2.1 Problematization of the Dual Apprenticeship

Discussions on the dual apprenticeships model in Costa Rica began in the late 1970s (^{Láscarez & Schmees 2021}). In the following decades, several pilot plans were implemented at different levels of Costa Rican technical and vocational education and training, from here on abbreviated as “TVET” (^{Mittmann, 2001}; ^{Láscarez, 2017)}. However, from the implementation of the first dual apprenticeship pilot plan in Costa Rica’s main TVET institutions in 1996, it had not been possible to create a specific dual apprenticeships law regulating work-based learning, as the regulatory framework around work-based learning was fundamentally related to what was stipulated in Article 14 and Article 15 of the Apprenticeship Law of 1971, which determined labor-wage regulations for apprentices in the company. These two articles conceived the apprenticeship relationship as an employment relationship and defined different salary ranges, namely, the apprentice will receive 50% of the minimum wage of the occupation being apprenticed, during the first period, 75% during the second period, and 100% during the last period.

Since the early 2000s, and mainly in the millennium’s second decade, several business groups proposed dual apprenticeship bills², most of which did not get far in the legislative approval process. A turning point in the history of dual apprenticeships in Costa Rica occurred in 2016, when the then-President of the Republic of Costa Rica, Luis Guillermo Solis, and the then-Minister of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Johanna Wanka³, signed a cooperation agreement on several topics, including dual apprenticeships, due to the good reputation of the German dual apprenticeship system (^{Láscarez & Schmees 2021}).

Subsequently, relations between the Costa Rican government and the German Office for international Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training (GOVET) in the Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB) were initiated. Furthermore, as part of the cooperation alliances between Costa Rica and Germany in the TVET sector, it is also important to mention the Unions4VET project, which was established in 2017. The project is coordinated and implemented by the Confederation of German Trade Unions (DGB) and the Berufsbildungswerk. To this day, the project is funded by the BMBF. Its goal is to strengthen the unions within the TVET sector around the world in general, though particularly in Costa Rica.

These developments, associated with the high intensity of the social conflict related to the dual apprenticeship model between business and union groups, led the Costa Rican Minister of Education to convene a national tripartite dialogue table to discuss a definition and the most appropriate characteristics of what might become the Costa Rican dual apprenticeship model. This dialogue lasted ten months and was mediated by the International Labor Organization (ILO).

The dialogue table ended due to a government change⁴ accompanied by a new political script: new ministers, new actors, new lines of work, and new political strategies. The end of the dialogue table did not lead to consensus. Rather, the law on “dual education” approved in September 2019 was the product of a political initiative unrelated to the process and the products achieved at the dialogue table. The dialogue table nevertheless generated important positions on what each representative group considered the “ideal” model of dual apprenticeships, systematized and analyzed in this paper as part of the history of the development of the TVET system in Costa Rica.

Prior to this project, in 2021, we systematized certain reflections on the political and technical positions on the dual apprenticeship model by representatives of the business sector, within the framework of this same national tripartite dialogue (^{Láscarez & Schmees, 2021}).

2.2 A brief characterization of unionism in Costa Rica

The study of trade unionism in Costa Rica is the study of the development of the labor movement, an expression of the labor contradictions indicated by the development of capitalist relations of production around coffee production. This is supported by ^{Rojas (1978}, pp.13-14), who explains how labor conflicts produced by the coffee industry in the middle of the 19th century and the introduction of some contracting regulations transformed the labor movement into a union movement. The subsequent development of the union movement was influenced by different philosophical, political, and economic inspirations, as well as by certain visions of social development. Of course, the major political, military, and economic processes (the First and Second World Wars, the Cold War, and their geopolitical impact on the American continent) played an important role in the configuration of the trade union movement in Costa Rica, as well.

