2.1.

Social Partner Involvement in VET Implementation

Citing research undertaken on behalf of the ETUC, Heidemann (2002) concluded tha
t since the end of the 1980s, CVT in many member states and at the EU level has i
ncreasingly become a central focus of social dialogue. Moreover, since 2000 trade
unions and workforce representatives are going beyond strategic discussions and
becoming increasingly involved in the practical implementation of further train
ing . These trends are endorsed by the ?CEDEFOP survey, which shows that in a
ddition to their role in the formal structures of ?VET policy making, the social
partners are involved in all countries in various activities concerned with the
implementation of VET actions, particularly at sector and local levels. In part
icular, the social partners are involved in developing curricula and new qualifi
cations as well as developing on the job training.
While the structures of ?participation vary according to the degree of state reg
ulation, social partner involvement in developing curricula and qualifications i
s extensive irrespective of the nature of the regulatory framework. 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 t
o meet their own needs and supplementing national qualifications. In ?France,
the social partners can propose new curricula and qualifications under the au
spices of the joint advisory boards, the various higher education commissions an
d the sectoral Joint National Employment Boards (CPNEs, Commissions paritaire na
tionale de l emploi). In Denmark, the Minister of Education determines the guideli
nes for each VET programme based on the recommendations of the social partners.
The social partners exert a direct influence in laying down the curricular framew
ork for VET programmes via the Advisory Council on VET (Erhvervsuddannelsesrdet),
the Nation- al Trade Committees (Faglige udvalg), the National Training Council
(Uddannelsesrdet for arbe- jdsmarkedsuddannelserne) and the CVT Committees(Efteru
ddannelsesudvalg). Via Local Train- ing Committees (Lokale uddannelsesudvalg), t
he social partners are able to colour the local curriculum according to local ?lab
our market needs. Equally in Finland the social partners are consulted in the el
aboration of the national core curricula and as members of the Training Committe
es they have a further opportunity to influence curriculum content. In Austria,
the social partners have an extensive role in implementation of VET and are resp
onsible for maintaining the adult education schools (Fachhochschulen) which are
virtually the only providers of continuing vocational training. In each of these
respects they are either consulted on, or responsible for, ?curriculum design a
nd the development of new qualifications. In Denmark, local training committees,
which include social partner representatives, act as advisory bodies to ?vocati
onal schools on adapting curricula to the needs of local enterprises. In the UK,
the unions have also been involved in developing new qualifications under the
competence based National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs in England and Wales
, Scottish Vocational Qualifications, SVQs, in Scotland). Occupational standards
for qualifications were developed through functional analysis organised by empl
oyerled Industry Lead Bodies, a role subsequently taken over by the Standards Se
tting Bodies, and social partner involvement is essential in this.
The social partners involvement in developing on the job training varies with the
form of regulation. In the more regulated states, there is a legal right to be
involved, whereas in countries with more voluntarist traditions, practice varies
substantially between individual employers. In Germany, the social partner
s are typically involved at company level in selecting trainees and training con
tent. Works Councils in companies with more than 5 employees can request that th
e employer undertakes a Training Needs Analysis. While the social partners in Be
lgium and ?France have a similar role in defining curricula, they are not involv
ed in recruitment of trainees. In Finland, the social partners are involved in r
ecruitment in sector VET institutions, but otherwise the national student select
ion system proposes students to the institutions, who have the final say on sele
ction. In the UK, even under the Conservatives (1979 97) when the overall scope of
collective bargaining contracted significantly, there was ?social dialogue over
VET at both enterprise and workplace levels, although evidence suggests that th

e unions had only limited success in attempting to extend the bargaining agenda
to VET issues (CLAYDON/GREEN 1992; TUC 1998)
although where they did, unions ha
d a positive influence on training at workplace level (CLAYDON/GREEN 1992; GREE
N/MACHIN/WILKINSON 1995; HEYES /STUART 1998; WINTERTON/WINTERTON 1994b). In seve
ral countries, VET arrangements have become more decentralised since the 1990s,
making VET, and especially CVT, more respon- sive to the transformation of indus
try and involving the social partners in practical implementation activities. In
Sweden, the municipalities gained a large degree of freedom to organise IVT at
the upper secondary level, via local vocational councils with employer and emplo
yee representatives. CVT in Norway is largely developed at company level with th
e involvement of the local social partners in determining training curricula and
, in some cases cofinancing of training. In France, the ?VET system has become p
rogressively more decentralised through legal changes: Law 83-8 of 7 January 198
3; Quinquennial Law No. 93-1313 of 20 December 1993; and the Labour Code, Articl
e L. 9101. Under the regional vocational training development scheme, regional e
mployment and vocational training coordination committees consult the regional s
ocial partners.
2.1.5
ng

