DISCUSSION PAPER. In 2006 the population of Iceland was 308 thousand people and 62% live in the capital area.

Transcription

1 Increasing Employment of Older Workers through Lifelong Learning Discussion Paper Jón Torfi Jónasson Institute of Social Science Research, University of Iceland Introduction This Peer Review is concerned with the conditions, attitudes and general participation of the 50+ age groups in the labour market and in formal and non-formal education. It is of particular interest to explore to what extent participation in educational activities is a contributing factor to the outcome of other measures. The paper is in four parts. The first part describes the current demography of Iceland and the labour market and surveys the education system in Iceland and participation in formal education. The second part explores adult education in Iceland; the regulatory and voluntary frameworks or instruments operating and the financial situation as well as the participatory patterns. The third part describes briefly the action taken by government and various actors in the labour market and the fourth part discusses what lessons might be learned from the Icelandic situation. 1. The situation in Iceland It must be understood that the description and discussion below is limited as to be useful to the topic in question. The age groups in the following may vary somewhat, but this would be determined by the available data. This is not thought to present a serious problem as the numbers are meant to be suggestive or indicative. 1.1 The demography in Iceland In 2006 the population of Iceland was 308 thousand people and 62% live in the capital area % Cumulative percentage Age of population Figure The cumulative percentage of the Icelandic population in 1986 and The vertical lines are set at the ages 34, 50 and 70. Source: Statistics Iceland. October

2 Figure shows that half the population was below the age of 34. About 20% of the population are in the age range of 50-70, which is the general range being investigated here. In normative terms the retirement age is 70 (which is mandatory in many sectors), with the option of retiring at 67 with full benefits. In many cases special agreements enable people to retire with full benefits earlier. It is not uncommon that people seek the option of taking on a part-time job when approaching retirement. 1.2 The labour market The working population in 2006 in the age range is 175 thousand, with employment to population ratio at 83%, and with the unemployment rate at about 3% (see appendix I). What makes Iceland somewhat special is the very high portion of the older cohorts in the labour force. Figure shows that for the age group the employment to population ratio is very high in Iceland, considerably higher than in most other countries. In the present context it is of particular interest to ask: does this high rate of participation in any way affect the participation in life-long learning (LLL) (e.g. reduce it because the easy labour market does not put pressure on recurrent education). And vice versa, does LLL in anyway contribute to this high participation rate? But a different issue and a much more technical one is that this pattern should be borne in mind when considering the LLL participation patterns, as there may be a positive relationship between participation in the labour market and LLL. Employment to population ratio by age: Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD Figure The employment to population ratio for the age group in Source: Society at a glance 2006, OECD. Table SS1.3. Employment indicators, 2005, page 53. A slightly different way to gauge this high participation is to look at the inactivity patterns, as these show the groups who are often not considered when looking at participation rates, whether in the labour market or in LLL (see Table 1.2.1). Even though the age reference is somewhat different from that presented previously (especially with the open top end) it is clear that the pattern is different in Iceland even from our Nordic neighbours except in the age range. Indeed the 2

3 similarity in that particular age range drives home the differences in all the other age reference groups. Table Inactivity rates in the Nordic countries. Source: Stefán Ólafsson. Oct Inactivity rates 2005 by age groups - % of age group not active in the labour market Age groups: Denmark Finland Iceland Norway Sweden EU ,8 54,7 26,7 40,1 53,4 54, ,6 12,1 11,5 13,1 10,4 14, ,9 32,5 11,1 26, , ,6 96,9 67,4 87,5 95, , ,1 27,9 37,3 42,7 Source: Eurostat Labour Force Survey 2005 (Q4). The economic situation in Iceland may be complex, but it can nevertheless be described in quite simple terms: The economy is booming with considerable tension which largely explains the high participation rate in the labour market. But it is not the only explanatory factor. It was explained above that the there is a tradition for a rather high retirement age in Iceland and there are no signs that this is detrimental for the Icelandic economy. Below, some evidence is also presented to show that there is a strong tradition for LLL both within formal and non-formal education. This may indeed contribute to the active participation of the above 50 old or 60 old in the labour market. Some action taken by the active partners in the labour market and the formal and non-formal education system may also be important contributory or facilitatory agents which stimulate active and apparently fruitful participation of these age groups in the labour market. 1.3 The system of formal education The education system in Iceland has four formal tiers plus quite strong non-formal structure of continuing education. But the formal description of the system gives a somewhat distorted impression in the sense that people can and do attend upper secondary and tertiary education at all ages. There is a fairly high drop-out rate from secondary education, but there is also a fairly high attendance in upper secondary education among the olds. 3

