Labor vs. Management: Employee Learning as a Contested Terrain

Introduction: Competing Interests in Workplace Learning

The labor landscape in the United States is a complex battleground between management and workers in which both parties attempt to find common ground between their contrasting interests, such that they might achieve a shared orientation of goals. This remains one of the great and ongoing challenges for American laborers in particular, who are likely to be pulled in two separate directions in pursuit of this compromise. On one hand, employees are subject to the will, authority, and interests of management, such that on-the-job learning will seem largely geared toward fulfilling company-wide ambitions. On the other hand, employees constitute their own unified force with its own priorities, and on-site learning in this context is geared more toward developing an understanding of labor rights and principles. This creates a context in which employee development must be tempered by a balance between these two frequently contentious sides.

As the research presented here will demonstrate, labor education and employee development must be driven by a comprehensive understanding of labor rights, legal protections, and philosophical imperatives where these might improve the lot of workers — but must also be balanced by a recognition of the duties incumbent upon workers through their commitment to management, ownership, and employment in general.

The primary text used during this study points to the need for such balance, arguing that "workplace learning represents a contested terrain of social, political and economic struggle. The purpose of trade unions is to represent the interests and worldview of the diversity of workers, and the goals of workplace learning can be seen as overlapping as well as opposing those of management" (?, p. 1). This claim underscores the primary impulse driving labor education from a union or labor perspective. While internal educational schemes will generally revolve around providing workers with the skills and procedural training to conduct their labor responsibilities, unions must provide a counterpoint — educational schemes that focus on broader vocational skills, a sense of collectivity within the labor context, and an understanding of the legal standards that can be invoked to further the interests of the collective.

Trade Union Learning Representatives and the Education Battleground

As this research also demonstrates, it is often a struggle for workers to gain the type of employment learning that favors the development of a wider range of labor skills and knowledge. For many organizations, the interests of ownership and management are not merely different from those of a trade union where education is concerned — they are often seen as contrary to union values and priorities. Management and ownership will frequently view non-company-driven education as a means of empowering workers, which may be perceived as a threat. Employers may regard the diversification of skills and workers' awareness of labor law as leading to worker revolt or a heightened sense of value outside of the specific organization.

In order to address this obstruction to union-driven employee learning, many unions are adjusting their organizational models to include personnel specifically delegated the task of promoting learning, coordinating education, and generally defending workers' rights to access these empowerment opportunities. As the article by Cassell and Lee (2009) indicates, "the statutory rights given to trade union learning representatives (ULRs) to facilitate and organize learning in the workplace has led to the creation of a new specialized union lay official role" (p. 213).

This representative is now seen as an important part of the process by which workers may use the employment context to make gains in knowledge, technical skill, and union membership. Given the obstacles that labor staff will face in some organizations — with respect to achieving an education not specifically designed around roles and responsibilities within that organization — the Union Learning Representative is meant as a powerful advocate for this interest alone. This is crucial given the degree of contentiousness that generally characterizes such contexts. Accordingly, Cassell and Lee argue "that although the ULR initiative provides opportunities for unions to promote the ideal of learning partnerships within the workplace, rights to learning remain a contested terrain between many employers and unions" (p. 213).

Management's Educational Agenda vs. Union Priorities

This is to say that the ULR may become a lightning rod for management's opposition to union education. Returning to what is contended by the primary text, we can see that the education of personnel has in many ways become a battleground between companies and unions. This is a clear demonstration of the threat that organizations perceive in unionized employee learning — a threat to their stability and, most particularly, to their control over their own workforces. For all intents and purposes, management views union-driven learning as a path by which personnel gain access to greater skills and knowledge, such that their value extends beyond the specific charges of the containing organization. When this occurs, laborers become more versatile and possess greater economic power. This type of learning may also erode the fear of dismissal that often prevents concerted union involvement or activism. The learning model promotes a sense of labor worth that denotes employment viability across an array of contexts, not just in a current place of employment.

Conclusion: Improving Employee Learning to Advance Labor Goals

Ultimately, employment education is frequently overshadowed among union priorities by the pressing political and philosophical realities of the ongoing conflict between labor and management. However, this analysis also finds that an improvement in employee learning strategies would promote a corresponding improvement in meeting the political and philosophical goals of labor organization more broadly.

?. (?). Unions and Workplace Learning. ?.

Cassell, C. & Lee, B. (2009). Trade unions learning representatives: Progressing partnership? Work, Employment & Society, 23(2), 213–230.

Stroud, D. & Fairbrother, P. (2008). Workplace learning: A trade union failure to service needs. Journal of Workplace Learning, 20(1), 6–20.