تاثیر اتحادیه در آموزش و تربیت کارکنان در کانادا در زمان سختی UNION INFLUENCE ON WORKER EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN CANADA IN TOUGH TIMES

In spite of much talk about a “knowledge-based economy” and “learning organizations”, little research has addressed the actual extent of worker education and training activities in current paid workplaces, and even less has considered the extent to which union status influences participation in such learning activities (Green, 1999; Ball, 2003). There is extensive empirical research on the positive impact that unionization has on different aspects of industrial relations, much of it focused on wage differences (Card, 1996; Fang and Verma, 2002), productivity (Gregg, Machin and Metcalf, 1993), and reducing turnover (Elias, 1994). But the little empirical research on unionization and education and training has generated inconclusive results using diverse approaches (Aidt and Tzannatos, 2002). Several Canadian (Kapsalis, 1996; Doray, Belanger, Motte and Labonte, 2003) and foreign (Green, 1993; Green, Machin and Wilkinson, 1999; Frazis, Herz and Horrigan, 1995; Orrje, 2000) studies show positive relations between unionization and educational participation. In contrast, a number of other Canadian (Gilbert, 2003; Green and Lemieux, 2001; Hui and Smith, 2001; Hum and Simpson, 2001) and foreign studies (Mincer, 1981; Frazis, Gittleman and Joyce, 1998) find lack of union impact or negative impact on the level of participation in education and training. This study aims to examine closely three aspects of this relation: (1) differences in educational attainment and job experience (tenure) between unionized and non-unionized workers; (2) incidence of participation for unionized and non-unionized employees in different forms of formal and informal learning and (3) how socio-demographic and organizational characteristics effect unionized and non-unionized workers’ participation in education and training. We intend to use a more standardized sample and wider array of comparable indicators on workers’ participation in formal education and informal learning than most previously published Canadian surveys on worker education and training. It seems self-evident that, other things being equal, unionized workers will be more likely to participate in education and training programs and more likely to be supported by their employers in these activities, as a consequence of their greater collective bargaining power. So, why have previous research findings been so inconsistent? McIntosh (1999) and Green, Machin and Wilkinson (1999) analyze recent international and British studies on union influence on education to show that the samples selected in many of these studies have not been designed to examine the impact that unionization has on workers’ education and training. Years earlier, Mincer (1981) had noted that research on unions and training used a variety of approaches and variables that were not comparable. Recent Canadian studies that have found a negative or inconsistent union impact on worker participation in education and training (e.g. Green and Lemieux, 2001; Hum and Simpson, 2001) have tended to include in their samples many more respondents than the Labour Force Survey (LFS) methodology recognizes as eligible for questions on unionization, including in some cases the self-employed, in others managerial personnel. Conversely, another U.S. study arbitrarily excludes small companies that often have low union density and low training participation rates (Frazis, Gittleman and Joyce, 1998). Such studies provide limited opportunities for generalizations on unions’ impact on union-eligible workers’ participation and training. Some studies have also dismissed consideration of nonemployment-related courses as merely “hobby spells” and arbitrarily excluded multiple training courses – in which the participation of union members is much greater (Green and Lemieux, 2001, pp. 17-18). In order to achieve comparability between different data sources, we have chosen to focus on employees without managerial or supervisory roles and to exclude those who are self-employed and those who have official managerial roles. These people have typically been regarded as ineligible for unionization by the labour movement. To include them in the samples would be to both underestimate and confound unionization effects on education and training. We also focus on workers aged 25 to 64 and exclude those aged 17 to 24. The rationale for this focus is that the majority of those in younger age cohorts are now still engaged in the initial cycle of formal schooling. While many of these younger people are also engaged in paid employment either periodically or simultaneously, their attachment to the labour market is more complex and requires more detailed study than prior studies have recognized or is possible here (Livingstone, 2002).