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.
Well, this is certainly producing an interesting debate. I have been a BASW member since I was a student, but always in a minority. I blanche every time I get the annual renewal and it is cost that many social workers have cited as their reason for not joining. However with UNISON membership easily coming in at £15 per month for most social workers (I think I've got my figures right) then the cost is not all that different. However it would be good to hear any responses from BASW to some of the other issues raised here.
Just to let you all know we have some news from what you might call the smaller end of the social work representation arena, which we'll be sticking up online later.
Anyone remember the British Union of Social Work Employees (formed at the 1978 BASW conference following a debate on whether the association should take on union status)? It's the recognised union at the NSPCC as well as having members in other organisations.
Apparently, it's due to merge into a union called Community, which has its roots in the iron and steel industries. At the same time, the children's services union and professional association Aspect has set up a section for social care professionals. Its head, apparently, is Steve Anslow, the former general secretary of Buswe.
Interesting times.
BASW is a lame duck in my view - having heard from people who have been unhappy with the quality of their representation service. They also seem to have a lack of self-awareness. They must get their house in order if they are going to have the clout of the BMA or Royal College of Nursing. If they merged with a union that would be a good thing -- but should retain a distinct voice for social work, which is sorely lacking. When do you see BASW speaking out every time there is yet another negative social work story in the press? They need to put this right
The unions play an essential role but they don't have the social work focus. BASW merging with a union would probably put BASW in an even worse position as then they would be just a minor interest group within the much larger union. I believe social workers need an organisation like BASW, although with greater membership and a higher profile. Bearing in mind that the main union for social workers is still UNISON because it is the main union for local authority workers: social work issues tend to get 'lost' among the overall causes of the union, particularly as social workers tend to be in the higher pay groups compared to the majority of the membership and not many of the much larger group of much lower paid UNISON membership are likely to have an awful lot of sympathy towards social work pay when their own is so miserable. The other reason I believe that social workers need an independent organisation like BASW is because the job of being a social worker is to ensure the welfare of others. This outlook in a large union where there are a lot of others with apparently more pressing needs can easily mean this is done to the detriment of the needs of the social workers. BASW would do well to liaise with the unions but needs to remain independent of them. I hope BASW are reading some of these threads.
I have let BASW know about these threads so hopefully they'll get involved.
CareSpace support
Hi! BASW here in the person of one of its Professional Officers. I can't go back into the history like some of our correspondents, but I agree with some of the pros and cons that have been raised. BASW is able to support Social Workers in a more specialised way than the Unions, but we don't have the same amount of muscle in fighting for higher pay and higher status. UNISON and GMB seem to be the main Unions for Social Workers, but in those Unions we are few in comparison with colleagues from the wider field of social care, local govt and Health, etc. I think at one time going on strike was an issue some Social Workers felt (and still feel?) uncomfortable about and that was why they preferred BASW to a Union. I always belonged to both.
In answer to some of the points made, BASW has a very small staff group and we do respond to media coverage of Social Work and social care as much as we can (just because we do not appear in the media does not mean we have not responded - it just depends what a newspaper, radio or TV station decides is news that day and what approach they are taking). Recently Ian Johnston was on various radio stations when there was controversy over the baby removed from its mother in a Nottingham Hospital. We try to use our time and resources wisely, balancing working directly with members, supporting individual members and answering queries, responding to Govt consultations and representing Social Work on various working groups and in policy making forums (always in consultation with members), seeking to recruit new members (at events like Community Care Live), and running training events, meetings and conferences. Like most Social Workers I rarely put in less than a 42/43 hour week. It would be great to have more people to have a more strategic approach to media stuff and we are hoping to take a more proactive approach to recruiting members with some staff changes after a retirement. I don't want to get defensive about some of the comments raised as I know I work hard and do as good a job as I can for BASW and for Social Work, which has been my profession for over 20 years - the bottom line is the more members we have and the more members who are willing to get involved, the more we can do on your behalf. I am surprised by how little we do hear from members despite pleas in PSW, England Newsletter etc for them to get in touch (there's a challenge!)
As an employee I cannot vote at the AGM so I will be very interested in the debate about closer links with a Union or Unions and its outcome, but in no way do I want to see BASW lose its independence and its ability to speak for one very specialist and special group of people, Social Workers.
'Carer 1' is, I belive incorrect that as an employee s/he can not vote at AGM's - ALL Members can vote! Come on, 'Carer 1' stand up for your rights as a Member. In the past efforts were made when I was a Council member to prevent me voting against the 'executive' line but they had to admit that they were incorrect in applying that pressure on me.
'Wilt' also sounds like another formerly highly committed member who has left the Association - BASW has never been very good at coping with those of us who sought to take a line different to that of the Executive.
Any mature Organisation makes progress by welcoming debate and even opposition and, most importantly, seeking to involve 'ordinaery' members to the maximum extent. As I have previously stated BASW fails miserably to engage with its membership - out of over 10,000 members it can not even get 100 to an AGM! So, in reality, the vote in respect of its future direction is likely to be decided by less than 1% of its membership - hardly something for it to be proud of!
