Dear Colleague

Since I wrote to you at the end of July, the union has started putting in hand the necessary steps for Changing the Union.

The First Stage
I am attaching a copy of the discussion paper called Changing the Union which I referred to in that circular. This paper is designed to bring together the numerous submissions from branches and to report on some of the key issues debated at the seminar and to focus future debate. It also sets out the seminar's action points on which we will be operating as we proceed with changing the union. There are two things I would particularly ask you to note:

• This paper is a key part in Spreading the Message and is intended to be read widely through the union and also to provide the background paper for the regional seminars which we hope to hold in October and November this year, and about which we will be writing to you again soon. At the end of the paper, we explain what we see as some of the key tasks of these regional seminars.

• It is important, however, that neither the seminars, nor the process of changing the union, be seen in any way as an "exclusive" exercise. We wish to include as many of the union's member as possible in this process of change. Thus, if you have any comments on the discussion paper, or comments which you believe should be taken into account in developing any of the other action points coming from the seminar, please contribute directly on these issues. We want the widest possible focus on the issue and want a debate throughout the union so that we have the maximum support for changing the union to reflect the members' needs and wishes.

Yours sincerely

SIMON PETCH
General Secretary

1. BACKGROUND

Over the past 18 years almost everything affecting the working lives of people who might join the union has changed. Then the union (or more correctly unions, as there were three of us) aimed to recruit civil servants who worked in Post Office telecommunications (and equivalents in the Kingston-upon-Hull telephone department). Now we have a competitive telecommunications industry in the United Kingdom where BT provides little more than half the managerial and professional employment. Further, as a result of the convergence between computing and telecommunications, many of these people, whether employed by BT or its competitors see themselves as working in the information technology industry rather than the telecommunications industry.

Nor, though the union is a UK union, are the aspirations of our potential members confined to the UK. Companies providing worldwide services to a rapidly growing world market (in telecommunications alone the market is expected to increase from £420 billion this year to £620 billion in three years time) no longer think in terms of a national labour force. Those who work for them have increasingly to reflect that perspective. A "safe", life-long, career with one company is now a thing of the past. Nor do they see the union in the same way; as "customers" more and more they look to the services the union provides for them, not the contribution they can make as members.

The union too has changed. Over half our members have joined in the last ten years, and over 80% since BT was set up. It's over a decade since we appointed a National Organiser and our first Field Officers to help focus on the problems of organisation and recruitment. We now have two Assistant National Organisers, concentrating on difficult recruitment areas, and have established a successful employment bureau, OPUS II. Nonetheless, particularly during the past five years of consistent hostility to the union, most of our efforts have been concentrated on survival. Our achievement has been that we survived. Our task now is to decide what we survived for.

In doing this we have to take stock of the extent to which we have not kept up with the changes going on around us and particularly that managers and professionals employed by telecommunications companies no longer almost automatically belong to a union. In 1979, 85 per cent were union members; in today's very different industry, only around one-third are members of the STE. It was against that background that the union commenced its fundamental review this summer.

2. BRANCH SUBMISSIONS

Over two dozen contributions to the Review were received from branches, committees and individuals. Understandably, since the 1997 Conference was still fresh in delegates' memories, the majority of submissions referred to the perceived failings of that Conference. It was too short, too adversarial, too backward looking, did not provide a forum for debating issues we should have been discussing, and did not provide enough opportunities for networking or for informal discussion. "Conference should be fun and rewarding" as one contribution pointed out.

Pay was also referred to by several contributors but with a wide difference in emphasis. This ranged from "the obvious", "achieve something positive", "not jam tomorrow, just bread today" through references to the importance of protecting members as individuals (though not asking them to take grievances) to "the STE is not doing itself (and its' members) any good by trying to maintain the pretence of negotiating our pay with BT."

Communications featured at two levels; first the need for members (or branches) to have a single contact point to respond to problems, some branches suggested a service level agreement as a way of formalising this; secondly in terms of the union communicating with members. Here there was a widespread view that the union was not using new technology well and several branches offered to help in devising effective ways of using the Internet and maintaining the worldwide web site.

