parliament has full scrutiny of any proposed changes to primary and secondary law. None of these amendments have held.

My view

Whilst some have argued that the removal of key employment protections that derive from EU law would be ‘politically unthinkable’ others argue that it would be ‘naïve’ to assume that any of the rights derived from EU law would be immune from repeal. It is my view is that a government with a deregulatory agenda can make important changes to employment law that are far reaching yet subtle, even where whole-sale deregulation would be politically unworkable (see previous blog post). The use of Henry VIII clauses within the proposed ‘Great Repeal Act’ could facilitate far-reaching changes without commensurate democratic debate. Employment law is complicated stuff, nothing short of a full and open democratic debate can support its appropriate reform. The Brexit domain is a million miles from this.

Understanding the implications of the global growth of non-standard work

calum-carson-web

Calum Carson reflects on his input into a major new research report by the International Labour Organisation on the growth of non-standard forms of employment around the world.

During the past few decades, a key debate has emerged in the work and employment research field as to whether the traditional laws and conventions that regulate employment and the employer-employee relationship have been irrevocably transformed by the rise of a number of new, “non-standard” forms of employment (NSFE). While this has long been a major issue of contention these developments are now being taken seriously by major global actors such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The continued growth of NSFE and its implications for those employed in such roles are the key focus of a major new report launched this month by the ILO, which highlights the policies needed to improve the quality of non-standard jobs. The report finds that there has been a rise in non-standard forms of employment globally, to the extent of which that they are now, in the words of ILO Deputy Director-General for Policy, Deborah Greenfield, “a widespread feature of contemporary labour markets.”

Such non-standard forms of employment include temporary roles; part-time work; temporary agency work; “micro jobs”; the misclassification of individuals in certain roles as “independent contractors” (otherwise known as disguised employment relationships); and dependent self-employment. In Britain in particular, the growth in the number of workers employed on zero-hour contracts reflects the rise of these new forms of employment, with over 903,000 individuals (2.9% of the entire workforce) employed under such contracts. Additionally, a comprehensive analysis published in November revealed that more than one in five workers in the UK (over 7.1 million people) are employed under precarious working conditions, up from 5.3 million in just 2006.

With the continued growth in NSFE an ever-greater number of workers are unable to access certain benefits associated with a ‘traditional’ employment relationship, such as pension contributions from employers, paternity leave, and sickness and annual leave pay. Such workers also struggle to collectively organise and represent themselves in disputes with their employers via effective trade unions, as seen most recently in the UK with strikes by Deliveroo and Uber workers. The rise of these new forms of employment call for new forms of regulation in turn, both in order to address both the issues discussed above, and to ensure that the future evolution of NSFE develops in a sustainable manner for both workers and their employers.

While the ILO report does highlight the positive implications that NSFE can have in certain instances, including providing access to the labour market for disadvantaged groups and granting some flexibility to both workers and employers, it also cautions that NSFE is often associated with greater insecurity for workers. In some cases, particularly where contractual arrangements have blurred the employment relationship, there is evidence that workers have difficulty exercising their fundamental rights at work, or gaining access to social security benefits and on-the-job training. These issues also affect employers, too, by creating productivity losses and resulting in high rates of turnover in staff.

Finally, the report suggests four key policy recommendations to improve the quality of non-standard jobs: to plug regulatory gaps in the oversight of NSFE roles, in order to protect workers in a more direct manner; to strengthen collective bargaining for NSFE workers, to enable them to challenge their employers where necessary; to strengthen social protection of workers, to ensure that workers have access to the same level of benefits that workers working under a traditional employer-employee relationship do; and by instituting employment and social policies that support job creation and that accommodate workers’ needs not only for training, but also for family responsibilities such as childcare and elder care.

In the context of the growth of NSFE and its seemingly permanent embedding in labour markets across the world, this report makes an important contribution in helping to highlight the key issues surrounding this phenomena, and in how best to protect those workers operating within such roles both now and in the future. Such research is critical in helping us to fully understand and inform the continued development of these issues, as well as other changing dynamics within the world of work, employment and labour markets. The ILO, CERIC, and our colleagues across the world have a key role to play in the undertaking and dissemination of this crucial research.

Here at CERIC research into this area continues with a new study commissioned by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs of the European Parliament, which will examine the development of the collaborative economy in Europe and the potential need for greater social protections for workers operating within it. Involving a wide number of colleagues across CERIC and under the leadership of Professor Chris Forde, this research will report back its findings to the European Parliament and the wider public in May.

