In-company training participation

The participation of companies in vocational training is referred to as company training participation . It is defined as the share of companies providing training in the total number of companies, or in short as the training company quota .

The quota is used primarily in the federal government's annual vocational training report, in corresponding reports from the federal states or in research reports. The training company quota is intended to show the commitment of the economy in company vocational training from various points of view. Above all, there are changes over time, the sectoral breakdown by branches of industry (agriculture, forestry, manufacturing, etc.) and the distribution across company sizes . From this point of view, the in-company training participation of large companies is particularly informative.

Training company quotas in the employment statistics

Companies, training companies, employees and trainees are regularly recorded in the employment statistics by the Federal Employment Agency. The following table shows the qualitative training participation of companies in the form of the training company quota and their quantitative training performance , the training quota. Both quotas are broken down according to company size classes and can be found in the 2007 Vocational Training Report.

First of all, the opposite development of training company quotas (overview: Part I a) and training quotas (overview: Part I b) is remarkable. As the company grows, the training rates decrease, while the training company rates increase significantly. In large companies with more than 500 employees, the training company quota is almost 91 percent. For small businesses with fewer than 10 employees, it is a good 17 percent. The impression that large companies are particularly committed to in-company vocational training because they are almost all training companies is not confirmed by the training rates, which measure quantitative training performance. On the contrary, while there are an average of 8.2 apprentices for every 100 employees in small companies, there are only 5.6 in large companies (overview: Part I b). - Taking into account the size of the company, the following applies: the higher the participation in training, the lower the proportion of young people they train.

The new federal states are a remarkable exception here. Because only for the old federal states is the shift of a substantial part of the training of young people to small and medium-sized enterprises typical (overview: Part III). The opposite is true for the new federal states. Large companies there make a disproportionately large contribution to vocational training. The main reason for the differences between the old and new federal states is likely to be the financing of training places by the public sector.

The structure of the training company quota and its shortcomings

A peculiarity of the quota and a first indication of its special structure is its direct dependence on the size of the farms. In contrast to the training quota, the training company quota has another remarkable property: It disregards all quantitative components of the training performance. As soon as a company starts training, neither the number of young people trained nor the number of employees plays a role in the training company quota. This is a deficiency because the available information is not exhausted. However, it says nothing about the proportion of training companies, which increases with the size of the company.

It is usually assumed that whether a company provides training or not depends on its need for young talent, its economic strength, the economy or other factors, but hardly on its size. However, under identical conditions, the proportion of companies providing training in large companies is necessarily significantly higher than in small companies.

The following example (I) shows this relationship. If three companies - all of which train - consist of 1,000 employees each, including 70 trainees per company, then the three companies have a total of 3,000 employees and 210 trainees. Under this condition, the training company quota in the company size class with 1000 employees and three companies, since all train, is 100 percent. If the total of 3,000 employees in the three training companies are divided into 300 smaller companies with 10 employees each, then in the best case scenario there can be 210 training companies among the 300 companies (70 × 3 = 210), and this results in a training company quota of 70 percent (210/300 = 0.7). If, in a further step, the 3,000 employees are not divided between 300 but rather 600 companies with five employees each, then there can be a maximum of 210 training companies among the 600 companies. Under these conditions, the training company quota drops to 35 percent (210/600 = 0.35).

Although the number of employees and trainees remains unchanged, the training company quota is falling significantly due to the decreasing company size.

Another example (II) explains why this is so. Assume that all companies train young people to the extent of the average training participation of around seven percent of employees. Under this condition, large companies with 1000 employees have to train 70 young people annually, while small companies with only seven employees have to train 7 × 0.07 = 0.5 young people. Since this is not possible, a young person must be trained within a period of six years instead of half a young person in three years, with an average of three years of training. However, this has the consequence that the annual recording of training companies only counts half of the small companies training their young talent. The other half is not currently training. The corresponding training company quota is therefore only 50 percent. This applies even though, measured in terms of the number of employees, the same quantitative training services are provided as by the large companies with 70 trainees mentioned as an example.

If the small companies in question restrict their training commitment further - be it due to a lack of orders or suitable applicants - and only train one young person per company over a period of eight years, then the training company quota falls further. But even if the aforementioned large companies cut their training commitment in half and only train 35 young people, this has no effect on the training company quota. Even then, they remain training companies and their participation in training is therefore still 100 percent.

