Preparation for the study circle

We had some difficulty with the recruitment process. Despite informing the unions as early as February about our plans and the new arrangements for the course we still had a shortage of participants at the scheduled start of our programme. Based on our previous evaluation we agreed that our first three sessions will be done over 3 full days. We felt at the time that this would over come a few problems which we experienced on the previous pilot, namely the disappointment of participants not learning enough and practically utilising the e-mail/Internet facilities; the tiredness and travelling after work factor and to provide a solid grounding in globalisation and TNCs.

Despite the agreement by unions to this arrangement at our Supervisory Committee meetings (TULEC controlling body) this was not communicated properly to their organisational structures. This caused a lack of commitment on the part of unions who were meant to participate. After two postponements we then called a meeting of union educators in order to revise our plans. This proved to be far more fruitful and our study circle started meeting only on 14 April. We also agreed that we would meet every Tuesday instead of fortnightly in order to synchronise ourselves with other study circles.

We eventually recruited seven consistent participants. They were as follows:

Suleiman Cassiem - a shop steward in the municipal workers' union (SAMWU) and who works in the waterworks department of the municipality which is currently under threat of privatisation.

Geraldine Taylor - a shop steward and executive member of the commercial and catering union (SACCAWU) and workers for a clothing retail chain store.

Heinrich Japtha - also a SACCAWU shop steward and working for a retail chain store.

Carmencita Motto - a union administrator of the woodworkers' union (SAWU).

Gerald Rubain, Basil Van Der Heever, Johannes Charles - all shop stewards from the metal workers' union (NUMSA) and working for National Panasonic - a TNC producing electronic goods.

A simple but important lesson for future recruitment is to ensure that the union educators are fully on board in determining and directing the project. This will create a stronger organic link with the unions and offset problems of recruitment and follow up of the project.

Structure of the Course:

Given the latest experience where we did not strictly follow the planned structure i.e. meet fortnightly, it is difficult for us to comment on. However, as co-ordinator involved in both pilots projects it is clear that tight and disciplined co-ordination and synchronisation of the different study circles is indispensable for any future projects to be useful.

I am still convinced that given the latest experience that we did not sufficiently overcome the problems highlighted at our last evaluation in Stockholm, namely:

• Not enough exchanges and discussion between countries' participants
• Participants not becoming sufficiently aquainted and enskilled with e-mail and Internet and consequently:
• Participants not feeling empowered and confident enough to take further what they have learnt into their organisations

We should once again consider a 2-3 day full-time component to the course whereby all participants gather simultaneously (within the limitations of time zones) and have access to e-mail and Internet whilst on the course and freely exchanging views with other study circles.

Sessions 4 and 5 tended to consume a bit more time. Although it is also logical that as the course progresses more time will be taken up with discussing the content of other groups' reports.

We must address the problem of insufficient focus on exchanges and debate. Perhaps we could have the co-ordinator synthesising the reports and honing in on new issues for discussion which arise from country study circle projects?

Content of the Course:

The content of the course was much more manageable than the previous pilot project. The gaps for us were in sessions 4 and 5 regarding codes of conduct, the ICFTU and MAI. It became clear that we needed to supplement the course content with additional inputs and information for these sections. There needs to be background/contextual information and learning first about these areas before discussing/debating the issues like the ICFTU proposals and positions on them. In this way participants are able to discuss questions on an information basis and more confidently.

There were no problems with introducing an international perspective as this was overcome almost automatically by discussing other country reports. If anything, based on the comments of participants, this was probably the strongest and most lasting aspect of their learning.

The course had a good balance between an analytical and action-orientated focus, although participants still hunger for more of both. Session6 on the way forward could be expanded and improved in order to make it more meaningful for participants, their organisations and IFWEA. We should develop a process whereby this discussion on ways forward and developing a future programme of action is specifically tied to the participants' organisations where they are based and driven by IFWEA at the top through ITSs and national unions.

Education Materials:

Educational materials were useable and manageable. Although more introductory material needed on ICFTU, codes of conduct and MAI as mentioned before.

Methods:

The methods were appropriate, although we should have included more practical use of e-mail and Internet by participants e.g. research exercises which they complete semi-independantly. The methods did enhance the aspect of collective learning but often undermined by time constraints.

International Communication:

The biggest gain by participants on the course was due to the international communication dimension. There was however not enough of it through exchanges/debates around common issues. Certain groups' reports were also inadequate and did not give sufficient information. This disappointed our participants who were keen to know more about those countries as well as their views on issues raised in the course. The exchanges enriched the international perspective of our participants who often were very surprised to learn that they were not alone in confronting the challenges of globalisation. This was especially so for those countries that are economically more developed and people here assume that their lives there are an ongoing panacea.

The project web-site was fine technically. The main problem was from our side as participating study circles not ensuring that our reports were available simultaneously. The problem of the English language usage did not impact strongly upon us, but it is evident that it did for other groups that deprived us of interesting information and exchanges.

The Outcomes and Future:

All participants evaluated the ISC experience in glowing terms and expressed a disappointment at the lack of time and at the same time are eager to follow up the project in their unions and avail themselves to future IFWEA/ISC activities.

Whilst participants will report to their unions and are keen to ensure that their unions pursue similar projects, this is not likely to happen unless the union leadership is fully convinced of the need to do so. As mentioned earlier IFWEA, through the ICFTU and ITSs should drive and promote the project internationally and IFWEA affiliates are to do everything they can to convince unions locally.

For this we need resources to enable us to carry this out and increase the profile of the project through various forms of media. TULEC has regularly given coverage to the project in its quarterly newsletter and will be doing so in union and other labour education journals.