ben

The new government has set out five broadly-based “missions” to help guide it during its time in office. They are nothing if not ambitious: highest sustained growth in the G7, make Britain a green superpower, halve serious violent crime, reform childcare and education, and build an NHS fit for the future. This will be a huge collective effort (if successful): the task of at least ten years in power,

This is the sort of ambition that many could sign up to. It is about the common good, brought about by people working effectively together. It is not one person’s selfish ego trip. It is about making the country a better and more prosperous place.

There are other kinds of ambition, of course. Self-aggrandising. Greed for power or personal riches. The yearning to feel superior to others.

 In my new book – “Fair or Foul: the Lady Macbeth Guide to Ambition” – I explore both kinds of ambition, the good and the bad. There is the positive story, where hard-working and talented people achieve more together. And the darker side, where excess of (misguided) ambition can lead to disaster.

 It would be weird to be against ambition. Clearly we need ambitious people to start new businesses, to make technological or medical advances, or find new ways of making life on our planet cleaner and more sustainable.

 And yet when we turn on the news or pick up a newspaper (some of us older folk still do this!), we hear and read about other kinds of ambition: the selfish and narrow pursuit of personal glory, or the desire to hold exploitative power over others. I wanted to write a book which takes a look at both sides of this important phenomenon.

 So why does the book call itself “the Lady Macbeth Guide to Ambition”? I have to admit that this title has come back to bite its author! The phrase first came into my head as a bit of a joke, and rather amusing I thought it was too.

 But as I went back further into the text of Macbeth – a play I first studied 40 years ago – I was reminded that the supposedly cruel and evil Lady M has a bit more sophistication and subtlety to her than she is sometimes given credit for.

 When she reads Macbeth’s letter about his encounter with the three “weird sisters” (or witches) who tell him about becoming king, she hesitates, and in his absence addresses some words to him:

“…yet do I fear thy nature –

It is too full o’the milk of human kindness

To catch the nearest way. Thou wouldst be great,

Art not without ambition, but without

The illness should attend it.”

 (Act I sc 5)

 This is a challenging thought. But is she actually wrong? When we think about the people who achieve the most in highly competitive fields – business, sport, politics – the winners are often driven, almost obsessive about the need to work hard and struggle for success. These are not always the easiest of people to work for or have around! And who is to say that this drive is not, in the most extreme cases, a kind of illness? A healthily balanced life might not include that sort of excessive zeal.

 Each chapter of the book begins with a few lines from Shakespeare’s play, introducing a particular theme or aspect of ambition. So the chapters are set out under headings such as Success, Brief, Spur, Enough, Illness, and so on.  By the end (a mere 200 pages or so later) I hope the reader will have a richer understanding of the nature of ambition, and will perhaps have been stimulated to think about ambition in a new way.

That’s my ambition anyway! Our new government could do with some focused and targeted ambition also…

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fair-Foul-Macbeth-Guide-Ambition/dp/1800183186

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a huge issue for trade unions. Our movement was forged amidst the transformational change of the late industrial revolution, and we must now get to grips with the convulsions of the tech revolution. Unions know we can’t stop change – but we can influence it, so we minimise the risks and maximise the gains for working people.

AI is already reshaping our workplaces and our economy at pace. It is transforming the education and skills landscape. And it is making decisions which affect millions of workers – about recruitment, performance, promotion, redundancy and dismissal.

That’s why the TUC is leading the calls for effective regulation of AI at work. We want urgent action to ensure people are protected from the risks – and we also want to make sure everyone benefits from the potential opportunities. If we get our approach right, with a strong voice for working people, AI can make work safer, more productive and more rewarding.

But as things stand, trade unions have real concerns about the potential for inequality, unfairness and work intensification. When the TUC polled workers managed by AI, many said the experience was dehumanising, others reported loneliness and constant pressure, and some said they were treated unfairly. As the British Academy’s Hetan Shah has argued: “the worry is not that we’re going to be taken over by robots, but that we’re treated like robots”.

And there’s a real risk of AI-driven gender, race and class discrimination. In October 2021, Uber drivers went on strike about the way its facial recognition software discriminated against BME people, which had led to scores of drivers losing their livelihoods, because they could not log on. Microsoft, which made the software, belatedly conceded it did not work as well for people of colour.

All this underlines the importance of a strong worker voice in shaping AI, counterbalancing the powerful vested interests of big corporations and big tech. The TUC has called for new technology agreements between unions and employers, for proper investment in workforce skills and adult education, and for the gains of new tech to be shared fairly. Above all, we want a legal framework that is fit for purpose.

