Cedefop

1
Cedefop the Social Partners in the context of
the Copenhagen process on Education and
Training -STUDY RESULTS-
J. Manuel Galvin -Project Manager- Area
Research and Policy Analysis
2
CONTENTS

• Introduction Cedefop and the Social Partners.
• The objectives of the research vs. research
  questions
• Methodology working teams, interviews, sample
  limits of the research.
• Research results the transversal analysis.
• Research results the national comparison.
• Research results the sectoral comparison.
• European Social Partners.
• Summarising and concluding the way forward .

3
1. Introduction Cedefop and the Social Partners.
Background of the study the rational of the
research

• Social partners a key target group for Cedefop
  the centre was created in 1975 at wish of the
  social partners.
• Cedefop developed a study to gain understanding
  about social partners needs more than ten years
  ago (1997).
• Since then, European VET policies and the role of
  the social partners changed institutional
  context for LLL transformed by the Lisbon agenda.
• From Copenhagen declaration to the Helsinki
  communiqué all the stakeholders on board.
• Two enlargements (2004 2007)industrial
  relations systems differs in the former and new'
  member states.
• Social dialogue at EU level adapted to
  institutional framework developed sectoral
  social dialogue committees (CEC 1998).
• The framework of actions for LLL development of
  competencies and qualifications (2002) 3 follow
  up reports and Evaluation report (2006).
• Social partners work programme 2006-2008 LLL at
  core position supporting to face European labour
  market challenges.

4
2. Objectives vs. Research Questions
Research questions ( plus different
sub-questions)
Objectives

• To identify degree of social partners awareness
  of the Copenhagen process and its priorities.
• To identify how the social partners see their
  role in VET in general and in the Copenhagen
  process in particular?
• Are social partners involved in consultation,
  negotiation or concertation on VET and on
  Copenhagen priorities in particular?
• Do social partners have specific requirements
  and needs Cedefop could meet?

• Getting information on how the social partners
  deal with the priorities related to the
  Copenhagen-Helsinki process in Education and
  Training
• Collecting precise demands expressed by the
  social partners in terms of support by Cedefop in
  such a framework
• Obtaining accurate information that could
  contribute to support the role of Cedefop in the
  light of the Helsinki communiqué
• Gaining better understanding of communication
  processes between Cedefop and its stakeholders

5
3. The Methodology (I)
The working teams involved and the key player
roles
6
3. The Methodology (II)

• Qualitative methodological approach
• Analysing secondary information documentary
  research/literature review
• Collecting primary information (semi-structures
  interviews)- large panel of social partners at
  different levels 87 interviews (54 TU/33
  Employers organisations)

• Criteria to select the sample of countries
• To cover key EU15 countries with consolidated
  tradition of social partners involvement in LLL
  while covering relevant countries at EU12.
• (test different industrial relations
  systems in EU).

7
3. The Methodology (III)
SAMPLE OF SECTORS
8
4. The research results the transversal
analysis
9
Three hypotheses
1. Lifelong learning is increasingly a
subject in the social partners agenda in which
terms?
2. If LLL or VET may appear as a rather
consensual topic, it does not necessarily lead
to consensus What are the players objectives?
What is their agenda? What is at stake?
3. There may be links between the social
partners agenda and the Copenhagen-Helsinki
priorities, but they come mostly from an
emerging process rather than a top-down
approach What is the degree of convergence
between social partners agenda and Helsinki
Copenhagen priorities?
10
Key findings of the transversal analysis (I)
SOCIAL PARTNERS AWARENESS IMPORTANCE ON LLL/
VET ISSUES ON THE AGENDAS (HYPOTHESIS 1 )

• Training as a thematic increasingly become an
  object in the SPs agenda, (even if SP do not
  explicitly refer to the notion of LLL).

• No consensus on the definition of LLL and on
  the use of VET SP uses continuous training
  'vocational training and education' or
  continuous education.

