Following the allegations of illegal use by some companies, the stages of state-funded program, the President of the Employment and Vocational Training Institute (IEFP) will request an internal audit services to realize that all monitoring procedures of the trainees were respected. Valadas António da Silva, who took over the presidency of the IEFP in June, ensures that the audit will start “soon” in order to “identify areas and aspects of improvement” and improve the follow-up to trainees. The official also said that as soon as the National Youth Council launched the warning that there are companies forcing trainees to give them back part of the bag or to pay all the costs of Social Security, reinforced the instructions to regional and local services for signposting “any denunciation by fainter it is.” Valadas da Silva acknowledge that you may need to change the rules of the stages, but at the same time warning that the program is very important for the entry of young people into the labor market. One idea on the table is the IEFP move to establish a contractual relationship with the intern.
The IEFP says that until last Monday, was not aware of any official complaint related with “extortion” of scholarships to trainees by some companies. However, there are trainees to ensure that these practices have spoken to technical employment centers. It should not have been given greater attention to these testimonies?
First, let me clarify that there are several reasons of failure stages [effective occupation of a job, default stage plan, debts trainee]. What was reported and is heralded as a mega fraud – that has to do with what was called the extortion of scholarships for trainees, where trainees are constrained by the company to receive less than what they were entitled – is a situation in which we had, to date, three specific complaints, which, moreover, have escalated to the prosecution.
what is the procedure for a job technician must take before a witness not formal?
Whenever there is news of a complaint, either in person, or by electronic means, whether anonymous or identified, IEFP immediately promotes an investigation. From the moment a person reports an event, for that public official is a complaint and he has the obligation to forward.
The trainee who now had one of the three complaints to the IEFP, and who claims to have been forced by the company to return part of his purse, gave notice to the Evora job Centre in early August (before the National Youth Council have denounced the fraud). How does the IEFP was not aware of this complaint?
As far as I could analyze the process, disclosure of the facts that constitute a criminal offense is made in detail to the CGTP [who delivered the complaint to the IEFP]. Our Evora services actually have a complaint, but where it is not apparent at all clear what happened. Does not it seem strange that, being a mega fraud touted by all the media, the IEFP has only concrete news of three cases?
A trainee who arrives at a company where other trainees raise money every month to give the company, you may find that this practice is normal. Or can not report because they need the stage …
understand that there may be reasons [for not reporting] and there is fear of the trainee himself. The fact that it is to say that we only have three complaints, does not mean they are not important. Even if only one. It is important that the IEFP can act in the public interest and the interests of transparency and credibility of the measure [Internships-Jobs]. We have these three complaints and admit that arise more. As soon as the news was publicized, it was reinforced instructions to regional and local offices to signposting and encaminharem for our employment services and audit any complaint, however tenuous it may be.
this should not be the normal procedure?
That is the procedure. That’s why I said that the instructions have been strengthened.
The idea is this process is that the IEFP does not exercise sufficiently effective control of the internship program and trainees are delivered to you own. Will change anything in the way the control is done? When
is to say that the institute does not control, is not true.
Before the case now reported , there should be closer monitoring of the trainees?
legal relationship is not between the intern and the IEFP, but between the IEFP and the employer, signing an acceptance term and takes a set of obligations and duties. When the stage is approved, the trainee is immediately informed by the use of technical rights and obligations arising under the stage of contract that is signed between the young and the company, the existence of a training supervisor and that an inquiry is made .
One of the questions is done in this inquiry is whether “are being fully complied with the contract rules, particularly in respect to payments.” The survey is done how often? The answer is anonymous
is a quarterly survey addressed to trainee
I return the question?. There should be more monitoring
? as you said, they were given instructions to regional and local offices to be strengthened monitoring these situations. In addition, I intend to promote an internal audit procedures of the services, in order to verify if indeed are being met and if need, in some ways, to be strengthened. This audit will start soon to identify areas and aspects for improvement, so we can strengthen the intervention of the Institute in the implementation of employment and vocational training policies, but also so that we can defend themselves trainees and so they can be more followed.