In these difficult times for social work / social care the Profession does, however, in my opinion need a really strong and vibrant BASW and I continue to only wish it well. It does need, though, to seriously look at what direction it wants to travel in - is that one of maintaining an independent professional base or one of becoming seen as a 'subsiduary' of UNISON (or other Trades Union)? Most of all - does it want to be an Organisation that can really demonstrate that it IS a 'member' organisation and not an 'insurance company' whose members mainly belong just in case they need its Advice & Representation Service?
just as a suggestion for discussion: what about a social care/work union?
Merge Basw/Buswe (bit late now i suppose) and recruit the children's workers CYWU who went into the TGWU and people going into Aspect.
unless we try to make Aspect a social care/worker union.
Then again at least Unison (in councils anyway) have some clout
There will most probably be more mergers in the future anyway
By forging links with a union BASW should be able to increase its membership while letting its members benefit both from what BASW offers and also from the collective strength a union can offer around pay and conditions. And that has to be in everyone’s interests. A sizeable, strong membership will strengthen BASW’s ability to get social work’s voice heard.
Hi Tim
You make a number of good points. It definitely makes sense to me for BASW to form a stronger link with a union, if as you say that will allow members to benefit from its specialist knowledge but also a union's greater strength.
If BASW joined up with a Trades Union what would be the position in respect of possible Strike Action (or other Industrial Dispute actions) where social workers may have a fundamental ethical objection?
BUSWE, I believe, had a 'no strike' policy.
There would need to be an 'opt out' Clause I feel. I think that offering the OPTION of joint membership (probably at an attractive but, necessarily, increased rate) would be useful to those who wanted it but given that members can currently belong to both anyway I have some doubts whether it would significantly increase BASW membership but, hopefully, reduce what they currently pay to both organisations.
I still prefer that BASW retain its separate Professional Association standing.
In reality, of course, anything that the Executive (Council) of BASW wants it will get as 'ordinary' members play little part in its decision-making processes. Long ago it disbanded its Membership Services Committee and it has more recently vastly reduced the number of members required to attend AGM's having struggled for many years to even get as few as just over a 100! It now only requires something like 60!
BASW, perhaps like social work as a whole, is not seen as radical and pioneering but is made up of mainly local authroity staff who are used to being told what to do.
A root and branch re-think of BASW's role is required. I would dearly love to see it rise like the phoenix from the ashes and really be dynamic and member-driven - how it achieves that within the present oppressive climate of social work I do not really know though!
Hi! Just a quick reply from a staff member. I think Rupert M is being a tad unfair. I understand that historically members did have explicit influence as Branch Committee members sat on Council. Over the years the Branches have mainly become defunct (with some honourable and notable exceptions) and I guess that's for a variety of reasons and know that Unions and other organisations have seen the same phenomenon. Turnout for London meetings where info is mailed out to over 2,000 members is about 30-40 at the most. BASW Committees and SIGs are also fewer and tend to have fewer members (altho BISWG, Renal SIG, Forensic SIG and Independents' Forum are very successful). No doubt there could be arguments about what happened and how things were organised in the 70s, 80s, 90s, but that was then and this is now. However, I am still constantly told by involved and active members that BASW is a member-led organisation.
I have tried really hard to get members to engage with me and I know colleagues do the same, thru column in PSW, England electronic newsletter, website and soon thru a BASW blog courtesy of Com Care. We also visit branches and attend events where Social Workers will be, members and non-members. We rarely get any responses to help inform what we should be saying to Government and how we should answer consultations, or to questions or suggestions of new Committees or groups that could be set up, or guidance and information members would find helpful, or contributions to Newsletter or PSW. I think the profession has lost confidence over the years (when I listen to older colleagues in the Social Work History Network I am amazed at what influence individual SWs, groups of SWs and BASW wielded (altho membership was about the same as now)). Have we been ground down, systematically oppressed and repressed, or divided and ruled or what - I'm not sure; I know many SWs feel simply too busy to engage in BASW matters at all. We would be member-driven if the members would drive us! Please get in touch with the Professional Officers (email addresses in PSW) and tell us your ideas for radicalising BASW!
Good to get such a quick response from a BASW staff member. The response, however, indicates the inherent difficulties within BASW (and probably within social work) - that being that members clearly feel either ground down, unable to exert any meaningful influence, disconnected or, at the worst, disinterested and apathetic.
None of those possible explanations do I find remotely acceptable, however. As social workers working with some of most disadvantaged and oppressed members of our society how can we not seek to have more influence? Have we given in to central and local government control? Are our careers more important than matters and issues of conscience? It is interesting that the Independents Forum is more active - they are, of course, the workers who probably earn far more than their local authority colleagues and really are profit-making - BASW also offers them very attractive Personal and Professional Indemnity insurance which they are perhaps more likely to have to call on than local authority social workers (and which they have to have in place regardless and BASW provides that benefit to a very attractive level).
BASW has lost several of us who really cared deeply and passionately about the Association and has become a far less vibrant and member-driven organisation.
BASW has voted to explore links with union, we've found out today
The British Association of Occupational Therapists previously functioned as a professional organisation and a trade union for OTs, but in the mid-90s it contracted out its trade union provision to UNISON. This means that OTS who are BAOT members automatically have membership of UNISON. The agreement works well. OTs do sometimes complain about their voice not being heard within the larger union, but that tends to be in areas where none of them have become stewards. Where there are OT stewards, the representation and support is generally excellent.