Problems associated with industrialization in rural areas based on economies of agrarian exploitation (and later the industrialization process in urban areas) brought with them important demands from workers. For example, the 1930 banana industry strikes over the transnational United Fruit Company’s noncompliance with labor contracts were central to the deployment of workers’ organizational initiatives (^{Rojas, 1978}, p. 18). ^{Rojas (1978)} analyzes how, starting in 1943, the labor movement in Costa Rica began to divide into different “central unions,” experiencing different “anti-union” dynamics associated with ideological factors such as anti-communist practices. These anti-union practices are part of the economic and social contradictions generated by the industrialization process in Costa Rica that started in 1960.

^{Romero (2012)} develops an important analysis on freedom of association in the Costa Rican private sector from 1991 to 2011.The author refers to the effectiveness of the exercise of freedom of association at a time when Costa Rica was transitioning to a development model based on labor deregulation and the attraction of transnational capital, under free trade zone regimes that saw trade unionism as a great disadvantage. This had a negative impact on the already-depleted union organization in the private sector in Costa Rica (^{Romero, 2012}, pp.17-18). On this point, ^{Aguilar (2022) 5} writes that as a result of the establishment of the neoliberal model, from the 80s of the twentieth century the economic structure begins to vary, and already by the last decade of that century, Costa Rica enters a very different process, when it abandons production for the domestic market and the rulers adhere to the neoliberal model, which is dedicated to production for the external market, privileging multinational companies, which acquire a large part of the Costa Rican industrial park, but which demand a series of conditions of freedom, the privilege of not paying taxes and protection to prevent the development of the union movement, creating parallel organizations for this purpose. According to Article 342 of the Costa Rican Labor Code ^{(MTSS, 1943}, pp. 127-128), unions are: (1) trade unions: those formed by individuals of the same profession, trade, or specialty; (2) company unions: those formed by individuals of various professions, trades, or specialties, who render their services in the same company; (3) industrial unions: those formed by individuals of various professions, trades, or specialties, who render their services in the same company as well as those formed by individuals of various professions, trades, or specialties rendering their services in two or more companies of the same class; and (4) mixed or miscellaneous trades: those formed by workers engaged in various or unrelated activities (these unions may only be formed when in a given company the number of workers in the same union does not reach the legal minimum).

The labor code also provides for the possibility of forming second- and third-degree organizations. It establishes the possibility of forming federations, which must be integrated with two or more unions, and confederations, which may be established with two or more federations ^{(MTSS, 1943}, pp. 133-134, article 358). Currently, there are seven trade union confederations: (1) Confederación De Trabajadores Rerum Novarum (CTRN), (2) Central Del Movimiento De Trabajadores Costarricenses (CMTC), (3) Confederación Unitaria De Trabajadores (CUT), (4) Confederación Costarricense De Trabajadores Democráticos Rerum Novarum (CCTDRN), (5) Confederación De Trabajadores De Costa Rica (CTCR), (6) Central General de Trabajadores (CGT)and (7) Unión Nacional De Empleados De La Caja y La Seguridad Social (UNDECA)⁶. Within each confederation, there are different affiliated trade union organizations, each with different political agendas and programs.

According to Encuesta Continua de Empleo ^{(INEC, 2021 7}), Costa Rica’s labor force in the third quarter of 2021 was composed of 2.47 million people, which includes 1.46 million men and 1.01 million women. The employed population included 2,093,648 people, and the unemployed population included 378,130 people. By 2022, 86.68 % of the employed population will work in the private sector and 13.32 % in the public sector (^{INEC, 2022}). As mentioned by ^{Aguilar (2022)} in the interview conducted and, in a study, conducted by him in 2019, 82 % of workers unionize in public sector unions, while 4 % do so in private company unions. The rest of the total number of members do so in other forms of union organization.⁸

2.3 Social dialogue and tripartism

Social dialogue and tripartism emerged as political concepts of scientific relevance in the second post-war period. In this global political scenario, it was important to achieve binding social agreements in the new democratic systems. The use of both concepts reached their peak in Europe in the 70s and 90s during several scenarios of discussion on the new commercial and labour relations and the creation of new legal-administrative figures such as the European Union. The concepts were emancipated through organizations that had great legal weight at the regional level such as the International Labour Organization (ILO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and European Union (EU) (^{Ermida 2006}; ^{Prosser & Perin, 2015}).

