The state of union staff training in Canada
There is
not a lot of information about staff development in
Canadian unions. Tom Nesbit (Simon Fraser University)
has written most of the articles on the subject,
including: "Educating Labour's Professionals,"
published in Relations Industrielles/Industrial
Relations, Volume 56, No. 4 (Fall
2001).
This article, available on-line from the Département des relations industrielles de l'Université Laval, reports on the training of Canadian union staff and draws comparisons with the situation in the US and the UK.
Tom Nesbit's study considers four inter-related questions: What initial and continuing education and training exists for Canadian full-time labour staff and officials? What is the nature of such training? Who provides it? How is it evaluated?
Using data from a survey of Canadian unions and federations, he found that unions pay little attention to the staff development programs and that "the majority of union officials enjoyed little formal education specifically designed to help them with their work."
Comparisons to the UK and the US
The trade union movement in the UK and the US appear to put more emphasis on union staff development. Nesbit reports, for example, that “in 1991 a Trades Union Congress (TUC) survey showed that almost two-fifths of Britain's unions had sent at least 25% of their officers on training courses in the previous year and more than 50% in the previous five years.” (In the UK, the term officers is used to identify union professional staff.) Most of the training was offered by the TUC itself (equivalent to the CLC or FTQ in Canada) in the form of national courses of one to five days offered on a regional basis. The TUC has gone as far as developing “occupational standards” for union officials which set out what they need to know to carry out their jobs. (These are included in Nesbit’s article and can be downloaded from the web site link above.) The main purpose of these standards is to help officials make a more informed “assessment of their own training and personal development needs or they can be used in a more formal system of training needs analysis.”
The labour movement in the US also appears to invest more time and resources into the formal training of union leaders, including union staff. A great deal of this training is done through locals colleges and universities. According to data from the University and College Labour Education Association issued in 2000, over 50 post-secondary institutions in 30 states offer some form of labour studies program. A personal account of one such program, the Harvard University Trade Union Program, can be found elsewhere on this web site under the descriptions of selected leadership programs.
What’s the problem in Canada
In Canada the labour movement’s education programs are geared primarily towards the volunteer union representative. Nesbit provides an explanation by a CLC staff representative: “…they're the folks who need it most. We expect the full-timers to either know the stuff already or catch up as best they can.” As well, the content of the programs offered by Canadian unions tend to focus on building specific representation skills rather than leadership development. Nesbit reports one staff representative describing union courses as “more job training than labour studies.”
Nesbit reports that, in addition to the perceived inappropriateness of course content, another barrier to union staff participation in courses is lack of time and inclination. In his words: “Several of the officials…expressed surprise that any education specifically designed for them would be viable.”
Another problem is that union staff are rarely encouraged to get training. Nesbit reports that those “who had taken part in formal educational opportunities said that they were motivated more by an individual concern to better equip themselves than by any external pressure from their union. In any case, it remained an individual responsibility: union officials who identified a need for further education were generally expected to incorporate it into their existing work schedule.”
Nesbit points out the contradiction between unions and their employees placing great value on membership education while at the same time neglecting staff training. He suggests there are both personal and structural reasons for this.
One personal factor is the tension that arises for the employees themselves in balancing their own needs against the needs of the union collective. To illustrate this, he quotes a staff representative as saying, “I'd feel so guilty taking time off. I know I'd benefit from more training but the members' problems must come first.” Another problem is the perception that staff training is for those who need help. As one official put it to Nesbit: “you're admitting you don't know something when you're supposed to know everything.” A third factor relates to concerns that the kind of training that is available is not relevant or appropriate. For example, training union managers to manage is regarded with skepticism. Nesbit reports a typical response: “The last thing the union movement needs is an MBA.” Nesbit writes: “Academic attainment has never counted for much in a union setting. Indeed, too much “book knowledge” is often seen as detrimental and in direct contrast to the highly practical orientation required for union leadership.”
Nesbit’s exploration of the significant and complex structural barriers to union staff training suggests that the problems go beyond the obvious challenges of geography and limited resources. He suggests that union culture (the wide and complicated web of belief systems and practices) needs to shift to allow for more emphasis on staff and executive leadership development. At the same time, it is precisely through learning and development that organizational culture can be shifted. In this way, training of union professionals (and other leadership development programs) need to be seen as an integral part of renewing unions, that is, of building and transforming unions to powerful vehicles for workplace and social change.
Nesbit concludes that much more research and discussion is needed about the development of the labour movement’s professionals. In his conclusion, he reports on a round-table discussion of labour educators held in Boston where several points of consensus were identified:
First, the recognition that the issue of staff and official training and leadership development is a concern for the whole labour movement. Second, the necessity of viewing such education as part of a continuum of lifelong learning. As one conference participant put it, “We don't need more one-off approaches to training. Union education should start with the rank and file, progress through steward training, and end…who knows where.” In other words, the training for labour's professionals should build upon the existing strong tradition of union education for lay officials to better marry the different knowledge and practical skills required by fulltime staff, whilst also broadening their understanding and developing vision.
This article, available on-line from the Département des relations industrielles de l'Université Laval, reports on the training of Canadian union staff and draws comparisons with the situation in the US and the UK.
Tom Nesbit's study considers four inter-related questions: What initial and continuing education and training exists for Canadian full-time labour staff and officials? What is the nature of such training? Who provides it? How is it evaluated?
