Attitudinal structuring

In describing a behavioural theory of bargaining, Walton and McKersie explore the forces affecting relationships and tactics used to affect change in attitudes. Negotiators must assess prevailing attitudes and pursue change interventions to affect attitudes or ‘cognitive balance’ and reinforce desired behaviours. At ProcessingHouse relations between unions and management improved as a result of engagement on the learning theme. This suggests that some form of re-balancing occurred. During the follow-up visit in 2011, senior management at ProcessingHouse talked positively about the role of the union and ULRs. However, the ULRs noted that this positive orientation took some time to achieve.

“There are no real points of contention because we get things done, we now have an ‘entente cordiale’.” (ProcessingHouse Line Manager, 2011)

“Our new Senior Manager sees the benefit. Her predecessor did - in the end - but it took a lot of time and energy. Our new manager has worked here for a while and she has seen what we have achieved.” (PCS ULR meeting, 2011)

The prevailing attitude of local management towards union learning was not supportive from the outset, as one ULR noted:

“The number of times we were kicked in the teeth is, well …. a lot of the people who are in these (senior) positions see that they got there without any of this support so they don’t see it, they don’t see that there are people here without maths and English or came in so long ago that this has been lost.” (PCS ULR 5)

The comments illustrated two key points. Firstly, that management attitude towards union learning was initially negative and, from the perception of some ULRs, aggressively so. Secondly, local managers did not see the relevance of ULRs because of a lack of awareness of broader issues, namely, the impact of poor basic skills on workplace outcomes and potential for union learning to address this. Union learning was not salient to local managers and therefore supporting workplace (union) learning

was not central to their concerns. Changing policy on learning and skills in HMRC presented opportunities around which to organise and engage HMRC managers in this theme, for example:

“The review of skills across government and development of the Skills Action Plan was a great tool to help us build a consistency of message across management about the importance of skills. This was given as a top three priority by (departmental) permanent secretaries in 2008. This was useful to drive the case for union learning.” (PCS Senior National Officer)

“Managers became more interested once the legislation (on ULR rights) came to pass and the Skills Pledge further activated their interest, we got more access to engage with HR on learning issues.” (PCS Bargaining Unit Learning Organiser)

The national union also undertook member surveys to highlight learning issues within HMRC and other departments (DWP, Home Office). This helped to raise awareness of a number of problems faced by staff in relation to IT, literacy and numeracy skills, and the negative impacts of the drive for e-learning on certain workgroups and staff views on PDE processes. In addition to identifying ‘top level’ issues in relation to learning and skills, the union and management developed joint internal communications to send key messages about union learning, taking care to use a common language. As one ProcessingHouse manager noted:

“There were bulletins that came from both sides on the learning offer and we checked out each other’s joint messages so we are working with the ULRs to help everyone with this.” (ProcessingHouse Manager)

In order to secure a specific agreement locally for staff release to attend learning center courses, the ULRs used the tactic of engaging with the manager of the largest work group at ProcessingHouse. Through targeting this manager the ULRs were able to get sufficient numbers of staff released to ensure learning programmes were financially viable (with providers requiring a minimum of 10-12 learners per course). ULRs then focused on persuading other business unit managers to allow their teams to be released. The case made to management changed subtly, as ULRs encouraged these managers not to be the barrier that prevented their staff from taking part in learning activities.

A number of related union activities attempted to change the attitudes of local management. This included building an association and common language between union learning and other workplace

objectives and persuading management of the relevance and uniqueness of the ULR role. The use of shared data to explore and report on common workplace problems was key in shaping attitudes. The RLC noted:

“The business case and the figures it was based on were data that both sides could accept such as the numbers that had been through Level 2 and on apprenticeships and NVQs and what the department itself was doing in terms of the professionalising government agenda. So we were talking to an agreed set of data, there may be some issues around the edges but it was data that they would recognise.” (PCS Regional Learning Co- ordinator)

Establishing the learning center and BLC role also contributed to changing attitudes at the workplace level. Prior to this, ULR activity was concealed and not well understood by workplace actors, including the union branch. Establishing the center on site helped to raise the profile of ULRs and build understanding by both reps and local management of the nature and salience of union learning. The learning agreement was itself a valuable artefact in shaping perceptions and attitudes, as the Bargaining Unit Learning Organiser (BULO) noted:

“The national (learning) agreement gives us more publicity, it is a good indicator of progress. The first version was signed by functionaries, but the final version was signed off by the new chair of the board and the HMRC president and the FDA leads. This pulls more weight.” (PCS BULO)

A further tactic to affect change in local management attitudes at ProcessingHouse was to invite managers to participate in union learning. The following manager became more supportive of union learning because of such participation:

“I went on the course. And in terms of me being an HMRC employee that is absolutely fantastic, something like that going on in here … I can spend some time with colleagues having a cup of tea and learning something new. Anything that adds to employees feeling valued is fantastic.” (ProcessingHouse Line Manager)

There was a degree of recognition by union reps that, in order to engage support from managers to achieve union learning aims, local management needed to see the relevance of learning not only for staff, but also for themselves as managers. This view was apparent in comments from reps and managers:

“She (the Business Unit Manager) did eventually see the benefit of the learning and it looks good for she gets the success.” (PCS ULR 4)

“Another benefit that I now see is that the ULRs do lots of things that I could not do, they have got over 200 people involved from our section, so that is why we support them, the staff get the (learning) service and I get the job done.” (ProcessingHouse Line Manager) “I would say even if it is run by ULRs that when a member of staff gets involved in the ULR learning and comes back to the team and talks about his experience the staff also see that as something coming from the employer. The employer is getting good credit for that and I see the fact that we have this is an indication that I am a good employer.” (HMRC Business Unit Manager)

These comments are suggestive of Walton and McKersie’s description of bargaining parties reinforcing preferred behaviours through personal reward structures. The reinforcement of personal gain for managers led to more positive orientations that would hopefully underpin more favourable (or less hostile) bargaining behaviours in future negotiations.

This section highlighted a number of social processes linked to attitudinal changes by managers in favour of union learning. The strategies used by the union included the use of data, using ‘strategic language’ of the ‘business case’, the inclusion of managers in union learning activity and stressing the personal rewards for managers of supporting union learning. The interaction of attitudinal structuring tactics with other bargaining processes is discussed further in section 6.4. The chapter continues with a discussion of intra-organisational bargaining.