Should BASW forge closer links with a union, such as Unison?

The association's leadership is going to be asking members this at its annual general meeting on 30 April. The rationale is that BASW wants to have more of an influence on the pay and conditions of social workers, and not just issues of professionalism and practice, as it sees these two domains as increasingly hard to separate.

The link could mean joint membership deals or BASW getting involved with negotiating terms and conditions in some way.

Would this make people more likely to join BASW?

Anything that gives social workers a stronger voice has got to be worth a go.

I think this would definitely be a move in the right direction. Basw has a slightly strange position at the moment in that it does similar functions to a union but isn't one. A strong deadicated union for social workers would be an even better idea as social care sometimes seems to get lost within Unison due to its size.

I think it would be useful if BASW were to forge links with Unison (the main union of the care sector).  This would raise the profile of BASW and so might help BASW's membership figures.  It could improve the bargaining power when it comes to the annual pay rounds.  This would also increase the awareness within the union of the particular needs and interests of this group of members.  These thoughts also tie in with the thread on the decline of politics in social work.  As also in discussion on another thread there might also be an increased awareness of BASW's role among student social workers.

However the arguments against might be that BASW would not feel comfortable or benefit from being identified with a 'political' body (that 'decline of politics in social work' thing again).  Would that mean the loss of some current BASW members?  Would be interesting to know how other members feel about it.

BASW says it has always seen its role as putting service users, practice and social work values first, and social workers themselves second; whereas unions have putting members interests first as their raison d'etre.

The idea behind the link is the difficulty of drawing a firm line between these two domains (i.e. if social workers are poorly paid and taking second jobs than that harms practice, as does poor motivation etc).

As Aitch says, hopefully a union link would raise profile and hence membership figures - given (it seems) most social workers are union members.

The political stuff is hard to call. My assumption would have been that BASW members may be more rather than less politicised but that could be complete rubbish.

The issue is one of Trades Union v Professional Association and are the 2 compatible? Personally I see the attraction of BASW combining with a Trades Union but agree that some members would not feel at all easy with that and would probably resign their membership, on the other hand others may well be tempted to join BASW.

The attraction to myself was always that BASW was a Professional Association with no Trades Union ties although it has always, within certain parameters, cooperated with NALGO / UNISON and will on occasions deal with the professional practice issues when members hold joint membership. BASW also has its own well regarded Advice & Representation Service for members and provides a high level of Professional Indemnity insurance.

I always had concerns that BASW's membership was on the low side and that in the past it even disbanded its own Membership Services section. membership has stuck around the 10,000 mark for some years now when potential membership has always been sees as around 40,000+

Member attendances at AGM's have shrunk to a really low level (now under 100 members bother to attend) and I feel that it has become more of an 'Insurance Company' than a truly Professional Association. A healthy Association needs to be led / driven by its members - BASW certainly isn't. 

I would hate to see BASW lose what influence it has and struggle to see what it stands to gain professionally by 'cosying up' to UNISON (or any other Trades Union). What it needs to do is seek to better engage with 'grassroots' members and be seen as THE Professional Association for social workers.

Hi I am currently being represented by BASW's Advice and Representation Service and it is a good service. However there are only a handfull of representatives for the whole country so you can imagine they are very very busy. How would having Trade Union affect this service? I am just glad I joined when I qualified.

sweetgrass you would probably find that union representation would be easier to access because the union would recruit directly from its membership but Im not sure if this would enable you to have the same quality of representation.     Personally Im wary of professional bodies because they tend to have a much higher persentage of managers and directors on board and occassionally their priorities get confused (look at the RCN and the pay deals they have accepted)                                                                                                                           On the other hand unions have lost a lot of their powers thanks to Thatchers de unionising the workplce and many newer employees are suspicious of them .  A lot of organisations try to prevent their staff from joining unions (although legally they cant do this ) because they are happy for their staff not to know what their rights are. A union can improve conditions for everyone and staff who are aware of thier rights tend to be more productive,happier and better paid.

I thibnk BASW should join forces but theres nothing wrong with membership of both.

I think the joint membership would form a strong part of any link-up, which may possibly lead to better representation through a pooling of resources. That's just speculation though.

On the broader point, there are anti-union tendencies across the labour market (though less so in the public sector where union membership appears to be highest) so perhaps the links can be mutually beneficial: the status of a professional association lowering newer employees' suspicions of the union and the union's bigger and broader membership boosting the profile and membership of the association.

