Berlin.
IG Metall boss Jörg Hofmann wants to make further training easier. He demands a legal entitlement – to two years of paid educational leave.
There is a shortage of skilled workers everywhere in Germany. The first chairman of IG Metall, Jorg Hofmann, suggests new ways to remedy the shortage in the interview. And says why Germany is not a real immigration country.
Mr. Hofmann, what should have priority: the training of local workers or the immigration of foreign workers?
Joerg Hofmann: We need three things: We have to train young people in the dual system or at universities. We have to further qualify employees so that the transformation succeeds and they have secure prospects. And we need immigration from abroad. It won’t work without it. The demographic curve is clearly pointing downwards. Incidentally, we should not limit the debate to professionals.
Rather?
Hofmann: We now have a huge shortage of workers in Germany – even for jobs that do not necessarily require special training. Think of gastronomy, logistics, simple services or helper activities in industry.
How many workers from abroad will we need in the next few years?
Hofmann: Experts assume that by 2030 we will need net immigration of 400,000 workers per year. That seems plausible to me. That’s probably even an estimate at the bottom.
Is Germany prepared for so much immigration?
Hofmann: Limited. Take a look at what’s going on in the housing markets. Of course, immigrants also need housing. But that’s already tight. This continues with childcare or school offers. In terms of mentality, we are far from being an immigration country, although we urgently need to be. It’s also about things like the quick issue of a visa, the recognition of qualifications or the requirements for family reunification.
Should we do more recruiting for workers from other EU countries?
Hofmann: Generally, yes. There is freedom of movement for workers in Europe. But the fact that we cannot cover our need for skilled workers with people from other EU countries underlines that we are not yet an attractive immigration country. We recently had a declining immigration balance with the rest of the EU.
Where will the people we need come from?
Hofmann: From Europe beyond the EU and all other corners of the world.
Regardless of the cultural and religious character?
Hofmann: Religious background is no longer decisive. And cultural diversity has definitely enriched our country.
In the east, the AfD is the strongest force in many places. Can you in good conscience recommend an African IT specialist or an Indian geriatric nurse to go to Germany?
Hofmann: Yes. I think that the vast majority of German society is very cosmopolitan. Of course, there is xenophobia that we have to deal with. The crucial place of integration is the workplace. There, strangers become colleagues. That is the lesson of the first waves of immigration in the 1960s and 1970s.
Should immigrants coming to us be able to bring their families with them?
Hofmann: Yes. I think that this must be possible very early on, provided the employment is intended to be permanent. It won’t work any other way. Because otherwise the person concerned will not come to Germany in the first place.
Is it necessary to facilitate access to German citizenship, as the traffic light is planning?
Hofmann: My feeling is that other countries are further along on citizenship laws and that gives them an advantage in the competition for labour.
A later retirement age, around 69 or 70 years, could take the top of the shortage of skilled workers. Why are the unions opposed to this?
Hofmann: We have nothing against more flexible transitions from working life to retirement. But we have something against it if people have to accept pension reductions after 35 or even 45 years of insurance. That is what raising the legal entry age amounts to. The other point is that in practice, many workers retire long before the statutory retirement age, which is now almost 66 years. They are ill or accept deductions because they are exhausted.
Monika Schnitzer, the head of the Economic Wise Men, demands the abolition of the deduction-free pension at 63 for particularly long-term insured persons. Could that be done with you?
Hofmann: The question is how long employment biographies and often very stressful activities can be taken into account when calculating the pension. I mean, if you retire at the age of 45, you started paying into the coffers at the age of 18. Others spent years preparing for their profession at publicly funded universities with co-insurance from their parents. It is also a question of fairness that after 45 years of insurance there is no pension reduction. Anyone who calls for alternatives to retirement at 63 must also clearly state them. Deleting leads to social imbalance.
Minister of Labor Hubertus Heil wants to create new opportunities for further training. Following the example of Austria, there should be paid education. Do you support that?
Hofmann: In our collective bargaining agreements for metal, we have agreed that employees are entitled to part-time training – as a time entitlement. But you have to be able to afford it, and that has been the problem so far. We therefore welcome the Minister of Labor’s plan in principle. In view of the transformation, further training and the opportunity for a second vocational training is an extremely important topic for employees and companies so that there are enough specialists available for digitization, mobility and energy transition. To take up a formulation of the Chancellor: Continuing education is the central bang for change.
Do salvation’s plans go far enough?
Hofmann: He should be even braver. The plan is for employees to be able to take a maximum of one year off for training or further education – provided the boss agrees. That’s not enough, many of today’s specialists will basically have to learn a new profession. The upper limit for the training break should be two years, maybe even more. This also applies to the qualification money, which is also increased. Both instruments must also make it possible to change careers without losing qualifications.
Is it okay that the boss has to agree to the training?
Hofmann: We also need a legal entitlement for employees to receive training. This can also be organized with appropriate application deadlines in the companies. That’s why we have collective agreements, that’s what the new training allowance is supposed to be for, which is based on concrete agreements between the company and collective bargaining parties. Employers should be obliged to fill staff gaps that result from state-sponsored further training with junior staff. It is also not enough that employees in further training should only receive support from the federal agency in the amount of the unemployment benefit. That needs to be increased.
Who should pay for this?
Hofmann: It is clear that we are not alone in paying the costs Federal agency for work can impose. We now have 170 billion euros in the climate and transformation fund for the climate-neutral restructuring of the economy. It is unacceptable that this fund promotes the transformation of business models and processes, the carriers and drivers of the transformation, the employees, but are left out. At least 20 billion euros should flow from the fund into the qualification of employees by 2030. Because a lack of skilled workers is the biggest brake on rapid change.
More articles from this category can be found here: Politics