That’s where the TUC’s AI Bill comes in. Drawn up with lawyers, tech experts and employers, our draft law showcases the rights and obligations we need to protect workers against AI-powered decision making, give them a say over technology at work, and deliver the certainty that business needs. Our research shows there’s overwhelming backing from the British people for stronger protections at work – including a new right for workers to be consulted about the introduction of AI.

Although the King’s Speech promised “appropriate legislation to place requirements on those working to develop the most powerful artificial intelligence models”, the new government has so far said relatively little about how it intends to regulate AI more broadly so there’s a big chance for influence here.

After years of inaction under the previous government, the UK has serious ground to make up. The EU has already passed its groundbreaking AI Act, while there is a growing movement towards context-specific AI law. In the US, Colorado recently passed an AI and Employment Bill, following New York state. The US Labor department published its AI worker wellbeing principles earlier this year. Germany has empowered unions to negotiate about AI through works councils. And Italy is now working on AI at work legislation.

As the voice of working people right across the UK – including academics, IT programmers and systems engineers – unions want to shape the future of workplace AI here. It’s time to put our collective expertise and experience to good use.

That’s why the TUC will continue to press the government to deliver the comprehensive action on AI working people need. In his speech to this year’s TUC Congress, prime minister Keir Starmer promised a new “politics of partnership”. And where better to start than with collaborative working to deliver AI that works for all?

The landscape of industrial relations in the UK is undergoing significant shifts, prompting a re-evaluation of collaborative practices between employers and trade unions. Social Partnership gained a statutory footing in Wales in 2023, and places a requirement on public bodies to engage early and collaboratively with union representatives, treating unions as a strategic partner in their decision-making processes.

Social Partnership (SP) is not new. IPA laid the early foundations for the approach in 1992 and has been a leading voice in the conversation since.

However, the new spotlight placed partnership approaches in Wales – along with incoming employment rights legislation in the UK – should prompt employers to re-evaluate their trade union relationships and consider whether and how to invest in a more collaborative approach.

Here are the top five takeaways from the Welsh Social Partnership Conference which took place in Cardiff on 2 July, highlighting what the rest of the UK can learn from ‘The Welsh Way.’

1. Partnership working transcends sectoral boundaries

The Welsh government has ambitions to extend Social Partnership practices across all sectors, not just those legally required to adopt them. This inclusive approach aims to foster collaborative relationships universally, enhancing fair work and well-being across the board and shining a spotlight on employers’ role in delivering on this agenda.

In her keynote address, Sarah Murphy, the Minister for Social Partnership flagged the effectiveness of the Welsh Retail Forum which has adopted SP:

“I believe that the ‘Welsh way’ should be characterised by shared ownership of problems and a shared commitment to joint solutions. It’s a model that transcends barriers.”

Even if the prospect of a fully-fledged partnership feels remote for some, UK employers would be wise to consider early and carefully how best to work with trade unions given new legislation this parliament is likely to strengthen their presences in workplaces across the country.

2. Social Partnership serves a bigger purpose

The Welsh context is particular in that the legislation mandates a three-way partnership between the government, unions and employers. The purpose of this is to systematise the involvement of key stakeholders across business and the public sector in securing the wellbeing of future generations – an approach that is garnering growing interest at the European Commission.

There is a compelling case for all organisations – whether bound by legislation or not – to build a partnership approach to help them deliver on their corporate social responsibility goals and improve engagement. The private sector panel flagged that many purpose-driven businesses aligned with the Good Business Charter or B Corp status may well be embodying some of these practices without necessarily applying the moniker of social partnership.

3. Implementation should be realistic and phased

Marie Daly, Chief Customer and Culture Officer at Transport for Wales (TfW), provided insights into the practicalities of implementing SP effectively. She stressed the importance of realistic goal-setting and phased implementation, with specific targets set at (for example) Year 1, Year 3 and Year 6. Along with strong sponsorship from leadership, day-to-day support from HR colleagues is vital. Establishing appropriate meeting structures and addressing residual issues beforehand are critical for sustainable SP initiatives.

4. Proactive and Informed Trade Unions

Jess Turner, leader of UNISON Wales, highlighted the need for trade unions to be proactive and well-informed in the SP process. For some representatives, SP marks a radical shift in approach and may prompt questions around how it fits with other union business such as collective bargaining.

This calls for unions to review their training offer to reps in the context of their broader strategic position in relation to social partnership, as well as joining forces with employers to build mutual understanding around process boundaries.  

5. Tangible benefits

There were several speakers who referred to a ‘leap of faith’ being required to embark on social partnership. Tangible benefits can take time to realise, but the impact of those benefits far outweighs the risk of defaulting to adversarial negotiating positions.

