Process by which a person constructs new knowledge, skills and capabilities, whereas training of one of several responses an organisation can undertake to promote learning (CIPD, 2004, cited in webct) while workplace learning is learning for, at and through work (Sutherland and Rainbird cited in webct) A dichotomy between “formal” and “informal” education is postulated, then the former is carried out off-job, that is in school or colleges, while the latter is conducted in the workplace. (Konrad, J. http://www. leeds. ac. uk/educol/documents/000000672.htm)
Science 1997 labour party is in the government. Labour more priority to education, training; based on social partnership; but little legislation. (Edwards, P. 2003) It means that training is better emphasised by the government. Volume of employer-provided training activities has undoubtedly risen over recent times. However, Edwards, P (2003) indentified lots of problems existing in work-place learning. Much of the training appears to be either induction training or related to health and safety matters, which means the actual gain for employees are less.
There are problems with the quality and level of pitch. The duration of training is falling; as a result, the quality is forced to decrease. Besides, training opportunity is uneven, the higher education qualification the more opportunity. As a result, the higher level of status in work, the more chance of training. Thus, training is emphasis on managers. Besides, it is not easy to measure how much employer is spending on work place training. Because there isn’t accurate record, just guesstimate.
From the survey conducted by MSF, manufacture, science and finance union in 2000 to show its representatives attitude towards changed employment relationship and partnership-based approaches. However as the report shows, Stuart, M and Lucio, M. M 2000:319) Respondents in both health (73percent) and private (71 percent) identified that there has been increased emphasis on training and development in workplace. 42 percent of respondents proved that access to training and development in private sector has been increased, however, the relevant percentage for health sector is only 26.
And more people believe that the decrease of access to training and development in health sector, 26 percent respondents. Compared with other developed countries, UK has low level of work place training. First, employer in many sectors has limited comprehension of what a high-quality work-based route would like. Second, employers set the structure of demand in the labour market. Other countries require employees at least in the learning level 3, however, in UK, only level 2. In another word, the entry-level for UK labour market is low. Then the training quality couldn’t be expected high.
In contrast, there are factors contribute to an increased interest in training. One factor is that labour party and TUC identify that low level of investment in work place training leads to the structural weakness or British economy. The second is EU advocate work place training. Create a market-based; employer-led training system is essential. (Edwards, P. 2003) Employers may not invest many on work place learning, because it is cheaper to recruit skilled worker from other employers. State intervention is necessary in order to secure sufficient training to meet the economic needs.
However, state intervention is bureaucratic and lacks adequate information, and then it devolves responsibility to trade union and employers. (Edwards, P. 2003:393) union members’ interests are best served through the development of skills recognised widely, not to task and skill specified in companies. For trade union it tries to meet the long-term skill requirement not immediate profit of employer. As a result partnership between employers, trade unions, government agencies and learning providers is formed. Partnership is a central element of labour government’s strategy and also can be seen a revitalisation of NHS as a model employer.
Partnership may require union representatives to work with managers as well as using traditional bargaining skills. (Edwards, P. 2003:410) There is a mutual gain from partnership: training for employee need, the training cover a range of courses, the help employees gain esteem and motivation, besides, they can get certain qualification. The earning power is largely increased. Training for organisation need: Training is usually seen as management prerogative, because the business need is initiated by managers. Privilege to senior managers and professionals, then they can manage and arrange work effectively, employers benefit.
(Edwards, P. 2003) Besides, trade union also benefits from the training of their member, as while as company training staff. (Rainbird et al. , 2003a: 18 cited in Munro A and Rainbird, H, 2004:429) However, Guest and Peccei, who have a generally positive assessment of partnership, identify a ‘constrained mutuality’ in which management benefits more than trade unions (Guest and Peccei, 2001: 231, cited in cited in Munro A and Rainbird, H, 2004:420) The improvement of employees in welfare and collective bargaining rights are least frequently mentioned.
There are many examples of successful innovation of partnership: Ford EDAP in the private sector, the UNISON/Employer ‘Return to Learn’ Partnerships in the public sector, Scottish Power Learning in the essential industries. The success is depending on developing, replicating and emulating such partnerships within the national policy framework The problem existing in training is that both health and private sector focus on career development but not employee self development. The respondents reported this problem is 58 percent and 56 percent separately. Thus, workplace training should be improved from rhetoric to reality.
Private sectors need a more strategic, coherent and organisational commitment to training and development. (Stuart, M and Lucio, M. M, 2000: 320)Because as the table VII shows that the training and development plans is less common in private sector, besides, the training days is usually specified and minimum , to make things worse, it is more likely to have investors in people accreditation. These three points provided above is quite inconvenient for employees’ learning. However, the union has played a role in the IiP (Investors in People Accreditation) process is more committed in the private sector.
The reason may be the innovation is more likely to happen in the new private structure but not the traditional NHS. The new schemes and targets for work place learning are Investors in people (IIP) and Learning Targets. Investor in people (IIP) is a national standard for effective investment in employees. It is developed by the National Training Task and work with CBI members, the TUC, and other training organisations. The aim is to encourage employers to invest in training, to help them doing so efficiently and to reward the commitment by providing high quality of training.