4 Age of entrance The formal system of education in Iceland Higher education (BA, BEd, BS, 3 ; MA, MEd, MS, 2 ) Grammar schools, Comprhensive schools, Industry-vocational schools, Special vocational schools Compulsory schools (Ten ; Primary and lower secondary education) Pre-school Figure The Formal Icelandic school system. % Graduation from upper secondary education. Porportion graduating at the age of 25 or older. 25 or older Males 25 or older Females Figure Age of graduation from upper secondary education. Source: Statistics Iceland, Hagtölur, Skólamál, Framhaldsskólar, Brautskráningar á framhaldsskólastigi eftir prófgráðu, aldursflokki og kyni It is somewhat difficult to judge the strengths and weaknesses of Icelandic school system with respect to completion rates. From one perspective it seems to be rather loose as it does not ensure the graduation at the proper age from upper secondary education. On the other hand it is very open and flexible and does allow students to enter and graduate when it suits them, and this is certainly what they do. Half of the students that graduate from upper secondary education are 22 or older and Figure shows that in recent between 25% and 30% of those who graduate are 25 or older. Recently there seems to have been an important change in the proportion of females that graduate somewhat late as shown in the figure. It is being debated whether this general feature of the Icelandic system calls for some action by the school system itself. The consensus is that it would generally be better if the students managed to complete their secondary education when young in order to acquire the options of working on the basis of this education or to continue their education at the tertiary level. On the other hand it seems sensible for students to complete or acquire their education when they are ready; it is then done on the basis of their choice and thus much more relevant than it would otherwise be. The low completion rate from upper secondary education is of special concern in the context of continuing education. Those who have not completed any upper secondary education are least likely to participate in any programme of continuing education (this of course is the universal pattern obtained in all countries). Figure shows the situation in Iceland. There it transpires that for males the proportion hovers around or below 30% and has been fairly stable over a long period. For females the situation varies much more and seems to be improving gradually with the highest level of completion around 80% in the age range For the age range being discussed here, i.e. 50+ there is a considerable gender difference. 4

5 The proportion of different age groups who have not completed any formal education after compulsory education 100% 90% 80% Females Males 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure The proportion of different age groups who have not completed any formal education at the upper secondary level (even though they may have completed a year or two) shown for different age groups and for males and females. Source: Jón Torfi Jónasson and Andrea Gerður Dofradóttir The system of non-formal education On top of the formal system there is a fairly extensive system or network of non-formal education. This may be divided into a number of categories depending inter alia on to what extent it is supported by state funds. We will start by showing the participation patterns in non-formal adult education and then describe the system or the setup that seems to account for these patterns. 2.1 Patterns of participation in non-formal adult education in a comparative perspective The general participation patterns are structurally quite similar to what is obtained in other countries. The participation is nevertheless on the whole greater than elsewhere (with notable exceptions) and there is perhaps more equity between groups than is normally found. In the following we will present Icelandic data, but either compared to the Nordic countries or to available data from more countries. The former comparison is done as the situation turns out to be similar in the Nordic countries and thus any differences tend to be of special interest. Figure shows that in general the participation patterns are quite similar in all the countries shown, except for the absolute levels of participation. The participation rates are highest in Sweden and there we also find most equity in terms of participation rates between the different age groups. Iceland and Finland follow very close behind and participation rates are only slightly lower in the UK and Denmark. The participation rates of the oldest group, those in the age range are shown for a number of countries in figure Here the Nordic countries with 5

6 Switzerland and the UK have the highest participation rates which are quite dramatically higher than in the rest of the countries shown % % 50% 40% 52% 50% 47% 38% 52% 51% 48% 44% 42% 43% 40% 37% 34% 34% 52% 50% 46% 44% % 39% 37% 30% 20% 29% 25% 22% 10% 0% Denmark Finland Iceland Norway Sweden UK Figure Participation in non-formal adult education in the Nordic countries and the UK shown for four different age groups. Source: Eurostat and Statistics Iceland. The main conclusion is that the participation rate in Iceland is quite high in relative terms. Over a 12 month period 4 out of every 10 persons take part in some kind of non-formal training activity. There are two background variables that become quite important in this context even though we do not have detailed data on either of them. One is the well known and robust relationship between prior education and participation. This is shown in figure 2.1.3, where it transpires that the participation of those with the lowest educational credentials is less than in other groups. But from the comparative perspective the participation rate is quite high. But since Iceland has a fairly high proportion of people who have not completed any formal degree above compulsory education (see figure 1.3.3), and the participation of those in non-formal education tends to be low (see figure 2.1.3), the high average participation as shown in figures and is especially noteworthy. 6

