Download article in original language : ES0511103FES.DOC
In recent years, the National Agreements for Continuing Training (ANFCs) have established a continuing training subsystem. It was initially centralised and based mainly on the initiative of the social partners, but the 2004 reform decentralised the management to the autonomous communities, which led to a greater involvement by the government at different levels. The ANFCs have fostered social consultation in the framework of industrial relations that, albeit with limited effects, has developed continuing training. A large percentage of the collective agreements - particularly sectoral ones - adhere to the ANFCs and they are responsible for developing them. This article looks at how the signatories view the way in which training is dealt with in collective agreements.
The reform of continuing training that came into effect in 2004 has been dealt with in another article (ES0310110F). This article analyses the social partners’ views on the situation prior to this reform, based on a study published recently by the Tripartite Foundation for Training in Employment (Fundación Tripartita para la Formación en el Empleo, FTFE): Documentary analysis of continuing training systems and their relation to collective bargaining in Spain and in Europe (Análisis documental de los sistemas de Formación Continua y de su relación con la Negociación Colectiva en España y en Europa) (2005). This study only covers the period up to 2002, but the information reflects the context in which the 2004 reform was introduced.
Views of employers
The views of the Spanish Confederation of Employers' Organisations (Confederación Española de Organizaciones Empresariales, CEOE) are summarised below.
Most national and sectoral collective agreements deal with continuing training, but not in great depth, sometimes merely referring to the National Agreements for Continuing Training (Acuerdos Nacionales para la Formación Continua, ANFCs) or to another agreement. Competences on continuing training are rarely transferred to agreements at lower levels, except with regard to time off and leave, which are dealt with in company agreements. The following are the major points detected by the employers in their diagnosis:
- The collective agreements offer little improvement on the ANFCs and the law. They should be more specific and less ambiguous in some aspects.
- Half the agreements include the individual right to take time off for examinations.
- The possibility of adapting working time through shifts compatible with training is rarely included. Training time is only dealt with in a quarter of the agreements studied, and no reference is made to time off according to the type of training. This lack of regulation may lead to needless disputes.
- Funding for training is rarely provided for.
- Sectoral or specific training plans are not dealt with outside the ANFC.
- Vocational training (Formación Profesional) as an obligation/right is not specified. There are no commitments on hours of training per worker per year.
- Little attention is paid to the links between training and other important aspects of collective bargaining, such as promotion, occupational classification, functional mobility and technological innovation.
Most regional and provincial agreements include clauses on the training of workers and some provide more detailed regulations on these. However, most agreements fail to refer to specific training plans, and only a few establish criteria for drawing them up and minimum contents, except when they refer to the 'needs of the job', such as obtaining professional licences (e.g. for handling food) or health and safety. According to the employers, 'in their treatment of the question of training, collective agreements fail to explore all the possibilities of development of the third ANFC and the Workers' Statute' (ES0101130F). There are hardly any differences in the treatment of training between regional and provincial agreements. The employers admit that everything is left to the negotiators rather than being clearly defined in collective bargaining.
With regard to company agreements, the employers observe that practically all of them provide for training related to the individual employment relationship, i.e. time off, adaptation of working hours and shifts, but they go little further than the content of the Workers' Statute (Estatuto de los Trabajadores) and the ANFC. Only agreements such as those of Altadis, Logista, Ford, Telefónica, Repsol and Seguros Zurich contain more detailed and complete regulations. In short, there is no common approach to training, and it is insufficiently developed in most agreements. Half the company agreements refer to the establishment of a company training plan, which is defined by the company, in consultation with the training commission or the workers' representatives. The remaining agreements only refer to the ANFC or establish a simple system of vocational training based on courses not linked to a plan.
Collective agreements also make no firm commitments with regard to the amount of funding or the number of hours of training per year, though they do regulate time off for attending examinations. Otherwise, the treatment of training time varies greatly. Fewer than half of agreements state whether training must be given during working time, whether the extra working time is counted as overtime, or whether there is a daily time limit. The tendency observed is that training is provided in working time when it is specific, connected to the job and compulsory, and outside working time when it is not related to the activity of the company.