No shortcuts, organising for power

 

jane-mcalevey
Jane McAlevey

No shortcuts, organising for power
By Jane Holgate

On Tuesday 14 February 2017, Valentine’s Day, there was a large gathering at Congress House in London––the home of the UK’s Trade Union Congress. Over 150 people had forsaken candlelit dinners, wine and roses, instead choosing to attend a talk by Dr Jane McAlevey, whose new book, ‘No Shortcuts, organising for power in the new Gilded Age’, was being launched in the UK.  Professor Jane Holgate, from the Centre for Employment Relations, Innovation and Change, whose research work is around trade unions and organising strategies, was one of the organisers of this event. The room was filled with young (and old) trade unionists, community organisers, and people just interested in hearing what needs to be done to organise our communities to challenge the unequal power in society that has left many people either without jobs, or in low wage work that barely pays a living wage.

Dr McAlevey, a long-standing organiser in unions, and wider civil society, has recently completed a PhD on what is wrong with much of the ‘organising’ that is taking place today in many organisations­­––and particularly in unions. In conversation with the regional secretary of the South and Eastern TUC, who was hosting the event in conjunction with the charity Hope not Hate, she explained the crux of her argument­­––there is too great a focus on mobilising rather than organising: ‘most unions and social-change groups will say they’re organizing. I’m arguing that most are not—which is part of why we’re losing. The core difference to me is: what’s the role of the workers in the actual effort? Are the workers central to their own liberation? Are they central to the strategy to win a change in their workplace and in their communities? Or are they one teeny piece of a really complicated puzzle in which the workers’ voice and opinions are actually not decisive?’

The process of mobilizing tends to avoid involving rank and file workers, or the wider community––instead, she argues, that it tends to rely on pulling out the same already committed activists to protest, and thus is doing little to build a movement from the bottom up: ‘mobilizing is an activist-driven approach. Activists are the already converted who are not full-time professionals, or it could be full-time professionals in the movement—either one—but it’s people who are already with us. They already agree that Wall Street’s a problem; they already think that climate [change] is a problem; they already think that racism is a problem. They’re already standing with Black Lives Matter.’

Instead what is needed is deep organizing where people are expanding the base, where workers are central in organizing around their own issues that really matter to them, and where they are able to bring people along, either from their workplace, or their lived communities. What is also missing, she explained, is a proper understanding of power and how to challenge this. Dr McAlevey repeated said during the evening conversation that ‘life is a structure test’ by which she meant that there is a need to continually undertake power structure analysis when organizing to understand your opponent’s power and to assess the power there is within the communities in which you are organizing.  Only then, are you able to challenge that power and win concessions.

The problem with many trade unions campaigns today, she argued, is that they are top-down, where workers, if they come in at all, are pulled in at the end: ‘They are used as symbolic actors. They’re the face of the campaign. They’re trotted out to make testimony at the legislature about their bad boss, but they’re not actually central to the strategy. That’s the fundamental difference. The agency for change in the organizing model rests with ordinary people.’

The conversation with Dr McAlevey lasted two hours, but the evening of Valentine’s day wasn’t entirely without some reference to love. At the close, the audience was given paper hearts where they were asked to reflect on how they might organize differently reflecting on what they had heard. These hearts were put in sealed envelopes with the writer’s name and address and will be sent via post in a month’s time as a reminder of what they committed to this Valentine’s day.

‘No Shortcuts. Organising for Power in the new Gilded Age ‘can be bought from the publisher at Oxford University Press:

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/no-shortcuts-9780190624712?cc=gb&lang=en&

Steel in Crisis: Restructuring for People

ChrisMacpicture
Chris McLachlan, Leeds University Business School.

The construction of an industrial strategy for UK steel is essential. Within the debate over this requirement and as part of its development, it is important to have an understanding of what happens at plant level when restructuring and redundancy occur. A plant that is of key focus in the current steel crisis is Tata Steel’s long products site in Scunthorpe. The plant has undergone successive restructuring processes in recent years, with ‘Project Ark’ in 2011, ‘Path to Profit’ in 2013, and now the decision to sell the long products division.