It has been taken up by a significant proportion of large and medium sized enterprises. At the end of Jan 2001, 89 percent of all organisations with 200 or more employees had achieved (56%) or were committed to achieving (33 %) the standard. Among organisations with 50 or more employees, 55 percent had achieved the standard (33 percent) or were committed to achieving (22 percent). Small employers are less likely to provide work-life training. (Edwards P, 2003:402) The National Learning Targets, has passed the responsibility to LSC (Learning and Skill Council) The LSC, local arm is LLSC.
LSC and LLSC are instituted by employers (makes up 40 percent of the membership), trade unions, local authorities, education institutions and community and voluntary groups. It has been given a statutory duty to encourage participation in learning and to encourage employer participation in the provision to education and training. (Edwards, P. 2003:403) The growth or non-union workplace Union membership is dramatically declining since 1990s. The decline of trade union organisation has drawn attention to strategies and styles for managing without unions. (McLoughlin, I.1996, P302)
Non-union setting seems has advantage since management is free from monopoly effects. The absence of collective voice can obtain support from employees because they are adequately informed. (McLoughlin, I. and Gourlay, S, 1994:119) Industrial harmony in non-union organisation is associated more directly with smaller firms, where it is assumed that better communications, easier working relations, personal ties, job satisfaction, employee involvement and a greater awareness of individual needs serve to overcome any inherent tension between capital and labour.
(Blyton, P and Turnbull, P. 2004) However, there is no evidence to prove that idea. Managers seem to ‘equate good employee relations’ with outcomes such as financial performance and higher labour productivity. Whereas workers are some likely to view employee relations in positive light if they feel secure, have some influence over their work and are committed to their job, and in particular if they are fairly treated. (Cully et al. , 1999:277-81) The firm is one big happy family is derived from the opinions of owner/manager, rather than form the workforce.
(Curran and Stanworth, 1981:14-15 and Goss, 1988:115, and 1991:158) However, from this point, then the industrial relation between employee and employer has been changed into personal relationship. Alongside, there are some problems. For instance, Scott et al. (1989:50) mentioned that one manager boasted of his caring, paternalistic approach, and then he allowed two old workers to stay on at the firm beyond their retirement age. However, in the interim period, profits had fallen and the company had gone into the red for the first time. Worse more, disciplinary sanctions and dismissals are much higher in non-unionised firms.
(Cully et al. , 1999:128) in many cases, non-union employees in small workplaces are dismissed without statutory even fair grounds. (Dickens et al. , 1985) For this reason, and the generally poorer conditions of work and pay in small, non-union firms, the turnover is high. The number may be stable, but there is a high rate of entry and exit. ( Cully et al. , 1999:128 and Rainnie, 1985) thus most managers are unitarist in outlook, such attitudes pay an important role in both the determination of management style in non-union firms and the (in)ability of trade unions to organise such companies.
(Blyton P. and Turnbull, P, 2004:303) Large scale of survey pointed out that, non-union workplace lacks sophistication of management style and employee voice is said to be more circumstanced, irregular, and informal, pay determination more individualised, and job security significantly weaker. (Millward et al. 1992; Sisson 1993 cited in McLoughlin, I. 1996) Small firms’ unitarist attitudes and paternalistic or autocratic management practice. Typically the business is seen as his possession to do as he wishes – and especially where the owner/manager is also the founder.
The firm is the extension of their ego. (ibid: 91) the personality of manager greatly influence on the management style. Manager desire for independence and autonomy often result in centralised decision-making and little forward-planning. (blyton p and turnbull, P 2004: 306) For employees the result may be feeling of lack of security and involvement. (curran, 1990:138) The rise of non-unionism and the non-union firm has been closely linked with the emergence of new techniques of human resource management.
One assumption concerning HRM is that it acts effectively to substitute for trade unions by reducing employee demands for union services. (McLoughlin, I. 1996:23) In contrast to traditional personnel management, new human resource management(HRM) can be defined as a cluster of polices with a high degree of strategic integration( Guest 1987,1989) it can reduce employee demands of union service through sophisticated employee resourcing, development, communication, and reward policies, work and employment conditions are created through a substitution effect.
(Guest 1989) A key factor for HRM is that, it against pluralist and collectivist, in contrast embedding unitarist and individualist. (McLoughlin, I. 1994) However, Store’s (1992) suggests that the relationship between trade union and HRM is far from complementary. That is in the short run, HRM can’t instead trade union. It should develop in different contexts, sometimes alongside existing highly collectivised.
Just as Storey and Sisson (1993) suggested that, managers should seek to locate management styles in terms of the balance or mix they seek between individualism and collectivism. (Cited in McLoughlin, I. and Gourlay, S. 1994)) There are two tables below to analyse non-union establishments. The first table make four cluster of HRM from the level of individualism and strategic integration. The second is classified from two dimensions, one is whether it has a HRM strategy, and the other one is the nature of human resource policy and practice. (Guest and Hoque 1994:2)