The book. Once upon a time, there was an ideal, “a national obligation” in which the whole of society was to participate, under the aegis of the State: to improve the qualifications of workers, ensure their adaptation to the needs of the economy and contribute to emancipation of people. The 1971 Delors law, which notably set in stone the financial contribution of companies, laid the foundations for the system of continuing vocational training. However, these great principles have diluted over time.
In the test 1971-2021. Looking back on 50 years of professional training (Editions du Croquant), two specialists combine their complementary analyzes: one, the economist Didier Gelot, was in charge of the evaluation of vocational training at the Ministry of Labor; the other, Djamal Teskouk, was as a confederal adviser CGT involved in the many interprofessional negotiations on training. The product of this report, which is both global and operational, is intended for those involved in training – in particular union actors – but not only.
As training is not an isolated object, the authors closely link its developments to the economic and political choices made over time. Regular reforms – around fifteen, often national inter-professional agreements (ANI) followed by a law – have followed one another to update the legal framework for training, by making training and employment actions more consistent to respond to successive crises, globalization and mass unemployment. In addition, the regions and joint bodies have seen their role evolve.
The development of skills to the detriment of qualifications symbolizes the deviation of the 1971 system, according to Didier Gelot and Djamal Teskouk. It makes the individual responsible for his employability. “The notion of employee empowerment, which appeared in the mid-1990s, has been greatly extended and is now associated with that of professional career”, argue the authors. Inequalities in access to continuing training have therefore increased, and employees have increasingly been invited to train outside of working hours, partly on their own. In 2004, the individual right to training (DIF) enshrined this so-called “co-investment” principle, which separates training time and working time.
The authors especially point the finger at the law of 2018 “for the freedom to choose one’s professional future”: preceded by the introduction of the personal training account (CPF) in 2014, it signals the culmination of a process of excessive individualization. training, and “Disempowerment of employers”. It considers that the employee must adapt to the immediate needs of companies, which encourages the proliferation of short training courses without real added value, especially in low-skilled trades.
You have 20.81% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.