Encouraging Participation in Learning

1、Encouraging Participation in LearningIn several countries, increased participation in training activities has beenencouraged through landmark collective agreements. In Belgium, thenational agreement of April 2001 included a training section which committed employers to grant all employees at least f

2、our days training duringthe agreement period. As well as the benefits of expanding or updatingemployee skills, subscribing to the scheme brought significant financialadvantages such as training subsidies, on-site courses and price reductionsin more than 120 recognized training institutions. The nati

3、onal agreementof December 2000 called on sectors to implement initiatives to determinethe most productive synergies and to strive for optimal definition of target groups, including older workers, non-Belgian ethnic groups and thedisabled.In France, the social partners are involved in collecting and

4、administeringthe apprenticeship tax which finances training for young people benefitingfrom alternance work contracts, and the legal minimum payment may beincreased by collective agreements. Local training schemes are required toadhere to national standards where national qualifications are involved

5、, butcompanies also organize additional CVT without qualifications, and workscommittees are consulted on such training schemes. The cross-sectoralagreement on lifelong learning, signed in September 2003, marked animportant development, with a comprehensive text running to 50 pages inall. Among the k

6、ey innovations is the right to an appraisal interview at leastevery two years, to identify training and development needs, with opportunities to undertake a skills assessment (bilan de compétence) and tohave experiential learning validated and accredited. There is a new right to20 hours trainin

7、g per year, which can be accumulated over six years. Theagreement also provides for employee representatives to play a major rolein developing lifelong learning and elaborating training needs at workscommittee level (Vind et al., 2004).In Spain, the tripartite continuing training agreement of Decemb

8、er 2000defined the conditions under which companies could obtain governmentsupport for implementing CVT in the enterprise, one provision requiringthat the training plan be approved by the legal representatives of the workers in the company. In Portugal, integrated training plans are developedfrom th

9、e training plans of individual companies, which are presented to thepublic authorities for funding. In some cases workers or their representatives are involved in defining the training plan, with a negotiated collectiveagreement.State-regulated Workplace FocusThe countries in this category all have

10、versions of the German dual system of VET, widely seen as the gold standard for IVT (Marry, 1997).Policy DeterminationWhere VET is state-regulated and focused on the workplace, social partnerinvolvement is legally defined as an inherent element. In Austria the socialpartners are represented on commi

11、ssions and advisory councils at nationaland regional level, and are either consulted on, or responsible for, curriculum design and the development of new qualifications. Similarly, inGermany the Vocational Training Act (Berufsbildungsgesetz) and the Vocational Training Promotion Act (Berufsbildungsf

12、örderungsgesetz) define theresponsibilities of the bodies involved in monitoring, evaluating and determining VET policy. At national level, the board of the Federal Institute forVocational Training (Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung) consists of equalnumbers of representatives from central

13、government, the federal Länder,employers and trade unions. The legislation also defines the responsibilitiesof the 16 tripartite regional committees for VET (Länderausschüsse fürBerufsbildung) and their local offices (zuständige Stellen). Similarly, inDenmark, the social par

14、tners are represented in a council which advises theMinister of Education on all matters concerning the VET system, monitoring labour market trends and recommending new programmes and changesto existing ones.ImplementationSocial partner involvement in implementing VET decisions, such as developing c

15、urricula and qualifications, for example, is extensive. In Austria thesocial partners are responsible for maintaining the technical institutes(Fachhochschulen) which are virtually the only providers of CVT. Trainingmust comply with legally stipulated content, but the implementation is subject to the

16、 specific framework conditions in each training enterprise.Statutory regulations dictate the content of the company-based componentof apprenticeship training and the social partners make a major contributionto formulating these regulations and ordinances. New vocational qualifications are either alr

17、eady covered by legally stipulated training ordinances, orcan be incorporated into the apprenticeship training in the form of additional training content.In Denmark, the Minister of Education determines the guidelines foreach VET programme based on the recommendations of the social partners. These e

18、xert a direct influence in laying down the curricular framework for VET programmes through the Advisory Council on VET(Erhvervsuddannelsesråd), the National Training Council (Uddannelsesrådfor arbejdsmarkedsuddannelserne), and the sectoral and occupationalcommittees (Faglige udvalg) and co

19、ntinuing training committees(Efteruddannelsesudvalg).In Germany, there are national minimum curricula for VET, but companies are free to go beyond these and large companies frequently do so,creating additional qualifications to meet their own needs and supplementnational qualifications. However, by

20、law young people (under 18 years)must only be trained for state recognized qualifications, ensuring employability.The social partners are also involved in VET implementation at local,company or workplace level. In Denmark, local training institutions possess committees (Lokale uddannelsesudvalg) on

21、which unions andemployers are represented, through which they can adapt the curriculumto meet local labour market needs and facilitate cooperation with localenterprises. In Germany, the social partners are typically involved atcompany level in selecting and allocating training subjects. Works counci

