Rupert Griffin outlined the process he had adopted, the responses from unions, including existing history educational provision (as well as what they wanted from history and any gaps in current practice), and how they felt history might help meet their objectives. He then outlined a proposed model, based on interest from Unison, which the History & Policy Trade Union Education Project might consider taking forward.
Process
Rupert identified union officers with an education remit, sent a questionnaire to them, conducted interviews, collated responses and held a focus group with Ruskin students.
Responses
Typically there was use of history around union premises - often 'glorious' history. This was available on union websites, for example the Fire Brigades Union. Some unions had official written histories. There were occasional historical articles in members' publications, and talks for members on union history/sources such as the RMT photo archive. Conversely, sometimes history was seen as uninteresting and of little value.
Existing History Educational Provision
Provision is generally limited, even for those unions that do use history. Others avoid union history because of divisions in the past which are seen as threatening to the success of recent mergers. Union training courses tend to be less academic and more skills based - skills that enable members to do their jobs better.
(i) What do unions want from history?
Some unions recognise there is a lack of understanding of the origins and development of their organisations.
(ii) Gaps identified by respondents
(iii) Objectives and outputs
Union leaders will be looking for engagements that lead to outputs that meet key organisational aims - relating above all to negotiating, efficiency, organising and campaigning.
Proposed model
Unison already makes extensive use of historical material in its courses on membership development as opposed to training:
A pilot programme with Unison could enhance this provision by:
When this report is completed early in 2012, it will be circulated to around 120 trade union education officers to build on existing contacts and foster new ones
Discussion
Noel Whiteside: The Modern Records Centre at Warwick is underused - and needs more demand for its services to avoid any possibility of closure.
Peter Ackers: Commented that the industrial relations group at Warwick is in the business school and does not do any history. Indeed there has been a major shrinkage of union history research and teaching in universities. Both The Labour History Reviewand Historical Studies in Industrial Relationsare moving to Liverpool University Press, but of course represent old-fashioned leftist approaches.
Rupert: Unison offers an example of best practice - and could provide a model for the H&P Trade Union Education Project. Donald Cameron has stressed that funding could be leveraged by outputs for membership development not research as such. The aim would be more engaged, active members. However, many unions did not respond as their leaders were more interested in training than education; if a project does not meet objectives it is a waste of time, let alone money.
Roger Jeary: There is diminishing union income, added pressures on that, plus unions are considering their core business - history is not one and therefore it is a lower priority. A successful model could help show the usefulness of history to unions. Is there something that could be delivered outside of unions - especially since their focus is so much on training not education - that unions and individual members can buy into?
Rupert: This would take the form of a 'virtual college', with unions providing the space and H&P arranging the rest. Interest is there among members and especially younger members. Courses could be billed not as history per se but as membership workshops.
Denis Gregory: Re-emphasised that union priorities need to be taken into account - the relevance of history to their objectives such as organising, recruitment, negotiating and campaigning - needs to be made clear. For example, why and with what effect campaigns made breakthroughs and the lessons for today - thus getting history into the process of strategic thinking. We need to make a business case for history: to help take unions forward. Both Rupert's report and the pilot project need to be advertised and disseminated.
Jim Moher: Union leaders are often scared of real history because it is internally contentious. H&P's role is to focus on what actually happened, rather than the heroic, idealised version, and shed light on difficult areas, including mistakes. So the business case for history should include learning from past difficulties. For example the H&P TU Forum's Wapping dispute event was well attended, offered a revealing discussion and good feedback.
John Edmonds: Case studies of issues and methods will be more appealing to union leaders than internal controversies, e.g. the disappearance of final salary pensions in the private sector, and the background to the Cadbury takeover.
Roger Jeary: Are comparisons with what has been done in other European countries useful (especially Germany)? Is it worth approaching other sections within the unions beyond education departments? For example Unite has over 20 sectors.
Denis Gregory:The European Commission is interested in social cohesion, is it worth linking up with union centres in Germany and Scandinavia for a European project with Commission funding? But is Framework 8 focusing on hard sciences? In any case, applications like this are a lot of work.
Alastair Reid:There is a sober sense in the meeting - a recognition of the difficulties and opportunities. A key challenge in taking things forward will be to identify the established historians able and willing to engage with the unions, for example gearing their existing research interests into collaborative projects with unions, or seeking funding for PhD students, or getting involved in skills training for union membership development. Could Rupert, Denis and Jim write a business case for more history in trade unions, after the consultancy report? Though more historians would need to engage with the project before a really effective business case could be written.
Warm thanks were expressed to Rupert from all present for a scoping project which had already exceeded expectations.
James Moher and Alastair Reid
Sign up to receive announcements on events, the latest research and more!
We will never send spam and you can unsubscribe any time.
H&P is based at the Institute of Historical Research, Senate House, University of London.
We are the only project in the UK providing access to an international network of more than 500 historians with a broad range of expertise. H&P offers a range of resources for historians, policy makers and journalists.