• Reasons to deal with training issues in the frame
  of the SP agendas.
• Fast changing of socio-economic context
  market internationalisation/
• impact of foreign investments
• Anticipating to labour market needs skills
  shortage (specific categories
• of workers)
• Replacement of the labour force in the
  current demographic context (young
• workers vs. older workers)
• Replacement of mobile workers within
  internal European labour market.
• Integration of migrant workers
• Attractiveness of working environments/
  conditions as result of
• organisational changes
• Restructuring and recession processes
  (sectoral/company levels)
• Deficit of skilled workers
• Adapt to more flexible working methods
• Training to reduce unemployment
• Higher skilled work force gt
  Competitiveness, productivity
• employability

11
Key findings of the transversal
analysis (II)
SOCIAL DIALOGUE on LLL VET ISSUES IS THERE A
DEGREE OF CONSENSUS ? (HYPOTHESIS 2)
DRIVER 1 CONVERGING OBJECTIVES

• Company Worker adaptability in a context of
  structural change.
• Enhance skills Qualification levels.
• Recognise regulate training legally developing
  normative framework
• -To structure and promote more coordinate
  support on training activities, with particular
  emphasis to those developed at sectoral level.
• -Draw up standardised training policies
  developing relevant pedagogical materials.
• Need to develop methods to use based on more
  research future training needs, encouraging
  partnerships and good practices approach.

12
Key findings of the transversal analysis (IV)
SOCIAL DIALOGUE on LLL VET ISSUES IS THERE A
DEGREE OF CONSENSUS ? (HYPOTHESIS 2)
TRADE UNION FOCUS
EMPLOYERS FOCUS

• Training to support personal development and
  career path evolution of workers inside/outside
  company.
• Protection against
• precariousness social equality
• access to education for all .
• Workers needs and training regulations as key
  aspects to develop.
• Responsibility for cost of
• training employers and/or by
• the public authorities.
• Training collectively
• guaranteed and allows to facilitate
  transferability of competences (i.e. not only
  adapted to job).

• Development of individual competences for company
  performance and competitiveness.
• Workers adaptation to job need to make initial
  education closer to company needs.
• More responsibility of workers to progress on
  his/her training process.
• Training programmes as necessarily adapted to
  market needs.
• Informal training within company should be
  recognised and focused mostly on the job and
  comply to company needs.

13
Key findings of the transversal
analysis (V)
SOCIAL DIALOGUE on LLL VET ISSUES IS IHERE A
DEGREE OF CONSENSUS ? (HYPOTHESIS 2)

• Some reasons to explain why the collective
  bargaining does not take place
• The collective bargaining structure the level of
  negotiations.
• Socio economic challenges SP are more interested
  to negotiate training
• when they identify jointly key
  skills/competencies challenges.
• Social partners capacity and strategies
  insufficient resources.
• Opportunities for investing in training funding
  support encourage them.

14
Key findings of the transversal analysis (VI)
SOCIAL PARTNERS AND EUROPEAN ISSUES LINKS
BETWEEN EUROPEAN PROCESSES AND SOCIAL PARTNERS
AGENDA (HYPOTHESIS 3)

• The European policies are generally not clearly
  identify and differentiate by SP
• few respondents know the content of the
  Copenhagen-Helsinki priorities.

• The respondents identify more clearly Bologna and
  Lisbon processes than Copenhagen-Helsinki
  priorities (mostly identified at cross sectoral
  level and/or
• in training sectors).

• The interviewed SP sometimes refer to European
  tools (ECVET-EUROPASS) rather than European
  policies priorities.

• Indeed, respondents in their agendas cope with
  recognition/ certification of training and
  qualifications, responsiveness to labour market
  needs and exchanges of methods.

• In any case, SP express a number of procedural
  needs processes organising training
  policies-closer relationships between the
  European processes and the social partners at all
  levels.

• So, there may be links between Social Partners
  agendas and Copenhagen process but they result
  from convergence without coordination' stemming
  from common concerns/challenges rather than
  top-down coordination policies (Hancké 2002,
  Marginson Sisson 2004)
• .

15
5. The research results the national comparison
16
The involvement of the social partners in
LLL/VET issues at national level three key
drivers
DRIVER 1 The National institutional context
on VET
The traditional organisation of the educational
systems defines the scope of what is consider
Education and what is considered training and
influences the role that social partners can play
in it
DRIVER 2 Industrial Relations systems
The social partners role in decisions,
management and implementation of training systems
generally follows the framework of collective
relations in place in each country.
DRIVER 3 2 clear cluster EU 27 Social Partners
The data show a clear differentiation between
former EU15 countries and the EU 12 member states
in terms of degree of information and
involvement, access to information, and use of
information in the domestic agenda.
17
The SPs role the involvement in the national
contexts following industrial relation systems.
1.Permanent discussion in a specific body
2. Cross Industry collective bargaining
France consultative role in tripartite basis
National Council for professional LLL Ireland
Tripartite agreements based on a non-binding
approach Spain Advisory role in tripartite
body Romania initiate national strategies in a
tripartite structure-
Belgium bipartite cross-industry
agreements. France bipartite cross-industry
agreements-transposed in law. Italy
wide-ranging bipartite interconfederal agreements.
4. Company level based and/ or not part of
discussions
3. Collective bargaining at sectoral/territorial
level
Germany sectoral bargaining at regional
level. Spain bipartite agreements in sectors at
national level autonomous communities.
Sweden each sector establishes nationally
suitable training provisions for company needs.
Hungary not part of the industrial relation
system. Lithuania distantly addressed in
international companies with a workers'
representation. Poland focus on working
conditions, wages and safety. Slovakia in some
sectors such as Chemical industry or electricity.
18
6. The research results Sectoral comparison
19
The Social Partners sectoral approach of
VET/LLL highlighted findings