Using data from a survey of Canadian unions and federations, he found that unions pay little attention to the staff development programs and that "the majority of union officials enjoyed little formal education specifically designed to help them with their work."
Comparisons to the UK and the US
The trade union movement in the UK and the US appear to put more emphasis on union staff development. Nesbit reports, for example, that “in 1991 a Trades Union Congress (TUC) survey showed that almost two-fifths of Britain's unions had sent at least 25% of their officers on training courses in the previous year and more than 50% in the previous five years.” (In the UK, the term officers is used to identify union professional staff.) Most of the training was offered by the TUC itself (equivalent to the CLC or FTQ in Canada) in the form of national courses of one to five days offered on a regional basis. The TUC has gone as far as developing “occupational standards” for union officials which set out what they need to know to carry out their jobs. (These are included in Nesbit’s article and can be downloaded from the web site link above.) The main purpose of these standards is to help officials make a more informed “assessment of their own training and personal development needs or they can be used in a more formal system of training needs analysis.”
The labour movement in the US also appears to invest more time and resources into the formal training of union leaders, including union staff. A great deal of this training is done through locals colleges and universities. According to data from the University and College Labour Education Association issued in 2000, over 50 post-secondary institutions in 30 states offer some form of labour studies program. A personal account of one such program, the Harvard University Trade Union Program, can be found elsewhere on this web site under the descriptions of selected leadership programs.
What’s the problem in Canada
In Canada the labour movement’s education programs are geared primarily towards the volunteer union representative. Nesbit provides an explanation by a CLC staff representative: “…they're the folks who need it most. We expect the full-timers to either know the stuff already or catch up as best they can.” As well, the content of the programs offered by Canadian unions tend to focus on building specific representation skills rather than leadership development. Nesbit reports one staff representative describing union courses as “more job training than labour studies.”
Nesbit reports that, in addition to the perceived inappropriateness of course content, another barrier to union staff participation in courses is lack of time and inclination. In his words: “Several of the officials…expressed surprise that any education specifically designed for them would be viable.”
Another problem is that union staff are rarely encouraged to get training. Nesbit reports that those “who had taken part in formal educational opportunities said that they were motivated more by an individual concern to better equip themselves than by any external pressure from their union. In any case, it remained an individual responsibility: union officials who identified a need for further education were generally expected to incorporate it into their existing work schedule.”
Nesbit points out the contradiction between unions and their employees placing great value on membership education while at the same time neglecting staff training. He suggests there are both personal and structural reasons for this.
One personal factor is the tension that arises for the employees themselves in balancing their own needs against the needs of the union collective. To illustrate this, he quotes a staff representative as saying, “I'd feel so guilty taking time off. I know I'd benefit from more training but the members' problems must come first.” Another problem is the perception that staff training is for those who need help. As one official put it to Nesbit: “you're admitting you don't know something when you're supposed to know everything.” A third factor relates to concerns that the kind of training that is available is not relevant or appropriate. For example, training union managers to manage is regarded with skepticism. Nesbit reports a typical response: “The last thing the union movement needs is an MBA.” Nesbit writes: “Academic attainment has never counted for much in a union setting. Indeed, too much “book knowledge” is often seen as detrimental and in direct contrast to the highly practical orientation required for union leadership.”
Nesbit’s exploration of the significant and complex structural barriers to union staff training suggests that the problems go beyond the obvious challenges of geography and limited resources. He suggests that union culture (the wide and complicated web of belief systems and practices) needs to shift to allow for more emphasis on staff and executive leadership development. At the same time, it is precisely through learning and development that organizational culture can be shifted. In this way, training of union professionals (and other leadership development programs) need to be seen as an integral part of renewing unions, that is, of building and transforming unions to powerful vehicles for workplace and social change.
Nesbit concludes that much more research and discussion is needed about the development of the labour movement’s professionals. In his conclusion, he reports on a round-table discussion of labour educators held in Boston where several points of consensus were identified:
First, the recognition that the issue of staff and official training and leadership development is a concern for the whole labour movement. Second, the necessity of viewing such education as part of a continuum of lifelong learning. As one conference participant put it, “We don't need more one-off approaches to training. Union education should start with the rank and file, progress through steward training, and end…who knows where.” In other words, the training for labour's professionals should build upon the existing strong tradition of union education for lay officials to better marry the different knowledge and practical skills required by fulltime staff, whilst also broadening their understanding and developing vision.
Lessons on staff development from voluntary sector
Getting your organization ready for
employee training and
development
Click on the link above to access information on how to prepare for putting in place an employee training and development program.
This is one of the resource tools developed for the use by employers in the voluntary non-profit sector by the Human Resources Council for the Voluntary Non-Profit Sector.
The topics covered include the benefits of employee training and development, and tips for turning a workplace into a learning organization.
Click here to link to another HRVS Management Tool that gives for more specific information on how to implement a training and development program.
Click on the link above to access information on how to prepare for putting in place an employee training and development program.
This is one of the resource tools developed for the use by employers in the voluntary non-profit sector by the Human Resources Council for the Voluntary Non-Profit Sector.
The topics covered include the benefits of employee training and development, and tips for turning a workplace into a learning organization.
Click here to link to another HRVS Management Tool that gives for more specific information on how to implement a training and development program.