Some 2,600 job losses have been announced over this 4 year period, which leaves the Scunthorpe site with approximately 3,000 employees. Since the divestment decision the security of the entire site has been under threat. The recent announcement of the potential sale of the long products division to UK based investment firm Greybull Capital provides hope for the Scunthorpe site, but for its employees a worrying period of uncertainty remains. This contraction of the UK steel industry workforce has, of course, been in train since the 1980s. Amidst the prevailing industrial context, the recent bout of restructuring is having profoundly negative effects on not only the lives and careers of individuals but also the communities affected by the restructuring. Banners at recent Save Our Steel events in Scunthorpe and Sheffield simply stating ‘HELP OUR TOWN’ (image below) are testament to the extensive impact of the current steel crisis. How might firms maintain their social responsibility to workers and communities in the face of these job cuts? Indeed, do organisations have a social responsibility for their employees?

Tata Steel Demo

At Scunthorpe, a notable step in attempting to develop a socially responsible approach to restructuring was the Project Ark process in 2011. This process was framed around a broader commercial strategy that reduced the volume of steel produced at the site, and further justified through a focus on producing higher quality, higher value added steel products along with a plan of investment in skills and training that sought to create a more flexible workforce. The consequence of this, however, was the announcement of 1200 job losses due the mothballing of the bloom and billet mill. The Project Ark strategy was a critical moment between Tata and the affiliated trade unions, as the job losses were essentially agreed by both parties to on the promise of future investment in skills and the broader commercial plan that promised to ensure the survival of the plant. Evidently, these promises were not upheld by Tata. At Save Our Steel rallies, senior union officials and MPs continue to bemoan the Project Ark process, with the subsequent Path to Profit process (500 job losses announced) perceived as a residual restructuring from the failures of Project Ark. Meanwhile, the HR team were rewarded for their efforts in managing the job losses, receiving an internal CEO award for their efforts in conducting a socially responsible restructuring process. Therefore, it is clear that Tata appreciate the need – the requirement, even – to ensure their restructuring practices are conducted in this way, with the process also being used as benchmark across the rest of their UK operations.

Tata claims a social responsibility to ameliorate the impact of these job losses for affected individuals and the local community. This commitment is laid out in its most recent Annual Report (2014-15). The socially responsible restructuring processes at Tata Steel UK have typically been characterised and managed through the avoidance of ‘hard’ (compulsory) redundancies – through redeployment practices such as cross-matching affected individuals in vacant positions internally – a close working relationship with the trade unions, and the provision of basic employability support in CV writing and interview training for those made redundant. As long as people who wish to leave do so voluntarily, this allows those wishing to remain to take up alternative employment within the organisation. The joint management-union goal of plant survival, has always been the key rationale underlying these processes. Amidst the prevailing industrial context the threat of restructuring within Tata seems more imminent than ever. The announcement of more job losses (18.1.16) at Tata UK’s Port Talbot site is clear evidence of this. In this context, the sustainability of this socially responsible approach to restructuring is subject to increasing amounts of pressure. The coming negotiations between Tata and its trades unions will prove historically significant not only for the fate of the Scunthorpe site but for the UK steel production more broadly. The feet of steel workers are being held firmly to the blast furnace fire.

Up to £6m has been pledged by UK Steel Enterprise (a CSR-based subsidiary of Tata that supports steel areas affected by restructuring) and the government to aid regeneration and job creation in Scunthorpe, along with another £3m aimed at funding retraining for affected individuals. Supportive measures like this, however important and in real terms quite limited, become devalued when CEO of Tata Steel Europe Karl Koehler claims that the long products division has no future beyond the end of the financial year. Moves like this further disillusion the workforce, creating a reluctance to engage with the range of support measures on offer. Additionally, recent changes in organisational structure in order to prepare the plant for being a ‘standalone’ business, then the subsequent decision to sell the division off, has put further pressure on the Scunthorpe plant to control costs and hence pressure on jobs. Given that previous restructuring processes have been necessarily framed around the survival of the plant, the imminent threats that these events pose bring into question any notion of a socially responsible approach. What is crucial in the negotiations around restructuring, job losses and sell off, is for Tata to continue to engage with trade unions in order to ameliorate, and where possible limit, the amount of job losses so as to ensure the process is conducted in a socially responsible fashion.

Chris McLachlan is a PhD student at Leeds University Business School and a member of the Centre for Employment Relations, Innovation and Change.

 

 

 

How can local authorities deliver better skills and employment support?

