Unions criticise planned cuts in training scheme

In the last 12 years, the number of workers participating in the paid educational leave system has doubled and at present 71,000 workers are involved in the scheme. As the leave fund is no longer sustainable, the Council of Ministers has decided to cut costs related to the scheme. The move, which flies in the face of European, federal and regional plans in this respect, has been strongly criticised by the trade unions.

Background

The paid educational leave system (Congé-éducation payé/Betaald educatief verlof) allows workers to attend training courses during working hours, while still maintaining their job and existing income levels. In 2006, some 71,000 workers took part in the scheme.

The system is financed by the government and by an employer contribution amounting to 0.04% of the wage costs. Training costs are paid by the employer, who is then partially reimbursed by the Ministry of Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue (SPF Emploi, Travail et Concertation sociale/FOD Werkgelegenheid, Arbeid en Sociaal Overleg).

Since 1994, the number of workers attending training courses has doubled. The increased number of participants has resulted in higher costs, which have not been reflected in the state’s funding of the scheme nor in the employers’ contributions. Currently, the structural deficit amounts to €40 million, which means that the fund is no longer sustainable.

The deficit is largely attributed to the considerable increase in the training of professional staff as part of the paid educational leave system, which has been organised by employers. The government does not appear to be in favour of providing training to workers who apply for training courses under their own initiative.

Cost-cutting measures

In July 2006, the Council of Ministers decided to cut the costs of the paid educational leave scheme. Less than three months later, the government announced its decision in this respect, outlining the following main measures:

• a change in the system of reimbursement for employers, whereby they will receive a lump sum to cover potential training needs within their organisation;
• reduction of the number of authorised training hours from 180 or 120 hours – depending on the nature of the training – to 100 hours on average, backdated to 1 September 2006.

The latter decision goes against the European, federal and regional objectives in this matter, which aim for greater participation of the working adult population in academic studies and training. For example, at European level, the Lisbon Strategy calls for lifelong learning. At federal level, the need for greater training is set out in the 2003–2004 inter-professional agreement (in French, 185Kb PDF) (BE0302302F) and, at regional level, the following action plans underline the importance of learning: Priority actions for the future of Wallonia (BE0510304F); Flanders in action (1Mb PDF); and the Plan for the employment of the population of Brussels (BE9803136N).

Moreover, at the time of the employment conference in September 2003 (BE0312305F), the Belgian government had echoed the unions’ demand that 50% of workers attend training courses on an annual basis. However, the government also agreed to the European objective, under which 12.5% of adult employees should receive training every four weeks. Today, Belgium is a long way from achieving such objectives.

Trade union response

The trade unions are demanding that the government reverse its decision, and have issued a petition against the reduction of the number of authorised training hours. In response, Pieter Timmermans, General Manager of the Belgian Federation of Employers (Fédération des Entreprises de Belgique/Verbond van Belgische Ondernemingen, FEB/VBO), commented that he was surprised by the trade unions’ criticism of the measures, as the unions had taken part in the discussions on this topic. Nevertheless, it seems that only the budgetary problem had been raised during these discussions and that further negotiations on proposed cost-cutting measures related to the paid educational leave system had been planned for October 2006.

The government has conceded that those workers currently enrolled on training courses may benefit from the number of hours agreed under the previous system.

Potential impact of new measures

In conclusion, the proposed cuts could have at least three main consequences:

• Firstly, schools and education centres will have to quickly reorganise the training courses already planned. The number of students will also have to be significantly reduced, mainly for training that takes place entirely during working hours.
• Secondly, the measures will lead to a reduction in training possibilities for workers. This means, on the one hand, that the most disadvantaged groups, such as the least qualified people, immigrants and older workers, will be further disadvantaged. At the same time, there will be a lowering of trainees’ qualification and skill levels.
• Thirdly, companies will have less educated and therefore less productive and employable workers.

As a result of these potential outcomes, the trade unions have criticised the short-sightedness of the government, given the increasingly globalised economy, where qualifications and skills are crucial for innovation, progress and development. Innovation is currently a topical issue in Belgium; in September 2006, the Central Economic Council (Conseil Central de l’Économie/Centrale raad voor het bedrijfsleven, CCE/CRB) hosted a meeting between the social partners on the Belgian system of innovation (BE0610019I).

Isabelle Vandenbussche, Institut des Sciences du Travail (IST), Catholic University of Leuven