LO and NHO agree action plan for further and continuing education

In March 1998, Norway's LO trade union confederation and NHO employers' confederation agreed on an action plan for further and continuing education. The action plan confirms that the right to further and continuing education should be an individual right, that a reform ought to emphasise training during employment and that the question of how the scheme is to be financed needs further consideration.

Preceding the 1998 industry-level wage negotiations within the private sector (NO9803157N), the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (Landsorganisasjonen i Norge, LO) and the Norwegian Confederation of Business and Industry (Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon, NHO) bargained over more general issues. The most central topic during these negotiations was the question of further and continuing education, and the parties agreed to an action plan for competence development which is to be the basis for their efforts to bring about a reform in this area (NO9710127F). The parties informed Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik of the main issues in the negotiations, and the Government was asked how it could contribute. The Prime Minister's reply came by letter on 27 March 1998 and it was elaborated on in a meeting on 31 March 1998.

The main points of LO-NHO joint action plan

The key elements of the action plan on competence development agreed by NHO and LO are set out below.

Individual statutory right to educational leave

The parties agree that an individual statutory right to leave of absence for educational purposes should be introduced. The qualifying conditions should be at least three years of continuous employment, and two years of employment in the firm from which leave of absence is given. LO and NHO would like practical questions regarding the leave to be handled by the parties at the firm level, and for the right to leave to be temporarily deferred if the leave means that the firm's reasonable operations could not be maintained. The parties expect the Government to take the initiative to draw up a Green Paper focusing on a number of details related to the leave - including practical questions of frequency, partial leave, procedures for resolving disputes, etc.

New system for strengthening further and continuing vocational training

LO and NHO would like to see the establishment of a system to strengthen further and continuing vocational training. Such a system should partly be financed by way of funds set aside in wage settlements. LO and NHO believe that all employees and employers, as well as the public authorities, must contribute financially to the scheme.

Primary and secondary education for adults

The parties would like to ensure that those who have not had the right to publicly-financed secondary education (up to 12 years of education), ie all those born prior to 1972, should be entitled to such education. The parties believe that it is a public duty to develop and run appropriate educational schemes, and that the public authorities therefore should be responsible for a scheme for adults. LO and NHO envisage a finance package, one element of which could be that those who take leave for educational purposes receive an allowance equivalent to what they would have received in unemployment benefit. Unemployed people should also be given the opportunity to complete secondary education financed through the unemployment benefit system. LO and NHO emphasise the need to develop an educational package which is based on alternating between work and training.

Emphasis on learning through work experience and documentation of acquired competence

LO and NHO are demanding that the so-called "Section 20 scheme" be retained. The scheme, which has its statutory base in the Vocational Training Act, allows adults to use their own work experience when qualifying for their certificate of completed apprenticeship. The parties state that their experience is that "the scheme is weakened by the changes enforced by the responsible ministry". The parties believe that this scheme is important in order to provide employees with qualifications equivalent to secondary education.

LO and NHO also emphasise that on-the-job training must be strengthened, and that competence acquired through training at work should be better documented. LO and NHO will jointly develop "schemes which make it possible to standardise the documentation of individuals' acquired competencies".

The Government's response

In his response to the social partners, the Prime Minister promised that the Government would present a White Paper before summer 1998. The White Paper will be based on the Green Paper on further and continuing education and the public comments in response to the Green Paper. The Prime Minister signalled that the Government will be in favour of an individual right to leave for the purpose of further and continuing education, and that it will not abolish the "Section 20 scheme". The Government would also like to make it possible for those adults who have not completed primary or secondary school, to do so. At a meeting with LO and NHO on 31 March 1998, the key question of how to finance the reform was discussed, and it was indicated that the public authorities would contribute financially. The Government believes that further and continuing education should be financed through the State Educational Loan Fund (Statens Lånekasse for utdanning), and that this institution should be given a new financial and legal framework.

Commentary

At the outset, NHO was sceptical about LO's negotiating schedule for the 1998 bargaining settlement: LO wanted the question of further and continuing education to be a bargaining issue between LO and NHO centrally before the industry-level negotiations commenced. Nonetheless, NHO accepted LO's plan and the parties agreed to a joint action plan for further and continuing education. LO won through with its demand that the right to educational leave should be an individual right. This entails that NHO has had to renounce its original position, in which it was argued that the employers should decide on the type of education that would qualify for leave. However, the parties agree that vocational training should be given priority relative to other types of education, both with regard to the right to leave and with regard to financial support.

The action plan also indicates that the parties to a large extent agree that reforms must be closely linked to the training needs and experiences of the business community, and that the formal educational system must become more in tune with the needs of the business community. The reform should not, however, be allowed to exclude those who wish to pursue primary or secondary education.

The further and continuing education measures to which the parties have agreed will not entail costs during the 1998 period, and hence will not place financial demands on this year's settlement. Nonetheless, it is clear that the agreement on the education issue is seen as part of the 1998 wage settlement. The Prime Minister also emphasised in his letter that he regards "the work on the further and continuing education issue as part of the current incomes policy". The fact that it places emphasis on incomes policy is probably an important reason for the Government support of the reform, even though it is not a top priority issue for the present centre administration.

It is difficult to predict the effects of the action plan on the forthcoming industry-level negotiations. LO's executive board is satisfied with the results of the negotiations between LO and NHO, and with the Prime Minister's response. The fact that an agreement on an action plan has been reached with which the employee side seems to be satisfied, indicate that the industry-level negotiations will commence in a positive climate. At the same time, it is clear that the employee side has high expectations of significant wage increases prior to the negotiations. It is possible that some unions will bring to the bargaining table their own issues related to further and continuing education. Furthermore, it is not clear what will take place within the public sector. The action plan is only applicable to the LO/NHO area. (Kristine Nergaard, FAFO Institute for Applied Social Science)