7 Partcipation in informal education in the age range 55 to 64 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Sweden Switzerland Iceland Denmark Finland Norway United Kingdom Austria 25 European Union Ireland Slovenia Latvia Belgium Cyprus France Slovakia Estonia Luxembourg Czech Republic Germany Netherlands Spain Lithuania Portugal Poland Italy Hungary Greece Romania 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 6% 6% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 1% 1% 0% 12% 25% 22% 29% 40% 38% 44% 44% Figure The participation rate in non-formal education for the age group Source: Eurostat and Statistics Iceland. 100% 90% 80% isced0_2 Pre-primary, primary and lower secondary education - levels 0-2 (ISCED 1997) isced3 Upper secondary education - level 3 (ISCED 1997) isced5_6 Tertiary education - levels 5-6 (ISCED 1997) 70% 60% 66% 61% 64% 60% 56% 50% 45% 44% 47% 45% 40% 30% 33% 31% 29% 30% 24% 37% 34% 20% 10% 14% 11% 0% Iceland Denmark Norway Sweden Finland UK Figure Participation in non-formal education in different categories of prior education. Source: Eurostat and Statistics Iceland. 7

8 A background variable that operates in the opposite direction is that of participation in the labour market. Figure shows the fairly robust general fact that those that are active in the labour force are more likely to participate in learning activities for a variety of reasons, e.g. because of the arrangement or urging by the employer. Because of the high participation of the Icelandic population in the labour market as shown in figure one would expect a bias towards higher participation in non-formal education. Thus the two background variables that should be used to modulate the overall participation rate work in the opposite direction and may thus be presumed to offset each other at least to some extent. 70% Employed Unemployed 60% 50% 53% 50% 50% Outside the labour market 53% 40% 41% 38% 42% 30% 23% 25% 28% 22% 24% 23% 26% 20% 10% 16% 17% 10% 14% 0% Denmark Finland Iceland Norway Sweden UK Figure Participation in non-formal education depending status in the labour market. Source: Eurostat and Statistics Iceland. The data show very clearly that the participation rate is high from all vantage points and it may be asked why this is so. Is it due to some aspects of government policy, government initiative, the institutional framework geared towards non-formal education, or some other institutional or cultural factors? Below we will describe some of these with the aim to throw some light on these questions. 2.2 The legal framework related to adult education Presently the legislative framework in Iceland concerning adult education and education in the workplace is sparse. There are two statues that relate to this field; Law on industrial or vocational education, 1 and one paragraph in the law on upper secondary education that permits upper secondary schools to participate in adult education. Neither the state nor the municipalities carry any formal responsibility vis-à-vis adult education. The former law sets up a council to take the initiative in forming a policy on education related to the labour market and give financial support to initiatives from various agencies in the field. The council has not taken any substantial lead in the 1 Lög um starfsmenntun í atvinnulífinu nr

9 area and has been criticized (at its own initiative) for not being as proactive as the laws suggests it should. 2 The ministry of education is reported to be preparing a new law on adult education. It is noteworthy in this connection that despite this lack of a legal imperative the situation is healthy in many ways (as was shown in section 2.1); the government plays a role in some areas but its efforts don t seem to be of paramount importance. 2.3 The financial contribution of the state and municipalities to non-formal education The state contributes financially to the running of adult education enterprises. This is done through contributions from the unemployment fund (via the ministry of social affairs) and from the ministry of education. 3 From the unemployment fund to adult educational matters 220 mill. (ISkr) 2.47 million From the Ministry of Education to centres of continuing education 270 mill. (ISkr) 3.03 million From the Ministry of Education for the Centre for the education of the adult handicapped 200 mill. (ISkr) 2.25 million Other contributions from the state and the municipalities 200 mill. (ISkr) 2.25 million Total 890 mill. (ISkr) 10 million The total state and municipal spending on education (including the student loan fund and research funds) is about 100 times this amount. Thus, the government and municipal spending on adult education is in the region of 1% of the total spending on education. Thus even though non-formal education of the post-school population is rhetorically seen as very important it has not been given a clear priority within the state or municipal action. This is of course of particular interest as the relative standing of non-formal education seems nevertheless to be quite good. 2.4 Government agencies related to adult education There is only one governmental agency which deals explicitly with adult education and one programme that deals inter alia with this area. The agency is the Council for industry related education (Starfsmenntaráð) discussed in section II.1. The programme is called the 50+ initiative. This was set up in 2005 by the minister for social affairs in a response to an adoption of a parliamentary proposal on the issue of status of older workers in the labour market. The role of the programme is to inform and stimulate all possible agents, especially in the labour market, to be conscious of potential problems and take action to remedy them. 2.5 The institutional network of non-formal education There are a number of categories of agencies involved in adult education. The first two are quite traditional and even though they are quite important contributors to elevating the rate of 2 Jón Torfi Jónasson. (2006). Um stöðu og framtíð Starfsmenntaráðs. (A critical evaluation of the operation of the Council, with special attention paid to its possible future role; a report written at the initiative of the Council). 3 An official presentation of these contributions is not available and these numbers are based on estimates provided informally and may not include all contributions. All the figures are rounded and the last one is very much an estimate. 9