Jo Ingold 2
Dr Jo Ingold, Leeds University Business School

On the hottest day ever recorded in the UK, a diverse range of local authority Chief Executives from across the UK gathered in Harrogate for a Roundtable event ‘Can local government help deliver the welfare agenda?’ which ran alongside the Local Government Association Conference. In a short space of time we covered a range of issues. In this blog, I summarise the main issues that were debated, focusing on skills, the challenges of provision of employment support services, and the nature of effective evaluation.

Unsurprisingly skills came up as a key problem, including skills mismatches within local areas, both in relation to moving the unemployed into work and also with regard to employee retention and progression. One example given was of money being made available for skills training in particular geographical areas without incorporating intelligence about the jobs which are likely to be available in local and regional labour markets in future. Such skills mismatch problems are symptomatic of a broader fragmented landscape of skills and employment at the Whitehall level. The agendas of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills appear radically different in this area. The DWP seems more focused on the quickest way into work (in line with ongoing welfare reforms), rather than long-term skills development. In the context of potential (and partial, rather than total) devolution this fragmentation of the provision of social security and skills and employment support is likely to become even more messy, with accompanying accountability issues. Local Enterprise Partnerships (and their equivalents in Wales and Scotland) have a key role to play here but to date it’s not clear how far they are fulfilling this.

Also apparent from the discussion at the Roundtable was that amongst the local authority areas represented – from the urban to the rural and coastal – most were involved in delivering a range of employment support initiatives for a diverse range of groups outside the labour market, particularly those with multiple barriers to work. In some areas such projects were in response to perceived gaps in central government-commissioned Work Programme provision and in other areas they ran alongside the Work Programme. However, very little mention was made of partnerships with Work Programme providers. This raises two critical points.

Firstly, it seems sensible (and more cost-effective) not to duplicate existing – and, importantly, effective – provision. This will become even more crucial in the context of potential devolution settlements. Both local authorities and providers contracted to DWP to delivery employment services (alongside LEPs and their equivalents in Wales and Scotland) need to think more creatively about how to work together more effectively in the next Work Programme contract (from 2017). This is crucial for the provision of more effective employment support for the unemployed and also to provide a more coherent service for employers.

Secondly, with much good work going on, a key question is how to capture what is happening and to rigorously and robustly evaluate it. A few of the projects mentioned around the table were being evaluated but in the context of ongoing and severe local authority budget cuts, there is a need to think more creatively about how local authorities, organisations delivering employment and skills support and universities can work together to evaluate what works for whom and in what contexts (circumstances, labour markets). The black box approach of the Work Programme (freeing employment services up from government prescription) is a promising idea in principle. However, four years on from the introduction of the Work Programme it is still unclear as to whether and how evidence about what works is being harnessed and, importantly, disseminated across all interested organisations. As Julia Salado-Rasmussen argues in her recent CERIC blog, establishing causal links between active labour market interventions and outcomes can be difficult. The potential of more localised (and personalised) provision provides an opportunity for fine-grained and meaningful evaluation that can be better translated into future policy. However, one of the shortcomings of the competitive Work Programme model (and the broader commissioning of employment services) is that programme data can often be protected as ‘commercial in confidence’. It is crucial that such evidence is shared and used for wider benefit in order to inform future interventions to assist the unemployed into work.

Dr Jo Ingold is a Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Public Policy at Leeds University Business School, UK and is currently researching employer engagement in welfare to work programmes: http://business.leeds.ac.uk/research-and-innovation/research-projects/how-do-inter-organisational-relations-affect-employer-engagement-uk-and-denmark/

How do we know what works in active labour market policies?

Julia Salado-Rasmussen WEB

Julia Salado-Rasmussen is a Doctoral Researcher, Centre for Labour Market Research (CARMA) & Research Centre for Evaluation (FCE), Aalborg University, Denmark and was a Visiting Researcher at CERIC in May 2015.

jsr@dps.aau.dk
@juliasalado

Active labour market policies (ALMPs) continue to be a hot topic in Danish politics, as well as in many other countries. Despite a substantial amount of resources spent on ALMPs there is still a lack of results, especially when it comes to the disadvantaged unemployed. The disadvantaged unemployed have problems besides being without a job (e.g. health, economic or social problems) and are often long-term unemployed. This blog examines the results of ALMPs and discusses the challenges of evaluating ALMPs. I also present my PhD research design, which sets out how I will evaluate ALMPs by using realistic evaluation techniques.