22、ls in companies with five or more employees can request the employerto undertake a training needs analysis. They are also consulted on theintroduction and implementation of training measures; on participationin both internal and external training; and on special training facilitiesand the selection

23、of trainers. They are also involved in the interview andselection of apprentices and trainees, in which youth representatives havea special brief for equal opportunities and the integration of migrantworkers. In Norway, CVT is largely developed at company level with theinvolvement of the local socia

24、l partners in determining training curriculaand, in some cases co-financing of training.Encouraging Participation in LearningIn Austria, the company-based component of apprenticeship training isfunded by the individual enterprise but in exceptional cases there are agreements on the funding of additi

25、onal inter-company training. Enterprises arefree to introduce training schemes without reference to national standardsand company level collective agreements are sometimes concluded in relation to training plans. In Denmark, employers are required to contribute inproportion to the number of full-tim

26、e employees to a reimbursementscheme (Arbejdsgivernes elevrefusion) which refunds most of the cost ofproviding IVT. There is a separate procedure for public subsidies for CVT.In Germany, the social partners decide (through tripartite arrangements) onthe funding of training schemes, including apprent

27、iceships, run by the Employment Service at national, regional and local level. A levy system (2.5 to2.8 percent of the wages bill) operates in construction and agriculture andthe social partners co-manage the funds, dispersing grants to companiesoffering approved training and to inter-company traini

28、ng centres. There arecollective agreements in many sectors concerning funding of CVT, andworks councils often make proposals for paid leave (Bildungsurlaub) toparticipate. In some large companies, the social partners have negotiatedagreements on learning time accounts (Lernzeitkonten). Under a recen

29、t collective agreement (Tarifvertrag zur Qualifizierung) in the metal industry ofBaden-Württemberg, every employee is entitled to regular updating ofskills based on individual personnel development discussions (see alsoMartinez Lucio et al., this issue).Market-regulated School FocusSchool-focus

30、ed VET systems are normally state-regulated, but in thecase of Italy VET was until very recently left entirely to market forces.With no binding legislative framework and no obligation on employersto provide training, the ineffectiveness of the system was exacerbated byconflicts between central and l

31、ocal state authorities, the Ministries ofEducation and Labour, and between capital and labour.Policy-making在意大利，中央對社會對話強有力的介入，創(chuàng)造了三重VET系統(tǒng)。在這個系統(tǒng)中，集體協(xié)議被注入一定的活力和改良。然而，這個系統(tǒng)被整體較低的受教育程度，以及南部較嚴重的結構性失業(yè)扭曲，以至于將社會伙伴的注意力集中到了矯正教育和創(chuàng)造就業(yè)上。1973年，來自金屬加工業(yè)的一份標志性協(xié)議，賦予了工人每年150的教育及培訓機會，成為模版。但這一協(xié)議被限制在補救教育系統(tǒng)不足的范圍內，不能被VET利用。當

32、受教育水平保持在低位時，在制造業(yè)和白領階層，情況已經得到明顯改善。1992年，不同地區(qū)及三個主要工會聯合提出一項擴張學校及改革VET立法的協(xié)議，而這三個工會和兩個雇主團體也在隨后達成正式協(xié)議。這些國際、區(qū)際的協(xié)議，本質上是集中了多方利益及公共意見的決議。而各行業(yè)間的協(xié)議，則規(guī)范了CVT。Strong central commitment to social dialogue in Italy created a tripartiteVET system in which collective agreements injected a degree of dynamismand reform

33、(Infelise, 1996). However, the system was distorted by thegenerally low level of educational attainment and serious structuralunemployment in the South, which focused social partner attention onremedial education and job creation. A landmark metal-working sectoralagreement in 1973, granting individu

34、al workers a right to 150 hours education and training per year, became a model but the provision wasrestricted to remedying deficiencies in the education system and couldnot be used for VET (Meghnagi, 1997). While low educational achievement persists, the situation has improved significantly in man

35、ufacturingand in the case of white-collar and managerial staff (Jobert, 1997). In1992, an agreement between the regions and the three main trade unions,which extended school provision and reformed VET legislation, was followed by formal agreements between the three unions and the two mainemployers a

36、ssociations. Such national and regional agreements are essentially protocols recording joint interests and common opinions, whereassector agreements regulate CVT (Heidemann et al., 1994).ImplementationWidespread unrest over youth unemployment in the South in 1977 ledthe government to introduce activ

37、e labour market measures includingtraining provisions, but employers made little use of the training schemeand mainly hired young people on fixed-term contracts. Responsibilityfor VET was delegated to the regions in 1978 because regional differencesin unemployment rates required training to be targe

38、ted to local labourmarket needs, but this also led to fragmentation and inefficiencies in VETprovision. Since the regions had no source of funding for their new role,the separation between public (regional) training and VET undertaken bycompanies became more pronounced and employer-led training beca

