Opinion: Proposal of the Commission to takes action to improve the quality of traineeships in the EU

Executive Summary

• Employers across Europe continue to consider that all traineeships – whether open-market, part of education, a professional qualification or provided as part of an Active Labour Market Policy (ALMP) – have the primary responsibility of developing skills while providing in-work experience.
• The European Commission failed to consider the positions developed by most employers’ organisations during the two-stage social partner consultation and a reinforced Council Recommendation would have been enough to address the issues identified by the European Commission about the quality of traineeships in the EU.
• Traineeship practices as well as definitions of a trainee differ from country to country and are designed, adapted and regulated in different ways, with different purposes and for different goals. There cannot be a singular regulatory approach at EU level for all types of traineeships.
• The scope of the recommendation for a quality framework on traineeship (QFT) should not be extended beyond open-market and ALMP traineeships. Neither a reinforced Council Recommendation nor a directive on the quality of traineeship should address traineeships that are part of formal education or learning programs; higher education policy is determined in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity by the individual EU member states under TFEU Article 165 (1).
• The scope of both the directive and the recommendation are particularly problematic as they artificially gather different types of traineeships which have little in common under the same label and makes it difficult to identify what is a genuine traineeship by opposition to a worker. The directive further introduces confusion with apprenticeship schemes as they may fall within its scope.
• The set of definitions introduced in the directive fails to respect the objective of providing clarity and to introduce a clear distinction between a trainee and a genuine worker which should have been the foundation of the directive as a tool to tackle disguised employment as traineeship.
• The purpose for introducing a specific principle of non-discrimination is unclear as the proposal for a directive has not clearly established the limits between a traineeship and genuine employment.
• The collection of information from the employer seems disproportionate when compared to the necessary indicative nature of the list of criteria to assess whether traineeships are genuine or bogus employment. It would put a tremendous burden of proof on the shoulders of the employers.
• SGI Europe welcomes that the possibility is open to social partners to implement this directive. It is also crucial that this possibility is applicable to the overall content of the directive.