Javid Jamil, Interim People Director at Transport for Wales, referred to the ‘system view’ that unions have that makes their insight so valuable in a partnership context – they are uniquely positioned to advise not only on the knock-on effects of change, but also propose solutions based on their proximity to the front-line, in a timely fashion. In the TfW context, this resulted in no strike action during 2023, in stark contrast with the UK-wide picture.

The private sector panel highlighted that Covid-19 rapidly forged partnerships across trade unions, employee representative and employers that have had a lasting legacy and proved their worth in their ability to respond to drastic change. By working closely with employers, TUC officials were able to help mitigate the worst effects of lockdowns on jobs and businesses.

These examples demonstrate that effective SP practices can be implemented under a variety frameworks and still achieve significant benefits. What matters is what the outcomes they deliver. While there are common principles that underpin social partnership, there is no one-size-fits-all methodology. IPA works with employers and unions to deepen their understanding of the approach, unpack the challenges and identify a partnership model that works for them. 

Case Study – Coleg Gwent

As part of a broader programme of investment by Welsh government in social partnership, IPA has been involved in the establishment of a range of social partnerships in the Welsh public sector, most recently in Further Education.

IPA supported a nine-month pilot of social partnership at Coleg Gwent in 2023, working closely with senior management and representatives through briefings, workshops, steering groups and tailored guidance to develop a shared understanding of partnership working. The Welsh Social Partnership Assessment Tool was used to evaluate impact, as well as focus groups to understand the effectiveness of communications during the lifecycle of the pilot.

Key outcomes included improved perceptions of partnership and earlier involvement in consultations resulting in cost-saving measures that mitigated redundancies.

John James, UCU Social Partnership Rep, and Jo Duggan, Director of HR and presenting for Coleg Gwent at the conference, emphasised the importance of having a third party guide them successfully through the pilot and advised others to consider their support needs ahead of embarking on social partnership.

Some of the key learnings shared at the conference included the importance of allocating adequate facilities time for representatives – Coleg Gwent appointed 8 additional SP reps, dispersing the workload and increasing social partnership representation. While it is recognised that finding facilities time for SP reps can be challenging when budgets are under strain, the gains to be made pay back the investment by an order of magnitude.

More information on Social Partnership in Welsh Further Education can be found here.

Conclusion

Of the four nations, Wales is leading the way in embedding social partnership as the norm and the accepted means by which fair work, sustainable business and wellbeing across the nation can be achieved.  

While the UK Labour government’s approach to strengthening union presence in the workplace may have a different emphasis, the legislative agenda signals a new era in employment relations that can mutually serve the interests of employees and workers. By learning from the principles and ethos of ‘The Welsh Way,’ UK organisations can adapt these best practices to amplify employee voice, increase engagement and be collectively future-focused, acknowledging that complex challenges require joint solutions.

Lucy O’Melia, IPA Head of Learning and Development Services

There has been much discussion about the wide-ranging reforms to working lives embodied in Labour’s New Deal for working people. Taken with other much needed reforms of the labour market, including skills policy and a serious commitment to return to work strategies, this package of measures will require detailed and collaborative implementation should Labour form the next government.

We also need to build a consensus around establishing good work principles and policies if these reforms are to have an impact. It will require central government and trade unions working alongside business leaders and other stakeholders, such as training providers and sector leaders such as the CBI, Make UK, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, Hospitality UK, our creative industries, and many others.

However, at present, convening spaces and joint forums for capital and labour are few and skills of negotiation and consultation have atrophied. In many sectors, industrial relations expertise has retired along with its practitioners. New generation HR, whatever its many strengths, is for large part inexperienced in industrial relations and practitioners often find it difficult to cope with trade union relations at a local level. This deficit of hands-on knowledge, and this lack of architecture for social partner engagement, must be addressed or it will generate tension, anxiety about how to engage and exacerbate fear of the unknown, and thereby delay economic recovery.

CIPD and other potential providers including the TUC (particularly if the Union Learning Fund is reconstituted) may want to think about how they can support HR professionals in how they engage with trade unions as the world of work evolves.

At a national level tripartism – formal cooperation between government, employers and trade unions – needs a reboot and we should think about how to develop some additional institutions. In particular, we must reclaim the legitimacy of partnership and cooperation between trade unions and leaders at company and organisation level. It’s not cosy or somehow ‘incorporation’ or a roll-over by the forces of labour – it’s a long-term strategy, requires ongoing commitment and a willingness to learn from experience. It is hard work, involving joint problem solving, based on reciprocal obligations.

In Prospect’s experience it’s an approach the workforce wants to see its representatives follow at a company level and as a national approach, and many other unions agree. Not a continual threat of industrial action, and a refusal to engage in the realities and headwinds facing business today, but a partnership for success.