We are talking about thousands of stages. That’s why I make a point of distinguishing the reasons for non-compliance and irregularities. Last year, we had more than 70,000 stages and this year we already have 33 000 stages. We are talking about a measure that in terms of volume and in terms of quality, is very important. Therefore, we can not condemn an extremely useful tool for activation especially young people, which opens the door for them to a job. The measure is indeed a gross employability [any insertion in employment, even using other support IEFP] very high [67%, according to a study presented by the government] and even the actual employability [that does not take into account employment measures supported by the IEFP] is very important [38%].
At this time can not say “we have failed” or the employment of technicians failed?
I can not say it. It was folly on my part, would not be to be correct or honest with me, nor with my employees. I can not make such a claim when, on this fraud, I have three cases.
admitted that there might be people who spoke to technical jobs which, in turn, did not value the reports?
I have the gravest doubts. Our workers are very experienced, follow people. Clearly, as on all sides, there are always failures, no one is perfect, but the experience I have of the exercise of functions in other organizations is that our public officials are conscious people.
Sometimes you want to give himself to the idea that the institute does not act, which is not true. More than 1398 cases of non-compliance detected [in 2014] prove that we act. Are cases of debt for trainees, breach of probation plan, failure times … Some of these cases are detected either by the internal control made by IEFP, either by the control made by the different services within the European Social Fund, the Court of Auditors, the Finance Inspectorate and the inspection of the ministry [of Labour and Social Security].
in recent years many stage contract terminations registered?
The peak was in 2015, with 5384; followed in 2014 by 3743. In 2016 we know to date, 1778.
What are the guarantees given to the trainee when the contract is not respected?
the contract is established between the intern and the company. The institute, whenever there is a controversial situation or, for example, debt payment of the bag acts in support of the trainee and contact the employer to take to rectify the situation within 30 days. If you do not regulate, there will be a draft decision to say no regularized, support will be repealed and demanded the return of the support provided so far. If the company does not make the return, that debt [to IEFP] goes to coercive collection.
debt to intern? Who is to pay?
trainee will always have the normal mechanisms …
Go to court?
will always have that possibility. The IEFP can not replace the company, because it is not part of the contractual relationship with [the trainee].
The IEFP should not be part of that relationship?
As you know, it is the intention of the Government, and is in discussion with the social partners, to a reformulation of the policy of active employment measures. Perhaps this is a question to ponder, to strengthen the support and protection of the trainee. I admit that yes, but measures are under discussion and would not be doing futurology. It would be important to think in support of strengthening mechanisms and, in particular, be greater selectivity of legitimate businesses, especially those that contribute positively to job creation.
Also on the side of the companies there are complaints that sometimes the support of IEFP reaches the middle of the stage or when you’re done. Why is this?
I admit that there may be some cases of delays. It has to do with the process itself, applications that need to be analyzed and must be considered a set of requirements. But this can not be an excuse or justification for the practice of a reprehensible action at all levels, first to the criminal level.
How is the control of Internships-Jobs? It is purely administrative or IEFP will businesses?
employment services speak to the stage of the advisor, there are follow-up visits to the entities, talk to the intern. 2014 so far, were visited around 16 000 companies. These checks include those arising indicia or suspected fault and normal control measure. In most cases, when a company is faced with an irregularity, restores regularity.
Internships-Jobs program has been heavily criticized by unions and associations, for allegedly supporting precarious employment. The now familiar complaints call into question the credibility of the measure?
In certain situations I admit that the measure may have been used less correctly, in that stage, instead of serving as an experiment, it was to be used to fill a job. This is a measure which has existed since 1997 and has served the employability of our youth. employability rates are there to prove it.
In 2014, the measure was extended and started to also support internships for access to regulated professions. This expansion opens the door to an increase of irregularities? The complaint of the National Youth Council, which gave rise to the news, focused on architectural engineering, psychology and law firms.
No, I do not think that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment