Continuing training policy covered by collective wage agreements in Germany and the Netherlands
Dick Moraal
Translated by: Martin Kelsey (Global-Sprachteam, Berlin)
In the light of technological change and the ageing of industrialised societies, it is indisputable that growing significance will be accorded to processes of lifelong learning in future. What is in dispute, however, is who is to provide the financing and to which extent. The BIBB Project "Continuing vocational training: causes of possible under-investments and incentives for companies and employees" undertakes a specific consideration of continuing training measures which lead to marketable qualifications. Educational economists suspect that the investment made into such schemes by both companies on the one hand and employees on the other is lower than optimum in economic terms. For this reason, one aim will be to investigate possible causes of this supposed under-investment on the part of companies and individuals with regard to their practical significance. Financing concepts for the solution of the company under-investment problem will be covered.
Within the scope of the BIBB project, one project module will address the issue of "Continuing training policy covered by collective wage agreements" in Germany and the Netherlands". Continuing training policy covered by collective wage agreements and the financing/co-financing of such training continues to be a barren area for academic research. Both national and international debates primarily focus on the composition of various collective wage agreements. Systematic treatments of the issue are, by way of contrast, extremely rare.
The interest of this module focuses on forms of inter-company cooperation aimed at strengthening investment incentives on the part of the companies. The analysis is restricted to German and Dutch concepts. If an under-investment problem exists, an opportunity for cooperation between the companies could serve as a vehicle for creating an incentive for greater participation in the financing of continuing training, i.e. requesting more continuing training for employees. A contributions-based fund system represents just such a cooperation opportunity. These funds are mostly organised at branch level on a collective wage agreement basis and provide companies with funds for continuing training purposes financed via a levy paid by all participating companies.
One example is the O&O funds (sectoral initial and continuing training funds) in the Netherlands. These constitute a special type of social fund in the form of collective wage agreement regulations which extend beyond agreements regarding wage levels and establish an important connective link between the economic processes within a society and the regulation of social processes (e.g. the labour market, social security, initial and continuing training). The tasks of the O&O funds include the financing of continuing training within a branch and the promotion of dual initial training and employment. They also support an increasing number of training measures for employees moving to another branch. Sectoral training funds are viewed as an important instrument for the fostering of company-based continuing training in small and medium-sized companies. A quarter of the funds finance training schemes which are more general in nature as well as funding special training measures. Almost one in five funds uses procedures for the certification of workplace-integrated/workplace-related forms of company-based continuing training. These procedures are recognised across the branch.
In Germany, inter-company cooperation in initial and continuing training tends to be unusual. One exception in this regard is the regulation of initial and continuing training in the scaffolding branch. In 1981, the collective wage agreement partners in the scaffolding sector agreed on a financing system covered by collective wage agreements in order to solve a specific continuing training problem within the branch (employee skills levels were no longer in line with technological progress). The so-called social fund of the scaffolding sector is used to finance social benefits regulated within the scope of collective wage agreements and to fund the costs of initial and continuing vocational training. The social fund model was adopted for the construction industry in Germany in 1987, although the main focus here is on initial company-based training. Funding for company-based continuing training has only been added in recent years. The levy (1.2% of the gross wage amount) is paid by all companies in the construction sector. The social funds operated by the construction branch refund some monies to employers and the cost of social benefits as well as financing the inter-company vocational training centres operated by the industry. Since 1991, a fund solution has also been in place in the agriculture and forestry branch for the purpose of financing the initial, continuing and advanced training of employees working for companies in the sector.
Nevertheless, the debate surrounding forms of inter-company cooperation has intensified over recent years. The analyses conducted by the independent expert commission "Financing of Lifelong Learning", which was enacted in 2001 by the German Lower House of Parliament, have dealt in detail with company-based continuing training covered by collective wage agreement regulations. A majority of members declined to express any recommendations with regard to the introduction of sectoral continuing training funds. Notwithstanding this, the commission was of the view that the state needed to improve the general conditions for initiatives and promote pioneering models in order to reduce the learning costs incurred by companies and intervene in a targeted manner in areas where the market is failing. Other proposals made were the promotion of agreements between the social partners on lifelong learning and learning time accounts and the provision of support for company-based continuing training activities for semi-skilled and unskilled workers. The latter proposal will be acceded to in the 'Social partner guidelines' recently drawn up by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS), the Federal Association of German Employer Associations (BDA) and the Confederation of German Trade Unions (DGB) (BMAS 2009). Until 2013, the BMAS is using ESF and Federal Government funding of €140 million to finance social partner activities to strengthen participation in continuing training by employees and companies with a particular focus on measures to improve the general conditions for company-based continuing training. These include strengthening advisory structures, identifying company training needs, the practical transfer of tried and tested instruments and procedures, continuing training cooperation agreements and improving quality and exchange of experiences.
The IG Metall trade union in particular has been planning new inter-company cooperation initiatives in company-based continuing training for some time. Variously designed forms of continuing training regulations covered by collective wage agreements have been concluded over recent years in the metalworking and electrical industry in Baden-Württemberg and in the West German textile and clothing sector. The latter has established a continuing training fund for the implementation of training agreements, whereas the metalworking and electrical industry has established an agency for the funding of continuing vocational training jointly owned and financed by the social partners the "Sudwestmetall" employers' association and the IG Metall trade union) and named "Agency Q". During collective wage agreement negotiations conducted in 2006, IG Metall and the employers concluded a nationwide collective wage agreement for training. The trade union ver.di reached a similar agreement for the public sector in 2005.
This part module will respond to the following questions. What are the structural characteristics exhibited by models of inter-company cooperation? An object of investigation will be how various forms of inter-company cooperation in continuing training financing affect commitment to continuing training - company-based continuing training in this case - and whether such forms of cooperation are able to have an impact on solving the problem of under-investment in company training which is utilisable in an inter-company manner. Were the regulations considered able to bring about an expansion of company-based continuing training commitment? Do the effects exerted by the models differ with regard to various company characteristics? What is the estimated level of "bureaucratic loss" occasioned by different forms of inter-company cooperation?