In fact, a partnership approach is alive and well in some key areas, for example with the NHS social partnership forum that has endured since 2008, and with the recent legislation promoting social partnership across Wales. Other parts of the public sector need the same commitment to a joint approach from unions and government and public sector employers. Unions have a role in industrial peace and stability, not just conflict generation. And as a key national stakeholder, representing millions of working people, we need to act on that principle. However, that also needs a rethink and commitment from employers, not a knee jerk rejection of good work proposals or a retreat to old hostilities.

On a practical level ACAS need proper resourcing, particularly if it has a renewed duty to promote voice and collective bargaining. Moreover, we need to consider how conflict when it inevitably does arise is resolved and where possible avoiding a trade dispute, which should always be a last resort. This means reflecting on the value of independent arbitration, mediation and conciliation from a contemporary perspective and enabling understanding of what such an approach would offer to employers, workers, and unions.

Other tripartite bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive may need strengthening; and new tripartite institutions might be needed – for example a national skills council to replace the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, abolished by the government in 2017. The Low Pay Commission may be absorbed into a Single Enforcement Body, but this must be established on a tripartite basis too.

Any national or sectoral industrial strategy should be accompanied by an employee relations strategy which focusses on collective voice, productivity, and skills. This can be a crucible for unions and employers to answer strategic economic questions facing the country. They can be examples of best practice for others to adopt.

This all needs a long lens perspective. If history and polls are any guide we may be on the brink of a two-term, decade long change in government. There are exceptionally difficult issues now facing the workplace which will require employers, unions, and the employee relations commentariat to recognise that change and renewal needs patient implementation, as well as leaving behind the deregulation that drives insecurity and undermines productivity and growth.

Our route to economic prosperity requires a new deal for working people but it will flounder if we sit in ‘camps’ with one issuing demands and the other stuck in rebuttal. The headwinds our economy faces require us to find common solutions if we are to succeed. Above all we all need to recognise that we will not improve productivity, and secure economic growth, without the full participation of people at work, and their representative institutions at the same time as businesses who want to invest in the UK.

Nita Clarke is the director of the Involvement and Participation Association (IPA), and trade union liaison officer for Prime Minister Tony Blair 2002 – 2007. IPA is Britain’s leading organisation delivering workplace support for good employment and industrial relations. IPA is part of the Institute for Employment Studies.

Mike Clancy is general secretary of Prospect trade union, representing more than 155,000 professional, technical and creative people in both public and private sectors.

Many organisations like to claim that “people are their greatest asset”. However, perhaps the ultimate test of this mantra is when tough times hit, and organisations start to seek ways to cut costs. Usually this includes labour costs and ways to trim the wage bill.

Employment downsizing – defined as permanent workforce reductions to cut costs – is a common response to periods of economic turbulence, as demonstrated by the layoffs following the emergence of the 2008 global financial crisis, and the 2020 public health crisis, though UK government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme intervention undoubtedly helped to save jobs during the recent pandemic.

The negative consequences of downsizing for all involved are well known. Numerous research studies confirm that, as well as having a negative impact on those who lose their jobs, downsizing is harmful for the ‘survivors’, and also takes a toll on managers charged with its implementation.  Research also confirms organisations that are quick to downsize in times of trouble also fare worse in the long-term than their competitors who delay job cuts.

With continued political turmoil and economic uncertainty around the world, the UK slipping into recession in the last quarter of 2023, and major employers announcing job cuts – including John Lewis, EY, Barclays, Abrdn, Nationwide, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons – it’s worth revisiting the alternatives to downsizing in challenging times.   

These include measures to cut costs, including freezing or cutting pay, reducing working time, freezing recruitment and promotion, unpaid leave, and removing agency and contract staff. Other measures might be more concerned with keeping workers busy during a time of reduced demand including redistributing work, reallocating workers, insourcing, or loaning workers. Spare time might also be allocated to training and development activity or business improvement projects.

Some of these adjustments, especially those aimed at saving payroll costs, could be viewed as complementary measures which can be deployed in parallel with workforce reductions to maximise short-term cost savings. However, they can also be seen as part of a series of responses, with compulsory redundancies a last resort, to be implemented only when all other measures have been exhausted. In other words, while a downturn means some difficult decisions might have to be made, organisations usually have a choice regarding exactly how to respond.

Much depends on the context and situation. Does the downturn present an immediate and significant threat to organisational survival such that the cost savings associated with mass layoffs are deemed to be worth the damage normally associated with such traumatic measures? Is the organisation encountering terminal decline meaning permanent headcount reductions are considered both necessary and appropriate? Or are the challenges viewed as temporary, therefore presenting the need for a longer-term strategy which ensures the organisation is well-positioned for subsequent economic and market recovery? This might be especially important in knowledge intensive or high skill settings or tight labour markets, but equally relevant in any organisation which claims its ‘people are its most important assets’.  