Social Partner Involvement in Initiatives to Promote Lifelong Learni

The social partners are widely involved in ini- tiatives to promote ?lifelong le
arning and to en- courage takeup of learning opportunities at work. For example,
the Dutch Government and the social partners developed a national lifelong ?lea
rning strategy, with the target for 2010 to increase the ?participation rate in
vocational education of the population aged between 25 and 64 to the level of th
e two best performing Member States of the EU. Vocational education institutes a
re becoming knowledge centres for lifelong learning, for which the social partne
rs have a joint responsibility. The tripartite Advisory Committee on Education a
nd the ?Labour Market (ACOA) is one of the bodies involved in redesigning the Du
tch qualification structure to facilitate lifelong learning. Since the 1980s the
number of collective agreements on edu- cation and training has increased subst
antially and research by Labour Inspection (SZW 2001) showed that agreements on
?employability were included in 86 out of the 117 agreements reviewed.
In many countries, the social partners are involved in establishing arrangements
for the funding of VET and promoting access to learning. Levygrant arrangements
are a common means of ?fi- nancing VET and the social partners are involved in
so far as employers make contributions to funds via the levy and claim grants in
relation to training. In some countries, employers associations have a role in a
dministering the system and on occasion the unions are also involved. In Germany
, the social partners decide (through tripartite arrange- ments) on the funding
of training schemes, includ- ing apprenticeships, run by the Employment Service
at national, regional and local level. In France the social partners may be invo
lved in administering apprenticeship tax (collection and allocation at the discr
etion of the enterprises) and establish collection agencies for the mandatory co
rporate financial contribution which finances training for young people benefiti
ng from alternance work contracts. In Denmark, IVT is funded via the Employers Re
imbursement Scheme (Arbejdsgivernes Elevrefusion AER), while CVT is funded throu
gh the ?Labour Market Institution of Financing of Education and Training (Arbejd
smarkedsuddan- nelsernes finansieringfond).
Heidemann (2002) commented that in recent years many countries introduced indivi
dual learning accounts (as in the UK and Sweden) or training vouchers (as in Aus
tria and Germany) both to encourage uptake of learning opportunities and to shar
e the costs of learning. In the UK, individual learning accounts (which were clo
sed down in November 2001 following allegations of fraud) became a focus of ?soc
ial dialogue as employers made additional contributions (over and above the stat
e finance) on the basis of individual or collective agreements. In Germany, ther
e are collective agreements in many sectors concerning ?continuing VET funding a
nd programmes and Works Councils often make proposals for paid leave (Bildungsur
laub) to undertake CVT. In some large companies, the social partners have negoti