Organisation and recruitment, when referred to, was accepted as the key to the union's future. Problems of branch size, sub-groups for bigger branches and the role of regional committees were all identified as possible ways of trying to cover our organisational weaknesses, as were more full time professionals, more branch secretaries with greater facility time and alternative ways for members to get advice on problems. Nor should we ignore the "accountability gap" within our existing organisational structures. On the recruitment side, "we have to become more innovative with recruitment materials and posters", as to scope "our remit is clear - it's telecommunications and related industries not BT and related industries", however, even this may be too restrictive. "With the changes in the industry it's no longer clear what the scope of 'related industries' is; does it include BSkyB, Microsoft etc? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly increasing numbers of members and potential members no longer see themselves as having either a life time relationship with a telecoms employer or as possessing skills which are specific to the telecoms industry. Hence why joining a union seems to have only a short term relevance? This is an attitude which I've noticed amongst graduates in systems engineering who are more likely to see their careers in terms of computing skills than in terms of telecoms industries. It also prohibits us from recruitment initiatives towards the non-union software houses that are performing increasing amounts of work for BT." Additionally amongst certain branches recruiting contractors is a potentially divisive issue, with strong views for and against.

As far as provision of services were concerned contributors were much more interested in services provided by the union to people at work than in those provided through MSD. Immediate access to professional advice and a single contact point recurred as key issues. Several people believed that OPUS II was providing a useful service and a suggestion was made that we might look into providing professional indemnity insurance as an extension of this approach. However, there was a widely held belief that a better, more member focused, service from Head Office and the Field Offices to the branches would be imperative if work based services were to become a key selling point.

The policy issue most referred to was that of Equal Opportunities. Partially this stemmed from the fact that our standing orders led to this not being debated at Conference. One branch provided a paper solely dealing with equal opportunities issues, this was because "EO is not an optional extra for STE in policy terms but remains so too often in practice. Given the nature of the workforce and the issues they face there is no option but for the STE to refocus its efforts in EO. To do so will not only bring recruitment gains, it will lead to a better IR climate in BT and elsewhere". Several other branches referred to the need to get a better focus in this area and one wished us to look more carefully at our own position. "If we want to make an impact on BT's lack of equal opps. (wonderful on paper, pity it isn't in practice) then we need to start with a look at ourselves. While female Branch Officers are no longer as rare as they were, for example, does the number of females on branch committees and at Conference as delegates, reflect the STE membership? (Maybe it does given the male dominated nature of the membership). I'm sure that we are vastly under-represented when it comes to ethnic minorities and especially females from ethnic minorities. DP Holborn was probably unique this year at Conference in having not one white middle aged male amongst its contingent!"

The final set of contributions related to the need for change and the difficulties that could be associated with it, for instance "the changes needed to cater for the new members may not be popular with our existing BT members or with other branches nationally (although I expect Martlesham is not alone). These people work as professionals in the information technology fields. Although working today under the badge of BT, tomorrow it may be some other IT company or BT subsidiary.

• They rate the availability of professional advice/help (when required) much higher than pay issues.
• They do not want wide pay scales - they joined BT on what they regarded as the rate for the job and will move to another "badge" if they offer better rates.
• They expect "local" bargaining and negotiation not national agreements".

The view was expressed that "the image of the STE is a key question. The union is too often seen as slow to respond, ineffectual and dominated by old men who are out of touch with the modern realities of the workplace. Our internal structures are not focused on addressing this problem. Too often we have structures, meetings and publications that add no perceptible value because they lead to no obvious activity. Too much that we do fails to make a difference to members."

The problem was expressed in a different way by a third branch, "I asked a (small) selection of members who attended my recent branch meeting what they wanted from their union.

The word that encapsulates their responses is "professional", basically our members are expected to look and behave professionally every day, and they expect their union to act in exactly the same way.

The days of the old style father figure AEE are gone. The majority of our members and, even more importune, our non-members, feel more at home with the new Labour Tony Blair image of cool competence, and we need to project a similar image.