10 participation in non-formal education they are not seen as being in any way special to the Icelandic setting. Normally the bigger companies, in Iceland like everywhere else, normally have their own agencies of adult education. They are very active and are certainly responsible for a substantial amount of non-formal adult education in the country. The universities in Iceland all run quite strong continuing education programmes (in some instances run by special institutions), which are partly related to university programmes but most are non-formal courses organised in co-operations with unions and in response to the wishes of the clientele. With special reference to the age group in question we will single out three types of institutions that pay special attention to those that are least likely to attend non-formal courses or kindred events. These are the centres of continuing education (or centres of lifelong learning), the educational institutions run by the labour unions and a single institution, the Education and Training Service Centre. All of these are relatively new as special institutions on the Icelandic scene and even if all of them have some natural precursors they merit some special attention. The centres of lifelong learning, Símenntunarmiðstöðvar, are operated in all regions of the country. Most of the centres were established during , even though many of them can be traced to earlier types of institutions operated partly by the upper secondary schools. These centres are independent institutions typically owned by the upper secondary schools, the municipalities, local universities, the local labour unions and local firms. They are financed partly by state contributions and some from the owners but otherwise by course fees that may be paid by the participants, their firms or their labour union funds. They are currently nine outside the capital area where they were originally established, but there are two, somewhat differently organised within the capital. There is no question that the operation of these centres makes a considerable difference to the participation of the least educated and the older workers in non-formal education. As an example, in the autumn of 2006, 28% of the participants at SÍMEY (in the north-eastern part of Iceland) were in the age range of 55-64, partly because of a special effort to reach out to this age group. 4 Each of the nine centres is set up with its own special features. 5 They are managed by the municipality and the educational and employment sectors in the region, with the chairman normally from the labour market side. They are normally very sensitive to the needs of the region and act as brokers between the potential students and those who may offer courses; they do not necessarily run the courses themselves, even though they often do. Their aim is to facilitate access to lifelong learning in order to contribute to the regional development in the area; they are intended to bring learning closer to home; to take the initiative to learning with diverse goals and approaches, which is considered very important as very often their clientele is in the end willing to participate even though they do not necessarily take the bait as soon as courses are advertised. Thus, the operation of theses centres is normally seen as a very important contributor to the relatively high level of participation of the older workforce in nonformal learning and also of those generally with least prior formal education. What seems to 4 Skýrsla SÍMEY, haust Page See e.g. Inga Sigurðardóttir, The LLL Centres in Iceland &tid=1 10