In such situations alternative HR measures might be preferred to mitigate compulsory redundancies. This approach, which takes a longer-term view and seeks to minimise the negative consequences of downsizing, is often referred to as ‘responsible restructuring’. This does not necessarily mean that job security is guaranteed, but rather an emphasis upon avoiding ‘knee-jerk’ redundancies, minimising mass layoffs, and ensuring that any redundancy processes are fair, and that redundant workers are appropriately supported.

Responsible restructuring approaches are thought to be most common in continental European nations such as Germany, where traditions of social partnership and dialogue encourage labour management cooperation. Yet evidence from the UK suggests that – and contrary to the view that more lightly regulated nations downsize at the first sign of trouble – in times of distress many British firms implement a combination of employment adjustments and are well aware of the importance of communication and employee engagement in uncertain times.

With the current economic outlook continuing to be challenging, organisational decision makers and HR leaders are urged to consider – and crucially to work together with employee representatives to devise – creative and innovative HR strategies and consider alternatives to downsizing in times of crisis.      

This article draws upon recent research published in the Human Resource Management Journal. Johnstone, S. (2024) Human resource management in recession: Restructuring and alternatives to downsizing in times of crisis. Human Resource Management Journal, 34(1) (Open Access).

Dr Stewart Johnstone is Reader in Human Resource Management and Employment Relations in the Department of Work, Employment and Organisation at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. His research expertise includes employee voice and participation, and employment restructuring. He is currently leading a UKRI study on employee voice as part of the ESRC Transforming Working Lives research programme. He can be contacted at [email protected]

Collective performance-related pay systems may have more effect than individual performance-related schemes, so research led by Professor Stephen Wood at University of Leicester School of Business shows.

This finding is based on a systematic review of research studies that directly compared the effects of financial involvement or collective performance-related pay systems, such as profit-sharing and team bonuses, with their individual counterparts, such as piece rate and sales bonuses. Systems that combine both may also be more effective than when individual performance-related pay is used alone. In only two studies did the individual pay system outperform the collective systems. Nonetheless in some of the studies that included hybrid systems, in which an individual system is used in conjunction with a collective one, they also produced greater performance effects than individual systems used alone. 

We can then be certain about recommending that individual pay systems are unlikely to be optimal. This may reflect longstanding concerns about them: that the quality of work may be impaired as employees focus on the quantity of output and speed of delivery, that employee’s game the system or forsake income in favour of lower effort, that the performance benefits of intrinsic motivation may be reduced so performance suffers.

In contrast, collective systems may have positive effects on group processes and cooperation within the workplace and in turn on idea-generation and sharing, helping behaviours, improved methods of working, and goal interdependence. Intrinsic motivation may not be undermined. Instances of the introduction of collective systems in the studies reviewed were when team working was introduced and confirm how they can support the greater employee involvement this and problem-solving groups can provide.

The advantages of hybrid systems are less clear-cut. They may provide the best of both worlds or give off mixed messages, which is especially likely if they are replacing or supplementing an individual PRP system as people gravitate to the individual element and thus become individualistic. John Lewis is famous for its hybrid system – its organizational-wide bonus, the annual announcement of this being heralded in the press and often used as a kind of barometer of the retail sector.  But the study shows they only perform better than collective ones in just over half of the studies that include them.

For a fuller summary of the issues surrounding the study please click here to open a new window. 

For the full paper or advice on enhancing involvement through pay systems contact Professor Stephen Wood

When all the focus has been on the wave of industrial unrest of the last 18 months and whether it signals a renaissance of trade union influence, it has not been easy to be a voice asking whether this is the fundamental building block of a durable revival.

At the TUC Congress in September last year, Prospect argued that the priority for the Union movement is to address private sector union density over the next decade, otherwise the future in both public and private is bleak. I have been saying to anyone who will listen that 12% is the most important figure facing UK Unions, as that is  private sector density. Doubling that over ten years, still leaves big questions of representation but it’s essential. 

Now opposing employers who deserve that response, holds no fear to Prospect and many unions deal with workplace exploitation but that is not the widespread norm. People work to earn a living and to succeed and most employers get that and want to enable their workforce to flourish. Calls to join a union just based on opposition will have necessary limitations and that’s why the union offer must be more nuanced and tailored.

It was only 2018 that saw the lowest incidence of industrial action since records began and the 2022/23 industrial action wave is off trend. However, it does remind us of the latent power of unions and rightly so. The danger of the strike commentary is that we never see discussed how many disputes unions resolve or the work undertaken daily by unions reps across diverse industries, working with employers to make work better, solve problems and ensure safety and fairness. The metrics tell us that Unionised workplaces are ‘better’ workplaces, so let’s ensure we talk about that as much as strikes.

