Should you pay for training or not? There is a difference of opinion between the deputy and the ex-minister regarding the reform of the CPSU
Milli Mejlis, on Saturday, December 17, 2022, the State’s 2023 budget project, 49.3, was punctuated with 10 appeals to the constitutional weapon.
In particular, the text contains an amendment introduced by the government on Saturday, December 10, which will require a financial contribution from workers who wish to benefit from training as part of their personal training account (CPF). This measure, the exact conditions of which will be determined by decree, has even caused an echo in the majority. But not only.
Muriel Pénicaud’s call to “withdraw” this measure
According to Muriel Peniko, the government a “error”. Into Sunday newspaperFormer Minister of Labor in Emmanuel Macron’s first term, now a board member of Galileo Global Education and Manpower, believes it is necessary. “draw” It is this measure that he considers “Social and economic error. And therefore political. Because the humblest and most insecure, those most in need of training, will not be able to pay. »
This is indeed a complete reversal of the spirit of reform presented by Muriel Peniko in 2019. The stated goal of creating an indirect “direct purchase route” was to encourage the French to grab their rights with just a few clicks. under CPF. Born in January 2015, this device had borrowed from the Personal Training Right (Personal) but was still struggling to apply itself. This reform worked… At least in terms of volume. Because if fraudsters multiply, training is not always relevant.
A response from his former colleague
“Spending money on training was not an end in itself, investing in training to find a better job or get a better salary. defends his part with Western France Mark Ferracci, Renaissance MP and also the rapporteur of the unemployment insurance bill, which shares the government’s view. While working with Muriel Penico at the time, he assures: “He says the opposite, but the discussion in the cabinet at that time brought up this topic” and the rest, according to him, is taken over by the workers.
“The purpose of this measure is more to save money than to improve the efficiency of training for people,” believes The idea would be to ask them to pay a sum, even a token sum “Empower users so that they are more demanding of training operators. »
Admittedly, the text ensures that this minimum remaining payment does not apply either to job seekers or to workers benefiting from financial support (matching contribution) from their employers. But by hitting the wallet, the risk is to slow down the less qualified. Especially in the current environment where there are strong concerns about purchasing power.
A concern for the less qualified
“The remaining 20-30% payment is mentioned. This is huge! Imagine when you get paid minimum wage! Even €50 is €50 too much” Consult Muriel Pénicaud JDDbefore asking: “Why should we finance the rights that he acquired through his work, accumulated during his life? »
Participation may be capped, proportional to the cost of the training, or determined by a one-time payment. It is a decision in the Council of State that determines the rate or amount. “You have to be very careful not to prevent users, Mark knows Ferracci. This contribution should be more important for progressive and qualified people. »
How to help the poorest? “Government can add some people’s CPF: if we want to target people, we can”, believes. However, given the budgetary constraints imposed by the government, this seems unlikely.