11 be particularly important is the composition of the ownership as the owners come from all the potentially interested agents plus the understanding that these centres should play a very deliberate proactive role in enticing people into the educational arena. It should be noted that some municipalities, notably Reykjavík, run their own lifelong learning centres (e.g. Námsflokkar Reykjavíkur) which is geared towards all groups that seem not to fit into the school system or feel they have been left out by it. Another type of actors of special interest are the educational organisations run by the labour unions. In negotiations on wage contracts in the year of 2000 some labour unions and employers negotiated on instructional funds for workers. These funds, Landsmennt and Starfsafl, were meant to support development in occupational education, develop courses and curriculum and give individuals, labour unions and employers grants on lifelong learning projects (Kristín Njálsdóttir and Sveinn Aðalsteinsson, 2007). This same year, a kindred fund (Starfsmenntasjóður verslunar- og skrifstofufólks) was founded in order to support lifelong learning for commercial and clerical employers. Then in 2002, Sjómennt, was established to grant occupational learning for employers in the fishing industry. In subsequent negotiations, in 2005, many labour unions negotiated educational funds for their members including the labour unions for government employees (see Ríkismennt og Starfsmennt). With the foundation of these funds collaboration was established on occupational- and continuous education in all primary trades and service sectors in Iceland (see the Appendix II on some of these funds). These funds, like the centres for lifelong learning attempt to be proactive and seek out those who may need education but may nevertheless not take the initiative themselves. They are financed by contributions from the employers which adds to about 15% of the fund s income, (originally paying 0.05% of the wages to the fund, which has now in some cases been elevated to 0.15%), the contribution by the unions which adds another 15% and a contribution from the state unemployment fund (see section 2.3) which is the largest contributor amounting to about 70% of these funds. A special agency, the Education and Training Service Centre ehf. (FA) was established in December 2002 by the Icelandic Confederation of Labour (ASÍ) and the Confederation of Icelandic Employers (SA). 6 The main purpose of FA is to work as a co-operating forum for those agents working with adult education and occupational education with an emphasis on providing individuals without formal education the opportunity to seek education and improve their position in the labour market. This is a considerable group of the labour market, or around 30% in the age range as may be inferred from figure Among the many functions of FA is to identify the need of education for individuals, companies and different professions, contribute to the development of methods to evaluate education and competence, in particular to work towards the recognition of real competence. The function of FA is to stimulate, encourage, advice and to provide frameworks, agreements and materials in order to facilitate the enhanced participation of those with least education and ensure that the infra-structures are in place for this to materialise. According to the service agreement between the ministry of education and FA, the ministry finances the operation of FA and will continue doing so until the end of year In Icelandic: Fræðslumiðstöð atvinnulífsins. 11

12 2.6 Action taken by various agencies In recent the most visible government initiative is the 50+ programme which is geared towards improving the conditions of this age group within the labour market. In all other projects in which the government participates, it can be seen as a somewhat passive partner, providing funds but not playing an active role. The action taken by the labour market itself seems to be of most interest. We have described three types of institutions that seem to be operating quite successfully and are probably instrumental in producing the high participation rate in Iceland, not least among those with the least formal educational background. It is not clear who should be given the credit for the centres of lifelong learning. But the credit is probably reflected in the multiple ownership of these centres. The school system is actively participating, while acknowledging that this type of educational activity is fruitfully run outside the formal system. The municipalities, the unions and local firms are also active and thus a genuine partnership seems to have been established around the country. This activity is supported by the state, but given the somewhat cumbersome but necessary proactive role played by these centres in many instances, some more support seems to be warranted. Both the establishment of the Education and Training Service Centre and the educational funds run by the unions seem to originate within the unions. They are the results of the wage agreements where the state enters the arena to facilitate the agreement reached by providing additional funds. This is also in keeping with the general government policy to encourage and facilitate the establishment of the necessary infrastructures without operating them itself. 2.7 What can be learned from the Icelandic initiative? There is no question that both the rates of participation in the labour market and in non-formal education are relatively high in Iceland not least in the 50+ age groups. The former is due to the booming economy but also to the tradition of a long working life and a social security system (albeit a strong system) that presumes that people retire relatively late. It might have been expected that such a receptive labour market would not put any considerable pressure on people to participate in non-formal education; would they need to participate? But it does not seem to detract people from participation in non-formal education. In fact the opposite seems to be the case. People seem on average to be active on both fronts and it stands to reason to presume that there is a causal relationship between the two. No clear-cut evidence has, however, been presented here that allows a casual inference to be drawn about the possible relationship between the participation patterns in these two spheres. But as these go together we will repeat the following: There are centres of lifelong learning operating all around the country which ensure the close cooperation between schools, industry and the unions and above all the individual potential clients; centres which see themselves as having the task of stimulating people to take part in non-formal educational activities. 12

13 There are educational infrastructures operated by the unions which similarly see it as their task to stimulate and facilitate participation of members in educational activities: they see themselves as having a proactive role. They have very good contact with the grassroots clientele. A centre is operated which has the special task of reaching those with least background formal education and providing the infrastructures necessary to enable their participation by inter alia lowering the unnecessary hindrances and by providing stepping stones, e.g. via the acceptance of peoples real competence. This is run by the labour market associations and is organised as to be in very close contact with the grassroots. There is a government programme, 50+ with the special task of facilitating the participation of the older age groups in the labour market. Furthermore our system in general is quite flexible and increasingly proactive as has been reiterated above. In addition to this we have in place all the normal infra-structures within companies and various enterprises that offer non-formal continuing educational courses and events. Now what is the established contribution of all these various agencies? This is difficult to assess. Participation in the labour market fluctuates here as elsewhere. Participation in non-formal education is certainly very high and continues to improve. 7 Thus I suggest that the generally high and equitable pattern of participation in non-formal education contributes effectively to the active and effective participation of the older age groups in the workforce, and the infrastructures that have been established in the non-formal sector contribute in important ways to ensure this. Appendix I. Labour statistics Labour statistics 2006 Participation in the labour Unemployed Full time Part time Unemployed Time at Time at work - Time at work market % % Workforce Working work work work hrs. full time part time M & F Total 83,1 2, ,4 47,2 24, ,3 8, ,5 45,9 18, ,8 1, ,1 47,4 27, ,8 1, ,3 47,2 26,3 Males Total 87,5 2, ,5 49,8 25, ,4 8, ,7 48,3 18, ,6 1, ,2 50,2 32, , ,4 49,5 27,1 Females Total 78,4 3, ,5 24, ,4 7, , , ,5 42,6 26, ,8 2, ,5 42,3 26,1 Source: Statistics Iceland. October Hagtölur. Vinnumarkaður. Atvinnuþátttaka, atvinnuleysi, vinnutími og fjöldi starfandi eftir ársfjórðungum Jónasson, J. T., & Tuijnman, A. (2001). The Nordic model of adult education: Issues for discussion. In A. Tuijnman & Z. Hellström (Eds.), Curious Minds. Nordic adult education compared (pp ). Copenhagen: TemaNord & Nordic Council of Ministers. 13

14 Appendix II. Examples of educational funds resulting from the labour negotiations in recent Landsmennt, the educational fund for workers in the Icelandic countryside, receives its financial resources from the unemployment insurance fund, the labour unions who are members of Landsmennt and employers. Around 70% of the funds are financed by contribution from the unemployment insurance fund. Now their contribution is around 15% of the total financing. Finally 15% is financed by the member labour unions. The payment from the unemployment insurance funds may cease by the end of year 2007 according to contracts and it is clear that the funds will decrease considerably unless this contribution will be renegotiated. But the contribution from employers is rising since as from 2007 they pay 0.15% of all wages to the fund (Kristín Njálsdóttir and Sveinn Aðalsteinsson, 2007). In 2006 Landsmennt financed and assisted 79 projects, 31 of them involved Icelandic for foreigners in the labour market. This is a considerable increase and due to this Landsmennt asked the government for increased funds for these courses, it resulted in greatly increased grants in the year During the year 2006, 1866 individual grants were administered, where 59% of the grantees were female. When looking at the age of the grantees one can see that majority of those who received funds for education are in the age group 21 to 50 old. ( % %, %, %, %, %) Starfsafl, the educational fund for union members of some unions in the capital region will in the contract period, , receive 2.1 million from the unemployment insurance fund. At the end of this period these payments will cease as is the case with Landsmennt and Sjómennt. The member labour unions in Starfsafl pay 0.1 million every year during this contract and the employers pay 0.05% fee of all employers wage in educational fee as is the case with Landsmennt. According to contract, this percentage will rise into 0.15% of wages as from Starfsafl granted 1080 individual grants for vocational training last year. Majority of the grants went to individuals learning Icelandic and this is an increase from previous. As many as 28 company projects were financed through Starfsafl and as with the individual grants, projects concerning teaching foreigners in the labour market Icelandic were prominent (Starfsafl, 2007). Sjómennt, the educational fund for employers in the fishing industry was established in 2002 and financing was secured through grants from the unemployment insurance fund which contributed 0.5 million during the period Ríkismennt is one of the funds setup for the skilled and semi-skilled workers who work for the state outside the capital area. It was established in It is financed with contributions from employers; 0.57% is added to wages and that amount paid to the educational fund. The fund received ISK in Last year the fund granted 121 individual grants. Unlike Starfsafl and Landsmennt Icelandic for foreigners is not prominent but instead majority of grants are for vocational training. 96% of grantees were female and it is interesting that majority of the grantees, 44%, are in the age group ( %, %, %, %, %, %) (Ríkismennt, 2007). Starfsmennt. 14

15 Educational fund for employees in commerce. Employers pay 0.15% of total wages employees to the fund. Labour unions pay complementary contribution equivalent to one third of the employers contribution (Starfsmenntasjóður verslunar- og skrifstofufólks, 2007) 15