The lack of development of regulations does not correspond to the training provided by companies, which is far more advanced than would appear from the development of the agreements. This is due to the employers' preference for acting freely without the ties of regulations. Some regulations suit while others do not. The employers feel that the regulations should be as neutral as possible in order to increase the employability of workers without limiting the freedom of action of companies or leading to excessive costs.
According to a survey by the CEOE, the companies are satisfied with the development of the clauses in the agreements and do not feel the need for greater regulation. Employers feel that the training plans are the responsibility and competence of employers, and should not be revised in collective agreements, and that they have an understanding on this point with the workers' representatives because training is a subject of common interest. The absence of regulations does not always involve an absence of intervention and participation by the trade unions and the workers, and the employers consider that the participation of the workers' representatives in this area is greater than that laid down by the law. The regulation of training and the rights associated with it is better dealt with at company level.
Views of the trade unions
The Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions (Comisiones Obreras, CCOO) is in favour of developing regulations on aspects that were previously neglected, such as:
- sectoral and national funds for continuing training, through the different levels of the FTFE, financed through social contributions and European funds;
- agreements on the total or partial use of working time for training;
- clauses on employment protection in situations of crisis that include funding of training measures;
- creation of bipartite or tripartite institutions for continuing training and certification of professional skills;
- development of individual rights with regard to the training;
- guaranteeing equal access to training, above all in SMEs;
- further development of the possibilities of promotion through training;
- greater integration between training subsystems;
- greater regulatory development.
Adequate provision is made in the agreements for time off to attend examinations, but the commitments with regard to training during working time, pay, promotion, etc. are insignificant. Nevertheless, CCOO consider that the fact that 28% of the national sectoral agreements deal with the objectives of the ANFC, because it is a reference for bargaining at lower levels, is a positive step forward. 43% of all agreements adhere to the ANFC, which regulates the right of access to training and the relation between training and subjects such as trade union participation, work organisation and promotion.
According to the General Workers’ Confederation (Unión General de Trabajadores, UGT), collective bargaining has been the key to cohesion in industrial relations since the transition to democracy. The increase in the number of SMEs has given rise to the need to ensure the representation of workers in order to deal with subjects such as training, to which they find it more difficult to gain access. Collective bargaining should establish a balance between flexibility and regulation. Training should go beyond the goals of individual companies and be subject to collective bargaining, which has enabled a system of subsidised continuing training to be consolidated.
Commentary
The continuing training subsystem was set up and firmly established in the 1990s thanks to major national agreements between the social partners who took the initiative, and the State. However, it suffered from a series of flaws, which were addressed in 2004 by a reform based on a demand system where companies are able to carry out subsidised training at short notice. This has made the system more flexible for companies and has facilitated the management and funding of their training initiatives. SMEs find it harder to carry out coherent, viable and sustainable initiatives, particularly with regard to the access of their personnel to training. Furthermore, groups who find it difficult to integrate in the labour market have even fewer possibilities of access to training. The supply system, through which bipartite institutions or social partners can also develop and fund continuing training for SMEs through the FTFE, is not countering this tendency because the training they offer tends to be taken up mostly by large companies that are in close contact with the employers' associations and trade unions.
The continuing training subsystem has undergone a major decentralisation and a fundamental change in the funding system, with the result that most of its benefits are enjoyed by large companies and well-integrated groups of workers. This goes against the tentative tendency observed in the 1990s towards a fair, balanced system that catered for all workers and companies that needed training.
Collective bargaining, which was to form the other pillar that would guarantee the functioning of the continuing training subsystem, has lagged behind the three main ANFCs, showing little effectiveness in guaranteeing the possibility of generalised training throughout the production system as a whole.
The consequence is an unequal treatment of workers and companies according to their size and their capacity for autonomous planning and action with regard to training. Because large companies are more interested in specific training, this may hinder life-long training and cross training and limit the capacity of innovation and adaptation of the system of production. (Daniel Albarracín, CIREM Foundation).