As long as they are training, large companies are therefore immune to the extent of their training commitment, and thus also to fluctuations in the training company quota. It is always 100 percent. The quota of training companies in small companies, on the other hand, falls immediately below 100 percent if not all companies train continuously. It is sufficient if one of the companies lacks the decisive young person who makes it a training company. This applies even if this company proves its commitment to training through a disproportionately long-term training of young people. The smaller the size of the training companies, the more sensitive their training company quota reacts to fluctuations in the number of trainees.

In order to illustrate the peculiarity of the discontinuous training, which is particularly applicable to small businesses, and its effect on the training company quotas, the electrical energy demand of companies should serve as an example (III). This form of energy can be divided practically at will. There is therefore no threshold value (a young person), as is the case with in-company training, which, if undercut, turns the training company into a non-training company. Rather, almost without exception, all companies are constantly users of electrical energy. Under these conditions, the size of the company has an impact on the amount of energy required, but not on whether or not electrical energy is used. The “energy use quota” of the companies, as it could be called based on the training company quota, would be 100 percent regardless of the number of employees in large and small companies and would therefore be practically meaningless.

The supposed benefit of the training company quota

The training company quota - it is often assumed - refers to unused training place reserves. If it was possible to win over those companies for training that had not yet provided training and therefore reduce participation in training, then additional training capacities would be more likely to be developed than if companies that already provide training were addressed.

However, this argument, which is used when it comes to the lack of training places and was also mentioned in the discussion about the training place tax, is based on an erroneous assumption. Because, as the empirical results of the employment statistics show, high training company quotas do not indicate above-average, but on the contrary, below-average quantitative training performance. Efforts to create additional training capacities should therefore not increasingly start where the proportion of training companies (training company quota) is low. They would have to focus much more on those structures where the proportion of trainees among employees is below average, i.e. preferably on the training services of large companies. And for such research, the training quota would have to be used instead of the training company quota. Training company quotas, it turns out here, are tricky. They easily lead to incorrect assessments and thus less efficient strategies for gaining additional training positions.

For small companies, the reference to unused training place reserves is particularly unfortunate: On the one hand, small companies provide quantitatively far above-average training performance despite their low training company rates. And on the other hand, as already explained, they can, on average, provide comparatively high training performance even if they are currently not training at all.

Training company quotas are also unsuitable for the comparison of economic sectors, as is also done in the vocational training report. Because those economic sectors that are structured on a large scale tend to perform better. The capital and consumer goods industry, for example, is made up of a particularly large number of large companies. And for this reason alone, they have comparatively high training company rates. In contrast, trade, maintenance and repair are organized on a small-scale basis and therefore perform less favorably than their actual training performance corresponds to.

The same applies to developments over time. Here, too, the benefit of training company quotas is questionable. Because no precise conclusions can be drawn from their changes with regard to the apprenticeship market. For example, if in the course of a recession the number of trainees shifts from large to rather small company structures, as was also observed in 2004 (“sponge function” especially in the craft sector), the overall training company rates can increase, even if the quantitative training performance (Training rates) remain constant or even fall. On the other hand, if the trainees shift back towards the large companies as a result of an economic upswing, then the training company rates can fall despite unchanged training performance. It is difficult to understand why, despite these interrelationships, the training company quota is used again and again to assess company training behavior.

The factual function of the training company quota

If it is the job of the vocational training statistics to adequately represent the structures of the training place market, then the question of the goals aimed at with the training company quota should be able to be answered. There is no convincing answer to this, however, because it is largely irrelevant whether the proportion of training companies in a certain company size class is particularly high or low. It is more important whether the proportion of trainees in the workforce there is high or low. A question that focuses on company training participation can therefore neither provide conclusive evidence of training place reserves, nor of structural differences between the economic sectors or of changes over time that can be interpreted meaningfully. It lacks precisely what would be helpful for young people looking for a training place or for the economy that is dependent on young talent.

The question of the function of the training company quota becomes more productive if you keep the following in mind: A characteristic of in-company vocational training has always been the above-average quantitative training performance of small companies, which have an extremely valuable function, especially in times of missing training positions. In view of the high training performance of small businesses, the question naturally arises as to the performance of other businesses. Against this background, the emphasis on the high participation in training by large companies, at over 90 percent, can easily be interpreted as a compensation for their below-average quantitative training performance. Because large companies - so an obvious conclusion can be drawn - do train comparatively few young people in terms of the number of their employees, but almost all of them participate in in-company vocational training.

Conclusions of this kind, however, undermine the crucial question of quantitative training performance. Instead, they suggest that training performance (training quota) and training participation (training company quota) could be offset against each other. But this means that training participation has a significantly relieving function as the company grows.

It can be left open whether this effect is intended. The training company quota could ultimately also be a “methodical industrial accident”. However, the effects of this mistake, which has been committed regularly for years, are likely to be considerable. This applies not only with regard to the repeatedly demanded training place tax , in the defense of which training participation played a significant role. What is even more precarious is that the training company quota offers the public a systematically recorded picture of the reality of in-company training even in times when, in view of the continuing shortage of apprenticeships, the absolute transparency of the training place market is required. This is difficult to justify in view of the companies complying with their training obligations and the extremely difficult situation in recent years for the many young people who have not been able to find a training place.

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Vocational training report of the federal government ( memento of the original of October 30, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 3.1 MB)  
2. ↑ http://doku.iab.de/betriebspanel/2002/panel_hessen_02.pdf
3. ↑ http://www.iaq.uni-due.de/aktuell/veroeff/2007/langer_070522.pdf
4. ↑ http://www.ifh.wiwi.uni-goettingen.de/de/content/ifh-göttingen-verracht-untersprüfung-über- special-ausektiven-der-hwo-reform-auf- das
5. ↑ Archive link ( Memento of the original from April 30, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
6. ↑ Archive link ( Memento of the original from June 17, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
7. ↑ Archive link ( Memento of the original from June 17, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
8. ↑ Archive link ( Memento of the original from September 20, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
9. ↑ In- company training is qualitative because companies can only train (1) or not train (0).
10. ↑ Archive link ( Memento of the original from July 10, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
11. ↑ The training quota is also not entirely unproblematic, because the trainees are among the employees. The greater the number of trainees in relation to the number of employees, the greater the impact on the quota. The already high training rates in small businesses are reduced as a result. They should actually be higher. In principle, the training quota cannot exceed 1, which would be appropriate under certain conditions.
12. ↑ Federal Ministry for Education and Research (Ed.), Vocational Training Report 2006, p. 143. - The funding is provided within the framework of the “National Pact for Training and Young Skilled Workers”. It is borne roughly equally by the federal government and the federal states.
13. ↑ It only takes one trainee to justify the classification of a company, regardless of its size, as a training company.
14. ↑ The average training quota is currently just under 7% of employees. See the information in the table.
15. ↑ There are also other combinations, for example two young people at the same time in 12 years. But that meant a further decrease in the training company quota.
16. ↑ The different sensitivity of the training company quotas is based on the fact that a company can only train or not train at a certain point in time. The company therefore only enters the counter of the quota with the integer values ​​1 or 0. Ultimately, it is always about the threshold value of a young person who turns a company into a training company or not. The number of employees and the number of young people in excess of one trainee is irrelevant. - The problem of an adequate assessment of training company quotas occurs predominantly only in small companies (in principle in all companies which train discontinuously). It could be solved by looking at a time period instead of a point in time, for example by asking about a company's participation in training in the past ten to twenty years. The longer the period, the higher the training company rates of the discontinuously training companies, and these are mainly small companies, while those of large companies remained almost constant. However, this would also mean the fascination of the training company quota based on the strong differences.
17. ↑ Too small a number of training places is easily attributed to a too small proportion of companies providing training (24%). Archive link ( Memento of the original from May 27, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . See also: http://www.lasabrandenburg.de/15-Mehr-Ausbildungsplaetze.284.0.html 
18. ↑ See: "Training pacts have tradition". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung from June 17, 2004
19. ↑ This can also be observed in 2004: While the training participation (training company quota) increased from 23.4% to 23.8% compared to the previous year (2003), the training performance (training rates) remained constant at 6.4%. (See Federal Ministry for Education and Research (Ed.), Vocational Training Report 2006, p. 151, overview 59 and p. 154, overview 62, last column in each case). The different development of the two quotas is due to a shift in training services from large to small companies.
20. ↑ Cf. Steinbach, S .: Analysis of the cyclical dependence of in-company vocational training in the Federal Republic of Germany; Expert Commission, Costs and Financing of Vocational Training, Studies and Materials Volume 2, Bonn 1974.
21. ↑ The topic of training participation was discussed again and again, especially in connection with the originally planned training place levy: 'Süddeutsche Zeitung' of March 1, 2004: "Allocation destroys work" The associated graphic (apprenticeships - training reserves) suggests that especially small businesses are particularly high There are training place reserves. However, this cannot be derived precisely from the share of companies providing training in the total number of companies (training company quota). See also 'Focus' No. 12 of March 15, 2004: “Apprenticeship tax”; The assigned graph (large companies in front) seems to show that large companies have a particularly high proportion of training places, although the opposite is actually true.