Across OECD countries, Denmark has the highest level of public expenditure on ALMPs. Denmark spent 2.3 per cent of GDP on ALMPs in 2011. In comparison, the second biggest spender is Belgium (spending 1.6 per cent of GDP), followed by the Netherlands and Sweden (both spending 1.1 per cent of GDP in 2011). The total amount spent on ALMPs in Denmark was around DKK 13.5 billion in 2013 (around £1.3 billion). It has been pointed out in several papers that the practice of evaluating ALMPs is much less developed in Europe than in the United States. In light of the relatively high amounts spent on ALMPs in Denmark, and in Europe in general, compared to the US, this seems rather paradoxical.

Evaluations of ALMPs in Denmark show little consensus about what approaches seem to work. There is particular lack of knowledge about the disadvantaged unemployed as a group, something which is mirrored in the wider international literature. The studies undertaken in Denmark indicate that there is an overall positive effect of ALMPs. However, a number of programmes have no effects, or have directly negative effects during recessionary periods. The Danish Economic Council goes as far as to conclude that all ALMPs prolong unemployment under recession due to ‘locking-in effects’. Locking-in effects mean that in the period when the unemployed participate in a programme, they may seek jobs less actively, because they want to complete the programme they are attending or because they have less time to search for a job. Nonetheless it seems that programmes that take place at real companies, using private wage-subsidies and internships (virksomhedspraktik), work for the disadvantaged unemployed as well as for other groups. Employers receive up to 50 per cent of wage costs when they hire an unemployed worker via the wage-subsidy scheme, and they get the labour for free when they hire an unemployed worker via an internship, since the unemployed person continues to receive their income through benefits from the Jobcentre.

Research shows that results depend on the state of the economy (boom or recession), the target group, the area of implementation and also, crucially, the evaluation method and design (e.g. whether the ‘motivation effect’, which refers to the pattern of increased job search activity and employment just before the unemployed are forced into a programme), is included or excluded). Furthermore there is a tendency to rank evaluations in a hierarchy, where studies based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the ’gold standard’. The uncompromising and typically narrow focus of studies based on RCTs means that evaluations based on other methods are often excluded from meta-analyses, thus leaving out potentially fruitful knowledge. RCTs are suitable for explaining whether an intervention leads to an outcome or not, but typically cannot explain the causal relations between interventions and outcomes, which then become a “black box”. Why did the intervention work and how? Moreover, to make experimental studies possible programmes are often pooled into larger categories, thus obscuring the nuances between different programmes. All these circumstances make it hard to transfer the results into political action.

The black box approach makes it hard to replicate successful programmes. Since there is limited evidence on why the programme works, programmes which seem to work may be copied in their entirety to ensure no essential parts are left out, which in practice can be difficult. This issue is especially interesting in a British context, and the current Work Programme’s ‘black box’ commissioning approach, where providers can personalize the support for each individual and are paid by results. At some point one would expect that politicians would be interested in knowing what the high-performing providers which help more unemployed people into sustained work do and what types of programmes they offer.

In my PhD project I advocate for a more open-minded approach to evaluating ALMPs. The project applies realistic evaluation and evaluates a number of selected programmes directed towards the disadvantaged unemployed. Working within the framework of realistic evaluation, the research project incorporates a mixed-method approach that allows for an opening of the ’black-box’ and thus deals not only with ‘what works’ but also for whom, why and in what context. As Ray Pawson writes in his latest book from 2013: “Why does a programme work in Wigan on a wet Wednesday and why does it fail in Frinton on a foggy Friday?”

The research design is based on qualitative data including interviews with the unemployed and practitioners and quantitative data on employment from the DREAM-register system held by the Danish Ministry of Employment. The aim is to focus on the underlying programme theory (assumptions) about how ALMPs work. What mechanisms make the programme work? When the programme theory is the unit of analysis, instead of the active labour market programme as  such, it becomes easier to generate learning from one programme to another. Thus the same programme theory often repeats itself across different types of active labour market programmes and national settings. By using realistic evaluation it will hopefully be possible to get a deeper understanding of what works in ALMPs.

Co-investment in Workplace Learning: a union-led initiative.

Bert Clough CERIC
Bert Clough
– Visiting Professor, CERIC

There was scant reference to adult skills in the Conservative Party’s manifesto which indicates its low priority in the new Government’s agenda. Warning signs were already emerging during the last year of the Coalition Government. In his letter to the Skills Funding Agency, the former BIS Secretary of State, Vince Cable, outlined that £770m of adult skills funding in 2015-16 will be set aside for apprenticeships. This however means that the bulk of the overall cut to the Adult Skills Budget will fall on non-apprenticeship provision. The Skills Funding Agency has estimated that this could amount to cuts of up to 24% for non-apprenticeship learning over just one year.