Moreover, the big issues at work are collective. Just economic transition, the impact of AI and technological change, global product markets and delivering fair and empowering workplace cultures. Collective employee relations exist whether a union is recognised or not and is more difficult to navigate without a credible counter party to engage with.

Where I can confidently say we can all agree is that recent disputes have suffered from the atrophy of negotiating skills on both sides of the table. Employee or dare we say ‘industrial’ relations has become a back water of the HR community where compensation, benefits and talent management hog the glamour. So many ER/IR practitioners I speak with know there is a dearth of these skills. Also, on the Union side where the ability to speak truth to members is as important as being their independent advocate and delivering their voice.

Despite the tendency for some to cleave to a betrayal narrative, the reforms of Labour’s New Deal for Working People can be transformative. Prospect is not affiliated but we do see Labour opening doors to organising that is then up to us and Unions generally to go through. But to land those reforms means we need to relearn the skills of the past; partnership is what members want to have their problems addressed and to avoid having to strike. Unions needs to be as known for workplace expertise, organisational design and fairness as they are for opposition. Employers need to realise that strong unions are their best counterparties and that labour market reform, and the restoration of rights is not negotiable and will not inhibit good business and making money.

If these reforms are to work, then they are likely to need patience and a focus on the art of the possible. It’s understandable that there are calls to build on initial commitments on fair pay agreements to press the case for sectoral bargaining. However, the idea that private sector employers will sit down together in sector employer sides is at best fanciful and worst diverts from the real opportunities. The recovery in the private sector will have to be based on organising at an enterprise level and Prospect will argue that improved access rights both physical and digital should be the major asks of a new administration, along with reforms of the statutory process to make the achievement of recognition easier. Employers should have less scope to defeat recognition, but the reciprocation is that they can agree arrangements that fit their business model.

There are no short cuts here. We need institutional reform, as there are so few spaces now where capital and labour convene beyond ACAS and the HSE. We need to rebuild skills and understanding and base that on long term relationships. Industrial strategy requires an accompanying employee relations strategy, all focussed to ensuring worker voice is not only heard when they withdraw their labour. There is another way, if we can grasp it.

Mike Clancy, General Secretary, Prospect 

January 2024

When I joined the IPA in December 2000, the world of industrial relations felt very different to how landscape looks at the start of 2024. My background before I joined the IPA was almost exclusively as a trade union representative. My previous twenty years at Legal & General were not distinguished by a prowess for insurance (or assurance for those in the know) – I was always known as “the union bloke”. In the early years that was my notoriety; I revelled in adversarial behaviour and action. It took me many years to realise that I used conflict to mask a lack of confidence, knowledge and skill. Thankfully, as we entered the 1990’s, the word partnership was gaining traction and the role of a trade union in an organisation suddenly made sense to me. I had to work hard to convince the L&G management (and the union members) at all levels that I was a changed man, but I was proud to be part of the Partnership Agreement signed by L&G and Amicus (now Unite) in 1997. Whatever your political persuasion, 1997 was the year when politics and social partnership merged in a way never seen before or since, and my working life was shaped by it from that moment. 

It was my work as the full-time National Secretary of Amicus/Unite at L&G that prepared me for the role I’ve enjoyed at the IPA for the last 23 years. The trade union role meant that I had to upskill significantly in several key areas, business acumen, diplomacy, communication and strategic thinking. Senior managers at L&G (like Sir David Prosser, John McCarthy and Geoff Smith) helped me enormously to develop these skills. My union regional officer, the late Digby Jacks, taught me how to debate, consult and negotiate openly. I was able to use of all this knowledge to help to develop the IPA’s training offers that have, I hope, helped many organisations and trade unions to work in social partnership since. 

In the early 2000’s, the government’s partnership fund was a key factor in providing finance to support organisations and unions to take those first steps towards working together effectively. United Welsh and Unison remains the definitive case study led by a cast of incredible individuals (Dai Williams, Gareth Hexter, Tony Whittaker and Chris Rutson) who understood the nuances of partnership working in a collective way. They all “got it” and used disagreements and different perspectives to produce their landmark approach.

The decline of partnership working over the last fifteen years has, in my opinion, harmed organisations and trade unions in equal measure. Now the industrial relations landscape feels bleak. This is why Nita Clarke’s article in this Newsletter in January struck such a chord with me through my new lens of retirement. The reality, regardless of how the industrial relations landscape feels, is that the need for partnership working has never been greater. In one sense, little has changed in the last 23 years. As Nita points out, a good relationship between organisations and trade unions still requires architecture, time, opportunity, process, communications and appropriate behaviours. However, one other necessity highlighted by Nita was expertise. This is the area of industrial relations that has changed dramatically during my two decades at the IPA.