ated agreements on learning time accounts (Lernzeitkonten). Under a new collecti

ve agreement for qualification (Tarifvertrag zur Qualifizierung) in the metal in
dustry of BadenWrttemberg every employee was entitled to regular updating of skil
ls based on individual ? personnel development discussions. In Belgium, the Coll
ective work agreement of 25 April 2001 con- cluded by the CPNAE social partners
for 2001 2002, included a training section, valid until the end of 2003, under whi
ch employers were obliged to grant all employees at least four days of training
during the CCT period, two days in 2002 and two in 2003. To achieve this objecti
ve, each enterprise could join the CCT by submitting a training plan to the rele
vant sectoral social fund. As well as the benefits of expanding or updating empl
oyee skills, subscribing to the agreement brought significant financial advantag
es: training subsidies of
37.18 per day per employee for companies that train th
eir workers (except for free CEFORA courses), onsite CEFORA courses and price re
ductions in more than 120 recognised training institutions. Under the Interoccup
ational Agreement of 22 December 2000, the social partners asked the various sec
tors to launch at least one new collective work agree- ment or extend an existin
g one, calling on sectors to implement initiatives to determine the most product
ive synergies and to strive for the optimal definition of target groups, includi
ng older workers, non-Belgian ethnic groups and the disabled.
The role of collective agreements in promoting VET at local level is empha
sised in sever- al countries. In Spain, the Third Tripartite Continuing Training
Agreement, signed in December 2000, defined the conditions under which companie
s could obtain government support for implementing CVT in enterprises, one provi
sion requiring that the training plan is approved by the legal representatives o
f the workers in the company. In Portugal, integrated training plans are develop
ed from the training plans of individual companies, then presented to the public
authorities for funding. Worker representatives may be involved in defining the
training plan through a negotiated collective agreement. In Iceland, the social
partners are involved in CVT at company level, where curricula and new qualific
ations are developed without necessarily adhering to national standards. In some
sectors employers and employees subscribe to a fund for this purpose. In Austri
a enterprises are free to introduce training schemes without reference to nation
al standards and company level training plans are sometimes a subject of collect
ive agreements. In ?France local training schemes must adhere to national standa
rds if national qualifications are involved, but companies organise addition
al CVT without qualifications and works councils are consulted on such training
schemes. Industry level collective agreements in the Netherlands have establishe
d ?training levies in some 60 sectors, designed to harmonise ?training costs and
reduce poaching of skilled labour.
Arguably the most important social partner led innovation focused on increasing
the take-up of learning opportunities, has come out of the UK, where statutory s
upport for ?social dialogue is absent. Recognising serious skills gaps and short
ages in the economy, the Labour Government established the Union Learning Fund (
ULF) in 1998, with the aim of using trade union influence to increase the takeup
of learning at work, while boosting union capacity for delivering learning amon
g trade unionists. Much ULF activity was centred on Union Learning Representativ
es active union members, normally lay officials, who provide advice, guidance an
d support to colleagues in activities related to learning and may negotiate with
employers or providers to increase access to learning opportunities. Early evid
ence suggested that Union Learning Representatives were having a positive impact
on the creation and take up of learning opportunities at work (COWEN/CLEMENTS /
CUTTER 2000), particularly for low skilled workers and those at risk of redunda
ncy (WINTERTON 2001). The statutory backing that was introduced by the Employmen
t Act 2002 is of pivotal importance for improving trade union ? effectiveness in
influencing VET and
?lifelong learning opportunities in the workplace (RODGERS /WALLIS /WINTERTON 20
03).
2.1.6

Conclusions

The ?CEDEFOP survey showed social dialogue and other social partner involvement,
such as in tripartite bodies, to be extensive and apparent at all levels in ?VE
T policy making in Europe: national, regional, sectoral and local (variously inc
luding enterprise, establishment and subregional geographical area). Significant
ly, the social partners are involved irrespective of whether the prevailing soci
o-economic model involves legal regulation (as in the majority of countries), vo
luntary arrangements (as in the UK) or a hybrid of these as in the formalised co
operation found in Finland and the Netherlands. In addition to their role in the
formal structures of VET policy making, the social partners are involved in all
countries in various activities concerned with the implementation of VET action
s, particularly at sector and local levels. For example, the social partners are
involved in developing curricula and new qualifications, developing on the job
training and in encouraging the take-up of learning opportunities. While the str
uctures of ?participation vary according to the degree of state regulation, soci
al partner involvement in developing curricula and qualifications is extensive i
rrespective of the nature of the regulatory framework. The social partners involv
ement in ?VET imple- mentation at company level varies with the form of regulati
on and the focus of ?VET systems. In the more regulated states, there is a legal
right to be involved, whereas in countries with more voluntarist traditions, pr
actice varies substantially between individual employers. In several countries,
VET arrangements have become more decentralised since the 1990s, making VET, and
especially CVT, more responsive to the transformation of industry and involving
the social partners in practical implementation activities. The role of collect
ive agreements in promoting VET at local level is emphasised in several countrie
s, especially those where the focus of VET is on the workplace. The differences
between the countries appear to be less than might be anticipated from the diffe
rent forms of VET regulation (market versus state) and stereotypical models of l
abour relations (Northern or Scandinavian model, Southern or Mediterrane- an
model, Western or Anglophone model and the Central or German model); there are
similarities that cross the labour relations typologies as well as differences w
ithin them, which may be the result of convergence occurring with transfer of go
od practice (or may equally reflect the limitations of the traditional typologie
s).
The Framework of Actions also stimulated more trade union engagement in research
on ?social dialogue over VET and lifelong learning, building on earlier work by
research institutions close to the trade unions, such as Hans Bckler Stiftung, w
hich had previously published analyses of social dialogue over VET and lifelong
learning (HEIDEMANN 2002; HEIDEMANN/KRUSE /PAUL-KOHLHOFF /ZEUNER
1994). Kerckhofs and Andr (2003) from the ETUC investigated European social dialo
gue over lifelong learning, mapping in particular progress made in the sectoral
dialogue bodies. European social dialogue on VET and lifelong learning is es- pe
cially important at sector level because of the similarity of skills needs in a
given sector across member states, recently recognised in EC initia- tives (EC,
E. C. 2003b). Until 1998, European sector social dialogue took place in nine joi
nt com- mittees established by EC decisions, and in eleven informal working part
ies created by the social partners themselves (SRRIES 1999). The EC initi- ated a
major institutional reform in 1998, replacing the existing institutions with se
ctor dialogue com- mittees (EC 1998b), while the ETUC began coordinating collect
ive bargaining through the European Industry Federations (LEISINK 2002; KELLER/
SRRIES 1998). The distribution of dialogue across sectors is very uneven; differe
nt policy areas are covered and the outcomes vary (KELLER 2005). The Commissi
on now recognises over 30 sector dialogue committees on the basis of the ex
tent of representation of the sector by the social partners involved and their w
illingness to discuss and agree joint opinions and binding framework agreements.
Kerckhofs and Andr (2003) reported that between 1979 and 2002, these structures p
roduced over 200 joint texts, 48 per cent of them including provisions relating
to VET. While recognising that such a quantitative historical overview provides
no indication of the impact of social partner joint opinions or agreements, rece
nt reports in the field of VET from the sector committees indicate that the focu
s is now more on direct actions or frame- works for actions than joint opinions.