On the point about managers, Anne, I don't know what the membership pattern is in BASW, though it would be good to have some kind of idea.

BASW has a rapidly changing membership of workers who join and then leave / do not renew. There are a lot of senior managers and the Scottish influence is quite noticeable! - the Director, Ian Johnstone, being a Scot.

I genuinely believe that BASW's greatest challenge is to be able to demonstrate that it has MORE to offer to members and potential members than Trades Unions or the Social Care Association (SCA).

I recruited many members to BASW in the past until parting company with the Association and regret that it fails to really be seen as representing 'grassroots' workers. BASW needs to 'carve out' a unique and distinct role within social work and then it may well 'take off' in a big way. Cosying up to Trades Unions who have played their part in undermining the profession I do not feel to be in BASW's best interests.

This clearly is quite a debate, with good points on both sides. It'll be interesting to see which way the vote goes at the BASW agm. Are many people on CareSpace likely to be going to that?

I agree with Rupert - BASW needs to get its house in order and not think it can be lifted out of its own created mess by the trade unions. As a former BASW member and a founding committee member of the Independents Forum I became very concerned about its waste of scarce resources and lack of capability around its Advice & Representation Services (although I note some have been very well represented).

Furthermore there was clearly a major falling out over policy (and possibly other) issues between Ian Johnstone and its former Chairman Ray Jones. It was particularly disappointing to read that Johnstone thought that the GSCC were being soft on social care registrants - clearly he is out of touch (if he ever connected with) the Care Standards Tribunal who adjudicate on GSCC findings, a significant number of which are extremely critical of the GSCC. We do not need the likes of Johnstone to add to the poor image of social care, although no doubt he was attempting otherwise - it was however a very curious and in my opinion a major lapse of sensible judgement to put the matter in the way he did. How did he think the Membership or the profession as a whole might view his rantings? It confirmed for me that NOT being a BASW member was right. 

BASW needs to take a long, cool headed and grass roots appraisal of itself, its officers and leadership in order to determine if it is fit for purpose. The issue of forging closer links to trade unions is fudging the issue, but then BASW are excellent in that field of practice.

 Wilt 

The level of debate generated by this seemingly simple question goes to prove the point that social workers are never far away from being 'talking shop' attendants. True, the question is vital and therefore it is arguable that the best way to approach it is by being analytical. By being analytical to me means putting ourselves in positions whereby we could ask several questions (brainstorming, if you like).

Some of the questions that need to be asked would be about why the leadership of BASW have found it necessary to make this an agenda item now? Could this have been in response to members' request or just a mere way to survive?

It is very true that there is strength in numbers and unfortunately, BASW hasn't got this at the moment. However, it could be argued that the low up take of membership is not only due to what BASW is doing or not doing i.e. its recruitment and retension drives. What I believe BASW lacks is the recognition of its legitimacy either by the masses of social workers (or social care worker) or the establishment. At one AGM it was pointed out that GSCC membership is growing but as we should know, this is because of a government decree. Social workers have no choice in the matter. However, rather than join forces with UNISON or any other union, it would make more sense for BASW to join forces with GSCC. They would form the perfect union of the 'ying' and 'yang', the male and female or the balance and the counter-balance.

The reasons for my thinking aloud in this manner is that UNISON, as some of the earlier contributors had pointed out, has its hands in too many fires while GSCC is busy 'cleaning' up the profession but lacking any control over those who employ the professionals. It would therefore be beneficial for an organisation, and at the moment, the only professional organisation, to be on the inside of the GSCC to make them understand what professional social work actually entails. It should not be left to GSCC to decide whether or not BASW should be an equal partner. But no matter what the maths of the relationship is, BASW will gain more membership by joining.

If on the other hand BASW only wants to generate more membership by pairing up with unions, chances are that this might backfire. In the few organisations where I have worked and tried to recruit for BASW, it has always been very difficult, especially when UNISON membership does not warm up to the idea of an outsider 'trampling' on their feet. I just have the feeling that the ideal partnership between UNISON and A&R Service will not materialise as a result of this. It is equally arguable that being independent, A&R reps could easily discover some of the cosy relationships between some UNISON officials and their employers (which could potentially be detrimental to the UNISON member). A&R Services, in my opinion, should remain independent because they do a good job when they are called upon to assist.

I hope that BASW will pay heed to forums like this and start telling its members why they are suggesting the topic in the first place. So ladies and gentlemen, keep the debate alive.