The rise of information and consultation architectures – in the form of employee forums and works councils – in these two decades has been the most significant reason for the decline in industrial relations expertise. That is not a criticism of these forums.  I’ve worked with hundreds of employee forums and, where they are effective, the concept is wholly positive and the best practice examples are as remarkable as the great union partnerships. However, where they are ineffective is when they have been set up as a so called “easier” alternative to a trade union, leading directly to disengagement and disenchantment with the concept of employee voice. There is still a great deal of work to do to help organisations to understand why they need to invest in training for employee representatives. Regardless of anyone’s ideological point of view on employee forums, it is their effect on industrial relations skills and expertise that has been their most significant and negative impact.

This negative impact has not been intentional but the number of people in HR and senior management roles who have no experience of working with trade unions is now a significant majority. Some argue that people no longer need to understand trade unions – to many younger workers they are considered irrelevant. My advice to senior managers and HR professionals is the opposite – trade unions are relevant right now and the importance of understanding them will become increasingly important. Ignoring or trying to bypass them is not an intelligent choice. Working with them will be imperative if organisations want to avoid conflict and industrial action.

To be able to do this, managers and HR professionals will need to understand trade unions with enough depth to grasp the nuances. Trade unions are facing serious challenges, particularly in trying to navigate the dual responsibility of negotiating cost of living pay increases while also attempting to maintain jobs in the post-Covid world. Like senior managers, trade union representatives sometimes make the wrong decision or communicate their strategy poorly. Mistakes and misunderstandings happen in industrial relations because all parties are under huge pressure – the real success of industrial partnership has been the mutual solving of problems, errors and those lapses in communication. This has benefitted shareholders and employees and has led to more innovation between organisations and trade unions than you will ever read in the national press.

I believe employee forums will continue to develop towards best practice over the next few years and the IPA will be pivotal in ensuring that happens. My main hope looking ahead is, therefore, that organisations and trade unions will step up to the plate and develop their own industrial relations strategy based on social partnership regardless of what government is elected later this year. It is not too late to do so despite how the landscape looks at the moment. Egos will need to be put aside – managers and union representatives need to educate each other and share their dilemmas to create a level playing field in all discussions. My own experience taught me that those dilemmas are remarkably similar. The IPA can play a vital role in making this happen if organisations and trade unions swallow their pride and seek the help they need.

And on that note, I bid a very fond farewell to the IPA as an employee. It has been a privilege to have worked for this unique organisation and to work with so many different companies across all sectors. There have been a great deal more positive memories than negative ones and it will a book for me to mention all of those highlights and the people who have helped and inspired me. Whatever success I might have achieved has been due to the constant support of the IPA team; Nita Clarke, Sarah Dawson, Lorraine Modeste and all of those on our former Executive Committee. Former colleagues Semsem Hassan, Mandy Caruana, Willy Coupar, Patrick Briône, Rob Stevens, Ramya Yarlagadda, Monty Bamgbala, Tony Burley, Joe Dromey and Hannah Jameson all added to the fantastic experience of working for the IPA. I also had the honour of working with two incredible associates Jasmine Gartner and Andrea Ryland who have gone beyond the line of duty in the last year. A mere thank you to them and so many others I have worked with seems wholly inadequate but, if I have time to write that book while fulfilling all of the musical opportunities I can now concentrate on, I promise that I will do their names justice.

Derek Luckhurst

January 2024

There’s no question but that industrial relations – and specifically relations with recognised trade unions – is looming large on the agenda of many employers, in a way that we haven’t seen for many years.

In large part driven by the ongoing severe cost of living crisis affecting so-called ‘white collar’ professions as much as employees in traditional ‘blue collar’ roles, trade unions are responding to pressure from members to secure the best possible deals on pay, particularly in sectors where skills shortages enhance employees bargaining power. In other sectors concerned about job security in our topsy turvy labour market the pressure is on trade unions to stand up for traditional skills and resist the relentless tide of change.

Many employers find themselves ill-equipped to deal with this resurgence of trade union activity. After years of relatively quiescent industrial relations, there is a lack of muscle memory in many organisations about how to conduct effective bargaining and negotiation.

And the upsurge coincides with challenging market conditions in many unionised industries, putting companies under pressure from both ends.  It is also true that some leaders have not helped themselves, by pocketing large increases themselves while urging restraint on the ‘poor bloody infantry’, as one trade union put it to me recently.

