PARTNERSHIP: BUY IN OR SELL OUT?

David Yeandle EEF
Tina McKay MSF
CHAIR: Jim McAuslan Deputy General Secretary, PCS

Key ideas:

"Is partnership all things to all people?" Jim McAuslan "Most employers are agnostic. What would interest them in working with unions would be evidence that they added value to their business." David Yeandle "Successful partnerships had to recognise that there were conflicts of interest between employers and employees and there needed to be some sense of equality. " Tina McKay

Report:

"Is partnership all things to all people?" asked Jim McAuslan in introducing a session that brought out different views of partnership.

Opening the discussion, David Yeandle of the Engineering Employers Federation began by talking about employers' views of partnership. He did not think that there was any great enthusiasm among them for partnership at European, national or sectoral level particularly since bargaining at these last two levels had all but disappeared. But he believed that while many employers would welcome a new relationship in the workplace some would not like to call it a partnership. There was no single model for this relationship but it had to build upon the history and culture of individual workplaces. Employers would emphasise a partnership with employees but not necessarily with trade unions.

Yeandle then addressed the question of how employers viewed unions. There is a relatively small, but growing, group that positively engaged with unions. There is a small, but vocal, group that were opposed. But most are agnostic. What would interest them in working with unions would be evidence that they added value to their business.

Yeandle wondered why there were not more partnership arrangements. He thought that the reasons were a lack of role models and the lack of research to show that they added value. He observed that partnerships often developed in response to an outside threat and were often dependent on key individuals.

He concluded by saying that the real test of a partnership would be how it tackled difficult issues. Would they be tackled in a new way or would they revert to type?

"Is partnership so new?", asked Tina McKay from MSF. Certainly not, she said. Working together had a long history. But there had been some unfortunate examples – H.P. Bulmer and Welsh Water for example. The idea that there was no conflict was wrong. Successful partnerships had to recognise that there were conflicts of interest between employers and employees and there needed to be some sense of equality.

For trade unionists, a well-organised workplace should be an essential basis for real partnership and many would doubt whether a real partnership could exist in a non-unionised workplace.

Partnerships should be a way to make things work better, to develop good employment practices and tackle problems by sitting down and talking them through. The outcomes of such arrangements were that employees knew what was going on and felt valued. This was good for them and added value for employers.

In the discussion, it was suggested that real partnerships were a new culture at work that attacked the old master and servant tradition. Structures were needed to support partnership arrangements but they needed to be flexible and not too bureaucratic. The litmus test for unions was does it improve the employability of members and does it enhance their work?

The views of workplace reps concerned some people. They were not always in tune with union leadership. Many reps believed that employers would take advantage of partnership and thereby undermine the union's independent role. Partnership could often be top down rather than bottom up. But other speakers emphasised the benefits to both sides and the opportunity it gave to unions to be proactive. It was also said that far too rarely do employers recognise the commitment of their employees to their business.

Another issue was the advantages of partnership to small and medium sized companies. In relations with these employers, trade unions were often the ones with the knowledge of employment law and practice. Was there a possibility of a different, more personnel-type, role for unions with these companies where union membership was currently low?

Finally the question of what government could do to promote partnership was raised. David Yeandle believed that you couldn't legislate for partnership. But examples of good practice and much more money to support partnership developments were possibilities.

Buy in or sell out? With the wide variety of arrangements, partnership could be either. But most contributors wanted a relationship with employers that recognised different interests and provided involvement and consultation.

Reporter: Peter Carter