No consensus on financing subsistence during educational leave

The report of a Norwegian committee deliberating models for the financing of subsistence for employees during leave of absence for educational purposes was published in August 2001. The committee's members failed to reach consensus on any of the proposed models for funding, and thus made no recommendations. The LO and YS trade union confederations want the government to rectify this failure by subjecting the issue to political consideration and resolution.

The report of a public committee deliberating the financing of employees' subsistence during educational leave was made public on 15 August 2001. The committee, chaired by Sigbjørn Johnsen, was set up at the request of the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (Landsorganisasjonen i Norge, LO) and the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon, NHO), and was a result of the two organisations' failed attempt to reach an agreement on the issue of skills and training ('competence') reform (NO9901113N) during negotiations in the 2000 bargaining round. The government made a commitment to participate in and contribute to further deliberations on the competence reform and the issue of financing subsistence during educational leave (NO0005192F). The committee had representation from all the main social partner organisations. Its mandate was to consider and recommend models for the financing of subsistence during leave of absence for educational purposes applicable to all employees in the Norwegian labour market.

The committee considered several models: a centralised model whereby all employers and employees would contribute to a fund to finance subsistence during educational leave; a company-based model whereby employers would set aside funds for financing subsistence for their own employees; and an individual savings arrangement with tax exemptions, allowing individual employees greater responsibilities with regards to the use of funds. There was no consensus among the committee members on any of the models considered, and thus no recommendations were made.

The report concludes that failure to agree on a single model does not prevent the establishment of company-based arrangements, nor does it mean that the problem of establishing a single model applicable to all employees may not be solved by political means. However, the committee did manage to agree on a upper-secondary education scheme for the so-called 'second chance group' (older employees without upper-secondary education), which would be financed through the State Education Loan Fund (Statens lånekasse for utdanning).

Shortly after the release of the report in August 2001, LO and the Confederation of Vocational Unions (Yrkesorganisasjonenes Sentralforbund, YS) issued a joint statement, in which they opposed the majority position of the committee on the grounds that it breaches the mandate given by the mediation deal that resolved the 2000 bargaining round (NO0005192F). The two union confederations stated that the committee's work and its report failed sufficiently to tackle the issue of how a financing scheme may be made universally applicable to all employees, which they claimed was the central question to be considered by the committee. Since no solution was found by the committee, LO and YS assume that the government will remedy this failure by subjecting the issue to political consideration and resolution, and in so doing ake into account the two organisations' own proposed model. YS and LO propose the establishment of a central fund that is administered at company level, and to which all companies must provide a minimum contribution set by law. The fund should also involve companies not covered by collective agreements. The state would continue to contribute to the scheme through the State Education Loan Fund.