So the consequences for organisations that failed to nurture or develop the relationship with recognised unions in relatively benign times are coming home to roost. In particular, leaders and managers who failed to work at developing mutual respect and trust when times were easier, may now find it difficult to establish effective working relationships with trade union reps at the eleventh hour.

What steps can employers take to develop dialogue with trade unions?

Even so, there are some steps that can and should be taken by employers, post haste, to indicate a genuine desire for dialogue.

Architecture

It is vital to have mutual agreement on the architecture within which discussions eg on pay take place. Both parties need to be clear on the rules.  Who is negotiating with whom – who are the key players? Where will binding decisions be taken? On the management side, do negotiators have to run back constantly to get a mandate from the leadership – leading to demands from the union that ‘can we talk to the organ grinder, not the monkey’. Equally, what is the decision-making responsibility of convenors and stewards doing the negotiating or do all offers have to be put to the membership? Do all parties agree what is actually up for negotiation – and what issues are for consultation.  Confusion over these basic rules of the game too often lead to mistrust and allegations of bad faith.

Time, opportunity and expertise

Do both sides have the time, opportunity and expertise to prepare their case, and explain the reasoning behind the respective positions? Is there a forum in which these can be explored together, perhaps away from external pressures.  On pay, simple assertions by management that ‘we just can’t afford it’ need to be backed up by evidence; similarly a blank assertion that ‘my members won’t wear that’ should be probed.

Process

Process matters – but so does an ongoing culture of willingness to listen, and to respect mutual roles. Building trust between union reps and managers is no different from building other relationships – it takes time and effort.

Communication

Effective communication channels – formal and informal – are vital.  Can someone senior from management or the union simply pick up the phone when needed.  At the same time are there transparent and regular formal, trusted channels to address concerns and discuss potential solutions?

Is there mutual commitment to a ‘no surprises’ culture, where union representatives are engaged in decision making processes and policy discussions at an early stage?

Are there agreed mechanisms for resolving disputes – eg mediation?

Behaviours

Does the employer demonstrate respect for the role of the union and its representatives, and acknowledge their positive contribution? Is becoming a steward seen as a positive, or are reps seen as trouble-makers?

Are agreements and commitments followed through, and the results reported to the workforce?

They say it’s never too late to make a fresh start. Trade unions will continue to play an active role on behalf of members in the months and years ahead, particularly if there is a change of government at the next election. In my view, it lies to a large extent in the hands of individual employers as to whether they take the steps needed now to ensure this vital relationship goes down a collaborative rather than an adversarial path.

Nita Clarke OBE

Director, IPA 8 December 2023

2023’s National Productivity Week ended on 1 December, with the UK still grappling with the same challenges that were set out in IPA’s report published in 2014 – Involvement and Productivity: the missing piece of the puzzle.

Analysis of recent figures released by the Office for National Statistics shows that productivity in the third quarter of this year is now 24% lower than it would have been if the trend before the financial crisis of 2008 had continued and the UK trails German, France and the United States. The ‘productivity gap’ is still alive and well it would appear and, according to a new report from the London School of Economics and Political Science, this is due to lack of investment in capital and skills.[1]

According to the Productivity Institute “conventional mechanisms to drive productivity through technological change and innovation (whether stemming from scientific progress, technologies embodied in new machinery and equipment, or better business practices) have not been working as well since the 2010s.”[2] 

If not a ‘dash for growth budget’, achieving growth was clearly at the forefront of the Chancellor’s mind in the recent Autumn statement with the making of tax breaks for capital investment permanent. But in the absence of a joined up industrial strategy, where should the current, or next government, focus investment to get the most bang for the UK taxpayers buck?

In 2014, IPA called for investment in effective people management and leadership practices; closing the skills gap through improved education and training programmes; encouraging innovation both in introducing new technologies and in new ways of working; and for improving employee engagement and strategies for involving the workforce in workplace change through workplace voice and the trades unions.

Since then, we have had the Taylor Review Modern Working Practices which set out clearly the case that ‘better designed work that gets the best out of people can make an important contribution to tackling our complex challenge of low productivity’. And of course, the world has experienced a pandemic – fundamentally changing our to attitudes to work and the ways we work, with hybrid and remote working more commonplace, a greater emphasis on health and wellbeing of employees and higher numbers of working-age people excluded from the workforce due to ill health.

The recent expansion in the number of organisations exploring the introduction of shorter working hours, sometimes through a four day working week, achieved through productivity gains was highlighted in a recent blog by Professor Sir Christopher Pissarides, who noted that ‘Good work – work that offers dignity and autonomy, that has fair pay and conditions and where people are properly supported to develop their talents and have a sense of community – is one of the ways that productivity can be improved. As such, it should be as much of a focus as income growth and skills.’