Between risks and social rights : the French further education and training system facing the new employment relationship

At the start of 2001, French unions and employers began negotiations on continuing vocational training. These negotiations, launched by Medef (the main employers' organisation), were part of a more wide-ranging project to reorganise labour relations with, as Medef's objective, a view to changing the overall framework of industrial relations. Other themes had been discussed over the previous two years, including reforming unemployment benefits and how to structure different levels of negotiations. After ten months of discussions on continuing education, the negotiations broke down. Nevertheless, there was a consensus on many of the ideas raised. In 2003, a new round of negotiation began. It ended with a general agreement between all the partners – an exception in the French industrial relations system that has been translated in the labour law. The change in the FVET system is said to be a step towards lifelong learning. However, lifelong learning is more a slogan than a reality. In France, as in most of the OECD countries, the national expenditure for further education and training (FVET) has decreased since 1995. And the basic roots of a lifelong learning policy remain unclear. The debate about the Knowledge society shows two tendencies. A part of the literature promotes a narrow conception of knowledge (scientific and technical), mainly devoted to economic production and claims for more commodification of knowledge. Other part put the emphasis on a wider conception (including social knowledge, “citizen” knowledge...) and fights again the market of knowledge (Méhaut, 2004). As in other fields of the welfare policies, FVET policies are in tone between risk (FVET as an insurance for employability) and personal development (FVET as a tool for a career) (Ramaux, 2003). The 2003 and 2004 reforms could be analysed as double compromise: between risk and welfare on the one hand, between individual insurance and collective rights over resources on the other hand. This double compromise will be the red file of the paper. In a first section, we analyse the main debates about the reform of the welfare state, applied to labour market policies. The second section analyses the reform of the FVET system, and tries to locate the new devices between risk and welfare, insurance and social rights