39、meincreasingly independent of state provision (Winterton, 2000).Encouraging Participation in LearningThe Italian VET system suffers from the dominance of small firms in theeconomy, the failure of unions to prioritize VET in place of remedialeducation and the absence of tax concessions or grants for

40、training. Largefirms train workers but find labour retention a problem, and trainingcentres established by employers are neither externally validated nor regulated. In the absence of publicly funded VET linked to workplaces, atwo-tier system of training has emerged, comprising an ineffective formali

41、nstitutional system and an informal system submerged in small firms.The 1993 tripartite national protocol proposed a permanent system oftraining needs analysis, jointly managed by unions and employers, todetermine regional training provision, but even with a tradition of statutory regulation of the

42、labour market and political support for involvingthe social partners, trade unions made little progress in translating sectoragreements on training into tangible success at enterprise level, partlybecause the school focus divorces VET from the workplace domain ofthe social partners.Market-regulated

43、Workplace FocusLeaving VET to the market inevitably creates uneven training provisionand economies with such systems are marked by periodic skills shortagesand poaching of skilled labour (Estevez-Abe et al., 2001; Finegold andSoskice, 1988); but the workplace focus means that employers are preparedt

44、o provide short-term adaptive CVT to support flexibility, even if thisrarely results in a portable qualification.Policy DeterminationIn countries with a tradition of voluntarism, notably Ireland and the UK,historically the law has been much less prescriptive concerning social partner involvement in

45、VET policy. Heidemann et al. (1994: 11) commenton the almost total absence of social dialogue over VET in the UK. Nevertheless, in both countries the social partners play a major role in VETpolicy. In Ireland the Labour Services Act 1987 defines social partnerinvolvement in developing national VET p

46、olicy. Vocational training policy is established at national level by two tripartite bodies: the Trainingand Employment Authority (FÁS) and the State Tourism Training Agency.Since the late 1980s social partnership has been at the heart of the transformation of the economy and this is equally tr

47、ue of the VET reformsintroduced.The situation in the UK is quite different. In the 1980s Conservative governments disbanded the tripartite sectoral Industry Training Boards established by the Industrial Training Act 1964, and introduced a market-ledsystem. However, even with these changes, there was

48、 significant social partner involvement: employers were given a leading role in establishing sectorlevel training arrangements and determining local training priorities throughemployer-led Industry Training Organizations (later National TrainingOrganizations, and now tripartite Sector Skills Council

49、s). Although nolonger on a statutory footing, trade union involvement continued in mostof these training bodies, even in sectors where union membership had virtually collapsed (Winterton and Winterton, 1994). Employer-led Trainingand Enterprise Councils (TECs) in England and Wales (Local EnterpriseC

50、ompanies in Scotland) were also created to give employers a major rolein ensuring that training provision matched local labour market needs.Trade union influence in the TECs was marginal in most cases, althoughin some areas there was local TUC representation on the managementboard. When, in April 20

51、01, the Labour Government established theLearning and Skills Council (LSC) for England to deliver all post-16 education and training (excluding higher education), there was trade unionrepresentation on the national LSC Board and its local arms that replacedthe TECs.The Netherlands has possessed thro

52、ughout the post-war era an intensiveand elaborate system of negotiating and consultation between the government and the social partners, resulting among other things in wage restraintand employment growth. In the 1980s, the social partners increased thelevel and scope of negotiations on employabilit

53、y and training, and thisresulted in the Wassenaar agreement of 1982 which is generally seen as apositive turning point to economic recovery after a major recession (Visserand Hemerijck, 1997). The Vocational and Adult Education Act (WetEducatie en Beroepsonderwijs) defines the various means of forma

54、l communication and involvement of relevant actors at the various levels. Thesocial partners are formally represented on the boards of the national vocational education bodies.ImplementationWhile social partner involvement in VET implementation at local level inthe UK is inevitably patchy because of

55、 the absence of statutory support,attempts by successive Conservative governments to reduce trade unioninfluence at sector level stimulated trade union interest in training mattersat workplace level (Rainbird, 1990). While unions appear to have had onlylimited success in getting training on the barg

56、aining agenda (Claydon andGreen, 1992; TUC, 1998), several studies concluded that trade unionshave a positive influence on training in general at workplace level in theUK (Green et al., 1999; Heyes and Stuart, 1998), particularly whereemployers sought union support for restructuring work organizatio

57、n(Winterton and Winterton, 1994). Employees are more likely to receivetraining in workplaces where trade unions are recognized and more likelyto benefit from training when unions achieve an active role in trainingdecisions at the workplace (Heyes and Stuart, 1998). Towards the end ofthe Conservative

58、 era, the unions had become the major advocates of learning at work, an approach that evidently influenced the Union LearningFund initiative.Encouraging Participation in LearningThese VET systems have pioneered initiatives to promote lifelong learningand to encourage participation in learning at work. For example, the DutchGovernment and the social partners agreed to develop a national lifelonglearning strategy, with the target for 2010 to increase the vocational education participation rate of the population age