New law on guidance and lifelong vocational training

The new law on guidance and lifelong vocational training, which follows on from the national intersectoral agreement signed in January 2009, was adopted in November 2009. This law incorporates the main measures set out in the agreement and thus reforms the French system of lifelong vocational training for the third time. The law provides for measures regarding vocational training and, in particular, for the qualification of vulnerable people.

On 24 November 2009, the government adopted Law No. 1437 on guidance and lifelong vocational training. The new law incorporates the provisions of the national intersectoral agreement (accord national interprofessionnel, ANI), signed in January 2009, which laid the basis for reform of the vocational training system (FR0907019I).

Main objectives of provisions

The law addresses three main objectives through its measures:

• benefiting vulnerable people;

• rendering career paths more secure;

• designed to simplify procedures.

Guaranteeing right to vocational training

Under the law, the transferability of the ‘individual right to training’ (droit individuel à la formation, DIF) is guaranteed for all employees in cases where the employment contract has been terminated – except if the employee is dismissed due to gross professional misconduct or because their fixed-term contract (Contrat à durée déterminée, CDD) has ended, which opens up the right to unemployment benefit. Therefore, employees will be able, at their request, to use remaining DIF time to go on a training course, have a skills assessment or validate work experience (validation des acquis de l’expérience, VAE) in the following cases:

• during the period of their unemployment benefit – this will be paid for by the Joint Registered Collection Agencies (Organismes paritaires collecteurs agréés, OPCA) of the company where they had originally acquired these rights;

• at their new employer, with the latter’s agreement, within two years of being recruited – this will be paid for by the new employer’s OPCA.

Rendering career paths secure

The Joint Fund for Rendering Career Paths Secure (Fonds paritaire de sécurisation des parcours professionnels, FPSPP), which was created by the ANI agreement, is dedicated to funding actions regarding the ‘qualification and re-qualification’ of employees in vulnerable situations, as well as jobseekers.

The FPSPP has between €300 million and €800 million, channelled from companies’ existing obligation to fund vocational training – which varies between 5% and 13%. This rate will now be set annually by ministerial decree following proposals by the social partners, who will define the:

• allocation of the resources;

• priority beneficiaries.

This will be formalised in a framework agreement with the state, and the latter will also be able to contribute to funding the training. As it stands, however, the legislation does not provide for any specific or additional funding.

Simplifying procedures

As advocated by the ANI, procedures regarding training plans have been simplified by reducing the number of types of training to two categores:

• Category 1 – this incorporates training for adapting the employee’s workstation or position and also training related to the development of, and maintenance in, one’s job. Both types of training take place during working time and pay is maintained;

• Category 2 – this only involves training related to the development of skills, which can take place during or outside of working hours, with a training allowance that was set by a law adopted in May 2004 at 50% of the net monthly pay.

Other measures

Moreover, the law provides for:

• the creation of a measure regarding ‘operational preparation for employment’ – this aims to encourage the integration of jobseekers and to meet companies’ recruitment needs, by making it easier to acquire specific skills for a jobseeker, who is likely to occupy a job that corresponds with an identified job offer. In this case, the Employment Centre (Pôle emploi) will be responsible for setting up and funding the training;

• access to the professionalisation contract (Contrat de professionnalisation) by other people – this includes persons on the Active Solidarity Income (Revenu de solidarité active, RSA) and the Specific Solidarity Allowance (Allocation de solidarité spécifique, ASS).

The law obliges OPCAs to make a distinction regarding the contributions of employers with 10–49 employees within a specific section, where the principle of pooling exists. Thus, the funds of very small companies will no longer contribute to the funding of training for bigger companies.

In addition, the law makes it possible to fund individual training leave (Congé individuel de formation, CIF) for training that takes place outside of working hours, if employees request it. This measure aims to increase the number of beneficiaries without increasing the budget of the Individual Training Leave’s Joint Registered Collection Agency (Organisme paritaire collecteur agréé du congé individuel de formation, OPACIF).

Reactions to new law

According to the social partners, it is the state’s duty to create links between basic training (formation initiale) and vocational training, by funding the right to ‘deferred basic training’. Thus, reinforcing previous reactions to this topic, the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (Confédération française démocratique du travail, CFDT) has expressed strong criticisms over the lack of precision concerning the real commitment of the state regarding, in particular, the training of jobseekers.

Commentary

The new law has been adopted in a context of economic crisis, where innovative solutions are being sought to enable more people to access training, without increasing public expenditure in this area. Therefore, it is legitimate to question the impact of the measures in terms of the quality of training, which will in fact be increasingly short and specific.

Moreover, as the risk of underinvestment in training in very small companies persists – given that no measure has been adopted to address the structural and material difficulties faced by these companies regarding the carrying out of training – this raises a number of questions. First, there is the question of how the training funds of very small companies will be used if they are not completely used up by this group. Secondly, the question has been raised as to whether the abolition of the legal obligation to financially contribute to training would not be more appropriate for these smaller companies.

Finally, the measure regarding operational preparation for a specific job raises questions over the place of public funds in financing adaptation training, which should be the exclusive responsibility of companies.

Nora Alleki, Institute for Economic and Social Research (IRES)