The trouble is that the majority of the people who are willing to take on any representative roles for the union tend to be like me, ie a bit of a slob, whose heart is in the right place but who does not really feel at home in the new BT and who hanker after the days of pay scales and fairness.

In short we somehow need to get a few smooth, young PSG types involved the big branches and on the EC, projecting a more professional image."

It was against this background that the Executive Council, Officers of the union and certain staff met in July to review these issues. They also had available to them the result of some focus groups.

3. STE FOCUS GROUPS

The STE commissioned a market research company - Opinion Leader Research - to undertake qualitative research among new members under 35. Our aim was to help develop strategies to improve membership among this group by exploring what they want from the STE. A series of focus groups was held in July 1997 to investigate members' concerns and priorities at work and their relationship with the union. The groups involved members who were not active in the union.

Attitudes to BT

Generally BT is held to be a good employer offering valuable experience and training, job security and benefits. Disadvantages are those associated with being part of a large organisation including too many rigid processes, an inability to affect decisions, consultation mechanisms which are largely cosmetic and an increasingly aggressive corporate culture. Long hours and heavy workloads are seen as an unavoidable features of life at work in the 1990s. Pay rates are seen as reasonable, although there is a view that IT professionals are paid below the market. These members tend to judge BT's merits as an employer relative to others rather than against an objective set of standards.

Attitudes to STE

The union is associated with pay and conditions and providing support in personal grievances. It is felt that unions are important in the workplace even if the individual never has to call upon them. Pay negotiations are not seen to be particularly successful, but pay rates are not a key concern for this group. The union is not always visible enough and can be difficult to contact. However it is seen as having a good record in supporting individuals.

Informing is a higher priority than involving. Consultation procedures should require the minimum of effort as members are not generally concerned about participating actively in decision making.

Subscriptions are not held to be excessive, but the union needs to publicise its work, both individual and collective, more widely. However the STE Review - which most members receive and at least skim read - is seen as more reliable than BT's publications.

Strike action is not seen either as very appropriate or very effective.

General Findings

Members under 35 tend to accept that life at work can be harsh and demanding. They do not see themselves as BT "lifers" and therefore see moving jobs as a valid way of dealing with unacceptable terms and conditions. They are more likely to perceive themselves as individuals who need information and support than as members of a group which acts collectively. However they are aware that individuals may not count for much in a large organisation. They do believe that the STE has an important role to play, but one which is based more on a service than a participative model of union organisation. The union needs to publicise its work more effectively and to be more accessible in the workplace.

4. SEMINAR DISCUSSIONS

The bulk of the work of the seminar was done in syndicates looking at specific questions. In practice, there was a remarkable degree of commonality in the different syndicate groups consideration of issues and the brief summary below gives some of the main themes in response to some of the key questions considered.

i. Profile of STE Membership Now:-

• BT based
• Reactionary, backward looking
• Engineering biased
• Over 40
• Predominantly white
• Predominantly male

• Computing IT younger
• Personnel and CSC's much more evenly balanced in terms of gender

• Less BT and Engineering dominated
• More IT professionals
• More under 40's
• With better gender and ethnic balance
• More members working for smaller companies
• More self-employed
• More graduates and continuous learners
• More tele-workers and part-timers
  

Individual services including Pay and Career surveys and legal and contract advice

They will want the union to lobby on their behalf but not to mobilise them

To open doors for them and to be available

They will want the union as a safety net

They will want helplines and information on aspects of working life eg career development, pensions, training and employment opportunities (including development of OPUS II)

They will expect remuneration packages, reflecting the industry they work in, which may include the negotiation of terms and conditions.

iii. How do we organise ourselves now? Our strengths and weaknesses

Members who are placed in branches, which elect delegates to a conference, which nominates council members for the EC elections is a system that worked sometimes; however, when half the members did not know which branch they were in and when 40% of potential members in BT had not joined the union, questions had to be asked about its relevance. In considering the changes needed to Conference (apart from more time) we need to move from the confrontational to the constructive, more networking, more recharging of batteries, we have to establish dialogue and stop boring delegates (still more potential delegates). We need a better mechanism for decision making between conferences and make Conference the focus of the STE year. The strengths and weaknesses of the organisation are set out below:-

