Presentation on theme: "“The impact of sectoral training and development funds in the Netherlands on employee-training and the possible link with payback clauses”"— Presentation transcript:
“The impact of sectoral training and development funds in the Netherlands on employee-training and the possible link with payback clauses”
Ecbo -Centre of expertise on VET -In partnership with universities, knowledge institutes and the field, we organize a knowledge infrastructure and develop knowledge of relevance to VET - Dutch national consortium coördinator for ReferNet
This presentation uses information from 2 ecbo studies: -O&O monitor (study sector funds for training and development, or STDF’s) -Monitor post initial education
Sectoral Funds for Training and Development (O&O funds)? Funds= money. A small percentage (0,5 tot 2%) of the total wage bill within a branch/sector creates a fund. Governing board exists of social partners in a branch / sector Original (and primary) goal is “anti poaching” (investment in training by company A; hiring of employee by company B) Usage of the funds is broadly determined by the collective agreement (CAO) Funds often have an organisation, sometimes one or two persons, sometimes over 40.
Collective agreements The Dutch model of wage setting is often centralised in collective agreements. These agreements are wider than wages and hours. There are 200 sector collective agreements, and about 800 (large) company collective agreements. About 84 % of all employees work within a collective agreement.
Study, STDF’s and collective agreements? Collective agreements can only be classified by the ministry as “generaly extended” if they also provide in agreements on training STDF’s, deriving from these extended collective agreements can only be recognized if they operate transparently Only recognized STDF’s can apply for ESF subsidies via the department Ergo: recognized STDF’s are only active when collective agreements provide clauses on training.
STDF’s 2006200720082009 Sectoral Funds connected to collective agreements (CAO) 156148132135..with the goal of training and development (STF) 88918692
Expenses In 2006 STF’s spend around 188 mil on Training and development. In 2009 this was 336 mil euro: almost double. One can expect a rise in expenses in 2010 due to the measures taken as a reaction to the financial crisis. In the perspective of life long learning: OSA studies show that approx 35% of companies use a variety of subsidies to fund training. About half of them use STF’s.
Primary goals of funds. Goal mentioned by fundsNumber Financing training32 Employability11 Labour relations16 Optimize inflow in sector2 Advice, research9 Development of training4 Improving trade quality8
Collective agreements: training Regardless what goals they have: funds need to follow the collective agreements Researched 105 agreements in 118 branches. Training agreements are primary focussed on functioning in the company, in the ‘own’ sector. Compared to 2005 the focus did not really change.
Stipulations on training in 105 collective agreements StipulationsNumber of agreements Training in dual system31 Personal development plan29 Training leave, one or more daysAll Leave to take exams36 Accreditation of prior learning15 Training for specific groups (45+)29 Training for union, employee participation38
Results of STDF’s? There’s a lot of critisism towards funds. Are they too “rich”? Do they spend their money “well”? Research did not show effects. The existance of STDF in particular sectors did not show a higher training rate. But it is difficult to measure succes: No clear goals (what is succes?) Relative small share in the training market
Post initial training in prior 12 months. (n = 3061 employees. repres. NL) 2010 Participation total50,3 1 training course 47,0 2 training courses 30,9 3 training courses 12,0 4 training courses 5,4 5 or more training courses 4,7
85% of post initial training is paid by the employer In 2010 47% employees report a payback clause In 1999 this was 10%, in 2000 28%, in 2005 46%. Pay back clauses
Payback clauses by sector Q: Payback clause in case of training in your company/organisation yes, all yes, somenon/a don't known Agriculture / fishery4%37%11%30%17%46 Industrial sector19%33%18%11%20%245 Construction13%20% 31%16%166 Trade20%26%17%23%14%230 Transport17%28%17%21%17%138 Catering industry5%21%25%23%26%57 Financial21%45%15%7%12%104 Business services19%33%17%24%6%264 Education16%28%27%10%20%218 Health16%33%22%11%18%609 Culture5%26%11%47%11%19 ICT16%42%16%14%12%165 Other13%30%19%18%21%796
Payback clauses by level Q: Payback clause in case of training in your company/organisation yes, all yes, somenon/a don't known Low14%20% 22%23%649 middle16%30%20%17%18%1410 high16%41%17%14%12%973 “Low” level = primary, lower secundary education (lo, lbo, vmbo) “Middle” level= higher secundary education (mbo, havo, vwo) “High” level = tertiary education (hbo, wo)
Grew from 10% in 1999 to 47% in 2010 Present in all sectors: – most in financial sector (66%) and ICT (58%) – least in cultural sector (31%) and construction (33%) Almost 1/5 of employees are unaware – Higher educated are more often aware Higher educated employees have a higher chance to have to deal with payback clauses, particularly for selected trainings. Payback clauses
They are both a reaction to the fear that investments by company A are used by company B They both find their basis in the collective agreement STDF’s: originally to prevent free riders by sharing risks. Pay back: to prevent free riding by forcing extra ‘loyalty’ from employees STDF’s seem to have less influence over the years, payback clauses are rising STF’s and communality with pay back clauses?
Employers also invest without STF’s – The financial incentive to train employees is smaller that we think – The STF’s seem large but are not always know (and some bureacraty is feared) by employers) The role of STF’s is changing from ‘banks’ to ‘centres of knowledge’ But funds have to react on collective agreements. Hence the enormous growth in spending on training and development. These agreements are focussed on the own company / sector. What impact?
Modern times ask for a more flexible workforce, the need for inter sector mobility is more and more frequently being discussed. This requires flexible and ‘easy accessible’ training. Training agreements that are primary company or sector oriented (based on companies fear of loosing investment through poachers) should be adapted to these needs. Finally