• The sectoral social partners approach is more
  focus centred on vocational training rather than
  lifelong learning.

• The approach is more concrete and more specific
  strong attention given to company and workers
  needs (company-training-collective bargaining).
  

• The sectoral social partners approach more
  concerned by industrial change
  adaptations/developments in qualifications made
  by restructuring.

• Centred on vocational training in companies (CVT)
  changing market demands, technological change,
  restructuring/outsourcing that impose job changes
  (threatens in terms of employment/unemployment).
  

• The concerns grows on sectors involved in fast
  changing process SP considers as crucial
  anticipate qualifications and skills needs and
  European-wide recognition of qualifications
  supported by developing successful projects and
  analysis ( e.g. Telecommunications, Electricity,
  Chemical industry)

20
The Social Partners sectoral approach of VET
key findings when comparing sectors
Training is essential in the context of
Liberalisations/Technological change and customer
demands. Need to promote certification of
training
Interest in training issues focussing technical
aspects languages, road regulations in
Europeanised market.
Major sectoral restructuring liberalisation/
increased market requirements need to anticipate
skills changes/needs. Certification of
electricians is perceived as crucial.
Concrete aspect of training Technical needs/
improvement of costumer relationships/Training
for managers. Specifics funds are set up (joint
bodies)
Not easy to distinguish sectoral and company
needs in some countries one company cover whole
branch. Drivers Restructuring/liberalisations/new
productive requirements forces to train work
force. Need to anticipate skills needs.
Sector face major changes Need of training
regarding constrains related to environment
protection. Demographic impact replacement of
older workers. Research needs on qualification
changes and new skills. Key training domains New
technologies Health Safety.
21
The Sectoral Social Partners approaching VET
issues wage bargaining levels and VET.
VET is in the collective bargaining
Even if VET interest is rare to find it in the
collective bargaining
Source Sciarra (2006) () Shulten (2005)
22
7. The European Social Partners
23
The Cross-Industry Social Partners

• The question of vocational training is on the
  agenda of the European cross-industry social
  dialogue since the end of the 1980s.

• The results of the interviews indicate that these
  are not only interested in the issue, but that
  they are also very aware of the European policies
  in the field of lifelong learning and vocational
  training.

• The European cross-industry social partners are
  clearly informed, participate in the
  Copenhagen-Helsinki process
• Active participation in various committees and
  bodies they benefit from a technical knowledge
  on these aspects of the specific European
  policies.
• They created internal bodies/departments in
  charge of counselling drafting opinions and to
  reply to EU consultation.
• Contribution to the Copenhagen Declaration, the
  Maastricht Communiqué and the Helsinki
  Communiqué.

24
The European Sectoral Social Partners (I)
KEY MESAGGE The European sectoral social
partners are increasingly involved in training
and lifelong learning as response to the
economic and socio-labour challenges that are
facing sectors across Europe

• EUROPEAN SECTORAL SOCIAL DIALOGUE
• TIPOLOGY OF JOINT TEXTS (2000-2007)

(1) JOINT OPINIONS OR STATEMENTS Provide input
to the European institutions and/ or national
authorities recommendations addressed to the
authorities or they explicitly ask the Commission
to include some items in its policies or to
undertake particular actions
(2) PROCESS-ORIENTED TEXT Generally addressed to
national member organisations set up guidelines/
codes of conduct to be implemented in the
national context.
(3) TOOLS Guides- practical manuals addressed
mainly to national organisations or companies.
25
The European Sectoral Social Partners (II)

• EUROPEAN SECTORAL SOCIAL PARTNERS WORK PROGRAMMES
  DIFFERENT JOINT INITIATIVES

• Definition of joint issues, documentation and
  sharing of information footwear, furniture,
  Horeca, hospitals, insurance, live performance,
  maritime transport, personal services, temporary
  agency work, and woodworking
• Specific working groups set up Chemical
  industry and inland waterways sectors.