Strengths:-	Weaknesses:-
Still here	Seen to be ineffective
Employee Strength	Poor at selling success
Can be trusted	Bureaucratic
Representation for the individual	Pay dominates
Highly skilled membership	Democratic structure has a strangle-hold
Information and support	Lack of resources on the ground
Expertise	Mismatch of responsibilities on regional committees
Flexible approach to industrial relations

iv. Future of the STE

What kind of democratic processes and structure will we need? Traditional branch meetings are no longer an adequate basis for a democratic union. We need to find ways of involving people, interactively if possible. Should we use focus groups as well as Conference as a way of getting balance on certain issues? How should we encourage feedback from members? How should we make membership enfranchisement more real? Should we encourage membership ballots for Council elections? How do we become an inclusive, rather than an exclusive organisation? How do we make it easy for our activists to transmit information to their members to influence us? How do we redirect resources to organisation? Should we have more ANO's?

v. What kind of union will the STE need to become in the future?

Bigger; more widely spread; better organised; much better communications; alliances with other unions (merger?) including making better use of mutual assistance agreements; campaigning, lobbying union; not a BT house union; high profile; high tech; high quality; respected; professional; flexible; influential; develop portability for union membership offering continuous service and benefits through a working life (Unique Selling Point: your union is the only organisation that will be with you for the whole of your working life). Will need to represent employed and self-employed in information technology, software, internet, telecoms, multi-media, converging technologies, mobile communications. In practice we will probably organise managers and professionals anywhere where we can get recognition.

vi. Whither collective bargaining: How are pay and conditions handled by the STE now and what will be the case in the future?

NOW
Union obsessed by pay. Successes are hidden so the union doesn't get credit and we highlight our failures. Pay activity is seen as ineffectual, time consuming, short term and resource hungry. Quantifying claims only make all the criticisms easier and helps BT make the STE look ineffectual. Mistake to be perceived as concentrating on small minority of members, those who lose out. Costs of over emphasising pay are inadequate emphasis on resourcing, equal opps., stress, recruitment and generally positioning the union.

IN FUTURE
Set realistic objectives: Concepts such as openness, fairness and dignity. Accept less union input to the mechanisms. No quantified claim; no industrial action unless the overwhelming majority of the members are clearly disadvantaged (eg 1994). Collective representation on individual grievances, seek to devolve where more appropriate (necessary with trading units anyway). Be more honest as to our own limitations, both to the activists and to the members. Look for added value win-wins in the relationship with the employer. Look for small, easy successes within the existing framework. Aim for the possible. This is also a good basis for bargaining with other employees in the future.

vii. Adversaries or partners? Is there a possible new relationship with employers? Do we want/need one?

Yes, we need a new relationship based on the idea of partnership. This means the union being pro-active and strong, we must market the union to employers, talk their language, avoid knocking copy, look for issues where we have common interests. Campaign on an industry wide platform, offer OPUS II services but "better relationship is not possible until employers except the legitimacy of the union". Look at the relationship with BT on other issues; it is generally good but tainted by the appalling pay relationship. Against the background of "New Labour" it is opportune to offer partnership and stress our right to ensure individuals properly looked after, thus building trust and respect. But it takes two to tango.

ACTION POINTS

The seminar concluded by agreeing the ten action points set out below. Each of the first nine has a date by which the project team should come forward with proposals. Each of the nine project teams will be taking account of the specific proposals made by branches in the particular areas concerned. This paper is part of 'Spreading the Message', action point 9, setting out some of the issues which have got us to where we are. Everyone involved in the seminar is able to attend the project teams of their choice to help develop these solutions. The regional seminars will play their part in three main ways. First, by testing the extent to which throughout the union there is buy-in to the need to change. Secondly, by influencing the way in which the proposal may be prepared by each project team or, if a first draft has already appeared, by discussing that project team's proposal specifically. Finally, they will provide an opportunity for finding the best method of getting any resulting changes agreed and established throughout the union.