The University and College Union (UCU) has warned that these cuts would hit vulnerable learners hardest, with millions of people who missed out on qualifications at school or those who need to retrain missing out if the cuts go ahead in 2015/16. The Secretary of State has stated that colleges and learning providers will thus need to consider how to lever in additional funding directly from employers and individuals.

The UK Commission for Employment and Skills has stated that pressures on public and private finances mean that traditional models of investment in skills are unsustainable. Private investment in training has been steadily declining and in England, part-time learning has fallen significantly. With the public purse likely to be even more constrained in the future, employers and employees will need to invest more time and resources in their development and in new ways of working. Conditions are required to support greater employer and personal investment in skills (Growth Through People, UKCES, 2014).

These conditions will not just magically appear. There needs to be a framework to support and deliver co-investment. Trade unions have been increasingly involved in promoting and helping to deliver co-investment in work –based employee development and lifelong learning. It involves establishing structures to pool funding and “in-kind” contributions such as facilities and time off to study by employer, union, provider and employee. The pioneer project was the Ford EDAP scheme established as a result of a collective agreement in 1987 which opened up a significant demand for lifelong learning. It has been remarkably sustainable, mainly due to it being underpinned by robust collective bargaining and run by the company’s unions.

The last Labour government provided some kick-start funding to the TUC’s learning and skills arm – Unionlearn- for developing union-led co-investment models known as “collective learning funds”. They were piloted in 23 sites across the North West and the East Midlands 2008-10 and managed by the TUC Unionlearn regions. The evaluation by CERIC revealed very positive outcomes not just quantitatively in terms of the learning opportunities taken up and workplace learning centres established, but in increasing union visibility and credibility over learning and initiating partnership working between unions and management through joint union/management learning committees https://www.unionlearn.org.uk/publications/research-paper-13-co-investing-workforce-development

A key issue for the unions has been to avoid displacement to ensure that any expansion of learning activity through CLFs does not bring about a reduction in learning investment by the employer or the state. CLFs need to fund additional learning activity that would not have been previously funded.

A follow-up project Call to Learn was established in the South West region. The project was on a smaller scale and covered five workplaces. These comprised of three manufacturing companies, a DWP workplace and a maternity hospital. The pilots had to be evaluated relatively early in the pilots’ life and any findings were therefore suggestive and unable to fully quantify learning outcomes. Nevertheless, it provides useful information on how the pilots were set up and reveals some innovatory approaches https://www.unionlearn.org.uk/publications/call-learn-tuc-unionlearn-south-west-collective-action-lifelong-learning

Like the previous two regional projects there was a common framework to the pilots such as a learning needs analysis, learning agreement, equality and diversity process, joint learning committee and a collective learning fund constitution.

There was a strong commitment to promote equality and diversity which was a specific requirement of the project and each pilot had robust procedures in place to meet that object. This included matching equality surveys with learning  surveys and with the learning committee taking any necessary action to target under-represented groups in the workforce.

Challenges included lack of ULR and management time to run the funds and no paid study time for the learner.

Successfully negotiating paid time off to study is often problematic due to effects on productivity but one workplace had managed to get round this. The union had negotiated an innovative arrangement whereby the workers studied free ESOL courses outside work time at a learning centre in a location where most of them resided. The company then paid them overtime for two hours of study after or before their normal shift working.

An important factor in the robustness of the three manufacturing pilots was the support of two project officers funded through a GMB Union Learning Fund regional project. There was also significant regional PCS support in the DWP pilot.

With minimal employer support for the learning activity in the maternity hospital pilot the union learning reps (ULRs) were running activities on an ad hoc basis but in a very innovative way. Activities even included funding a community choir ( linking learning with well-being) with some of the courses making small profits and ensuring that the CLF would break even on funding activities overall.

In some of the workplaces, it was the union that decided on and directly brokered provision with the college or private provider. In other cases the union had persuaded management to change the provider to better meet the needs of the learners. In two workplaces it was the ULRs who were actually running IT clubs.

There were positive messages from both unions and management in all the pilots that the arrangements should continue after the Call to Learn project ended.

In view of the rapidly diminishing public funding for workforce development there is an urgent need for models of co-investment to be mainstreamed in VET policy with the government actively promoting them in both unionised and non-unionised workplaces.