• Procedural instruments ( follow-up of joint
  declarations or agreements, ad hoc groups on
  training or working groups) agriculture,
  banking, catering, chemical industry,
  construction, inland waterways, postal services,
  road transport, tanning and leather, telecoms, or
  textile.

• Anticipation of needs and qualifications, in
  relation with training challenges raised by a
  changing context. Committees explicitly
  concerned chemical industry, civil aviation,
  commerce, gas, local and regional government,
  shipbuilding, steel.

• Specific work programmes refer to concrete
  projects supported by European funds, (LdV) or
  related to European policies cleaning,
  furniture, live performance, railways, sea
  fishing, tanning and leather,

• Plan to work jointly on projects that are
  directly related to Copenhagen-Helsinki
  priorities (transparency, recognition and
  equivalence of vocational qualifications or
  diploma occupational profiles. European tools
  EQF, ECVET and Europass) chemical industry,
  construction, Horeca, inland waterways, private
  security, sea fishing, shipbuilding, tanning and
  leather, temporary agency work, textile,
  woodworking.

26
8. Summarising and concluding the way forward
27
Social Partners role and awareness about European
VET issues -Copenhagen process-(I) Cedefop
1. Links between the social partners agenda and
the Copenhagen-Helsinki priorities when they
exist result rather from convergence without
coordination, from common concerns and
challenges, than from top-down coordination.
2. LLL and VET policies can not simple be
considers as a top-down approach from European
institutions to National states and from there to
the cross-industry level- to sector
players-companies.
3. Awareness of Copenhagen process
relationships between the European processes and
the domestic agendas in LLL/VET 2 clear
clusters- former EU15 countries and the new
member states-
4. The role and the scope of SP organisations in
LL/VET difference between countries according to
the specific organisation of the education
industrial relations systems
5. European VET issues and Cedefop those who
are less aware/informed/confused would like to be
more aware/ informed/involved.
6. Key finding widespread and increased
interest for training between SP across all
tested countries.
28
Social Partners needs and requirements (II) ()
(A) Set of procedural needs processes organising
training policies demanding closer relationships
between the European processes and the social
partners at all levels.

• Need to adapt the approach more closely to the
  national or sectoral realities
• More visibility and transparency importance of
  simple, clear and up-to-date information,
  concrete, operational and easy-to-use for
  practitioners (translated several languages if
  possible).
• SP expect a proactive action by European
  institutions.
• Call for increased promotion of LLL all over
  Europe in order to heighten awareness

• Needs for funding for projects led by the social
  partners
• Exchange of information and experience-
  comparable data insisting on simple and
  easy-to-use information and data
• Cross-national coordination of training policies
  to strengthen the European dimension in the field
  of training
• Need to associate the European social partners
  ESP could play a role to improve the connections
  between the European policies and the national
  and sectoral players.

() Needs expressed by informants not necessary
correspond to realistic or feasibly actions
29
Social Partners needs and requirements (III) ()
(B) Number of needs and requirements formulated
by the respondents are of a substantive nature,
and directly concern the contents of training
policies

• Demands of clarification of the meaning of key
  concepts
• The social partners support and/or help in the
  recognition of qualifications/ competencies
  development of common principles for
  certification or for validation of informal
  learning
• Many SP are confronted to the difficulty to
  identify and anticipate skills needs, and they
  are interested in support in this field
• Worker mobility support to approach this issue
  and identify the challenges that it raises for
  their domestic labour market and in terms of
  skills and competencies.

() Needs expressed by informants not necessary
correspond to realistic or feasible actions.
30
Cedefop and the Social Partners the way forward
? Linking results to Cedefop medium-term
priorities (2009-2011)
Following study outcomes draw up work
programme to set up medium-term support
strategy to social partners.
Following Steering group
judgment/advice Address
results to Cedefop Bureau
Governing Board members.
Envisage link -WP contents
GB advices- to Cedefop medium term
priorities (2009-2011).
? More focussed approach setting up strategic
performance supporting Social Partners while
assessing feasible Cedefop resources.
Focus on filling gaps in the light of
Cedefop mission while setting
up a more proactive topdown
approach to SP.
Accompanied by information /
communication strategy
(opportunity) differentiating
levels of information findings related to
European/Country/Sectoral dimensions.

To create a studies and research line
31
Thanks for your kind attention !!!
www.cedefop.europa.eu www.trainingvillage.eu http
//www.trainingvillage.gr/etv/Projects_Networks/So
cialP/ jose-manuel.galvin_at_europa.cedefop.eu