While sector bargaining has sometimes led to interprofessional framework agreem

ents (as with teleworking in
2002), Goetschy (2005, 418) notes that the reverse has also occurred with the Fr
amework of Actions influencing several sectoral dialogue committees. The trend i
s towards the development of European sector social dialogue strategies on ?life
long learning; most European social dialogue sector committees have discussed li
felong learning and many have developed concrete actions. Anders Vind from Lands
organisationen i Danmark coordinated a study of trade union ?policy and practi
ce on lifelong learning, comparing Denmark, ?France, Germany and the UK (VIND /
DELAMARELEDEIST/HEIDEMANN/WINTERTON 2004). While the Framework of Actions offers
a platform for promoting trade union influence in
?lifelong learning policies, there is a need for further elaboration of the stra
tegy at European level and for more detailed monitoring and analysis of actions
at national level. In Denmark, France, Germany and the UK, the unions are active
ly seeking new roles in promoting lifelong learning through collective agreement
s on practical issues such as time accounts, acting as intermediaries at the inter
face of individuals and learning opportunities, participating in the ?quality as
surance of VET and encouraging a learning culture at work. However, such initiat
ives at present are not strategically co- ordinated at EU level, something that
is increasingly necessary with enlargement of the EU.
The enlargement of the EU presents a new challenge to ?social dialogue over VET
because some of the new and future member states have partic- ular weaknesses in
social dialogue structures and processes as well as in ?VET systems and work- f
orce qualifications (? 2.6). The weakness of social dialogue in some of the new
and future memberstates (LADO /VAUGHAN-WHITEHEAD 2003; VAUGHAN-WHITEHEAD 2000)
, especially at sectoral level (GHELLAB/VAUGHAN-WHITEHEAD 2003) is well docume
nted. There is often a combination of government reluctance to share power, empl
oyer resistance to engage in dialogue and trade union reticence to take on respo
nsibility (DRAUS 2000; MAILAND /DUE 2004; SARFATI 2003; WINTERTON/ STRAND
BERG 2004), all of which must be addressed if social dialogue is to continue to
play a central role in developing and implementing policies across the EU (EC 20
04). Some countries have an urgent and dramatic need to raise workforce skills i
n line with the Lisbon objectives, and in cases like Turkey this is hampered by
a VET system that is ill-adapted to ?labour market needs (WINTERTON
2006a). The reform of VET systems will present an enormous challenge to social d
ialogue in these countries. In view of these challenges and the need for the tra
de unions to develop new strategies to promote competence development at work, t
he SALTSA Programme of the Swedish Arbetslivsin- stitutet recently commissioned
a ?comparative study of eight countries, including three new member states and o
ne candidate country, the results of which will be published in 2007 (MAGNUSSON/
WINTERTON 2007).