Cedefop & the Social Partners in the context of the Copenhagen process on Education and Training

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 centrewas 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 identifydegree 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 demandsexpressed 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. STEERING GROUP COMPOSED BY SOCIAL PARTNERS MEMBERSHIP (4 EMPLOYERS/5 TU) GIRSEF (UCL) NATIONAL NETWORK 3. The Methodology (I) The working teams involved and the key player role’s

6. 3. The Methodology (II) Qualitative methodological approach: • Analysingsecondary information: documentary research/literature review; • Collectingprimary 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. TELECOMUNICATIONS TRADE ELECTRICITY CHEMICAL INDUSTRY ROAD TRANSPORT POST & COURIER 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 SP’s 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 agenda’s. • 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 = > Competitiveness, productivity & employability

11. Key findings of the transversal analysis (II) DRIVER 1: CONVERGING OBJECTIVES 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) DRIVER 2: DIVERGENT OBJECTIVES SOCIAL DIALOGUE on LLL & VET ISSUES: IS THERE A DEGREE OF CONSENSUS ? (HYPOTHESIS 2) TRADE UNION FOCUS EMPLOYER’S 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. • Worker’s 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 whythe collective bargainingdoes 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 partner’s 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 partner’s role in decisions, management and implementation of trainingsystems 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 betweenformer EU15 countries and the EU 12member statesin terms ofdegree of information and involvement, access to information, and use of information in the domestic agenda.

17. The SP’s role: the involvement in the national contexts following industrial relation systems. 1.Permanent discussion in a specific body 2. Cross Industry collective bargaining • Belgium: bipartite cross-industry agreements. • France: bipartite cross-industry agreements-transposed in law. • Italy: wide-ranging bipartite interconfederal agreements. • 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- 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 partnersapproach 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: SPconsiders 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. ROAD TRANSPORT TELECOMUNICATIONS ELECTRICITY TRADE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY POST & COURIER 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 group’s set up: Chemical industry and inland waterways sector’s. • 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) orrelated 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 scopeof 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/confusedwould like to be more aware/ informed/involved. 6.Key finding: widespread and increased interest for trainingbetween SP across all tested countries.

28. Social Partners needs and requirements (II) (*) (A)Set of procedural needsprocesses 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 asubstantive 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 member’s. 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 resource’s. Focus on filling gaps in the light of Cedefop mission while setting up a more proactive ‘top–down’ approach to SP. Accompanied by information / communication strategy (opportunity) differentiating ‘levels of information’: findings related to European/Country/Sectoral dimension’s. 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/SocialP/ jose-manuel.galvin@europa.cedefop.eu