From a scientific perspective, social dialogue is an ambivalent and imprecise term, the content of which is determined by the ideological and political context of its issuers and the interests of its implementers. As Pulignano; ^{Martinez & Whittall (2012}, p. 1) point out, the dialogue may be restricted to specific areas of the employment and social dimension. In other words, social dialogue can be thought of as a concept that can be present in various societal issues, which means that forms of political representation can take on different forms and can be identified from different models of scientific analysis.

Some authors ^{García (2002)} and Valverde (1994) differentiate the concept of social dialogue from other concepts such as collective bargaining and social concertation. For these authors, social dialogue is a strategic negotiation that involves actors with competences for such negotiation and has as its objective the achievement of joint agreements. In contrast, social dialogue is limited to channeling the information and reflections of social actors on a specific issue. The fundamental difference for these authors is that social concertation is a formal means and dialogue is not necessarily formal (^{García 2002}, p. 18).

On the other hand, the differentiation between simply conversing (informal medium) and social concertation (formal) is inadequate for other perspectives, conceiving dialogue as a broad social process, where formal and informal mechanisms of communication are possible. That is to say, social dialogue can be expressed in different social spaces, social levels and both formally or informally.

The cultural and political tradition of social dialogue in a democracy is also determined by the socio-economic profile in which the conditions for the development and success of dialogue are developed. The socio-economic profile as a general framework for social dialogue includes the study of the cohesion between the parties and the economic and ideological interests that drive these actors (^{Prosser & Perin, 2015}, pp. 3-15).

Social dialogue can be expressed, for example, in discussions on abortion, on the fiscal situation or on migration, since it can be expressed by different social actors in different spaces designed for dialogue (not any space is good for dialogue, and not all of them can dialogue): universities, politicians, sectoral forums and can also be discussed and resolved in national and tripartite consultation tables in a formal and binding manner. This will depend on the socio-economic profile, legal possibilities, levels of cohesion and participation in society.

The critical approach to the concept of social dialogue often has a philosophical basis of social relations: the ethical dimension of dialogue. ^{Botero y Obregón (2011)} analyzes different approaches to social dialogue, and when he questions the role of dialogue for social change, he includes an ethical and political dimension that occurs in public deliberation and communicative action.

^{Chaves (2002}, p. 155) says that the principle of dialogue, as a key ethical constituent, and not only as a social and political element. Conformed by rational rules of communication, respectful of all the participants, that guarantees that the conceptions, points of view and interests of all of them will be valued, according to the standards of fairness, inclusion, and reciprocity. It is not only a social democratic practice, but also an ethical principle that bestows an ethical character to the procedure itself and then an ethical unity to the participants who might have a very diverse conception on the material content of other ethical values.

For the ILO ⁽²⁰¹³, ²⁰¹⁸⁾. tripartism is understood as the interaction of government, employers and workers (through their representatives) as equal and independent partners in seeking solutions to issues of common interest. It refers to institutions, mechanisms and processes for consultation, negotiation and joint decision-making, in accordance with arrangements agreed between the parties concerned. These provisions may be special or institutionalized.

For ^{Ermida (2006}, p. 5) tripartite social dialogue presupposes the existence of strong social actors, where certain conditions must prevail for true social dialogue, such as freedom and protection of trade unions, respect for collective freedom and self-reliance.From the author’s perspective, certain historical conditions must prevail for tripartite social dialogue to be strong, however, in Costa Rica there are structural conditions that limit this form of social dialogue, which will be analyzed in this paper through the specific case of tripartite social dialogue in dual education.

4.1 Identification of Problems

For the unions, growing social inequality, high youth unemployment, and poverty were the problems that gave meaning to the discussion on dual apprenticeships (Interview 1, 2018; Interview 2, 2018). The argumentation outlined was that apprenticeships and dual apprenticeships should serve to expand the opportunities for people - especially young people and in conditions of greater vulnerability - to develop their skills for work and for life, with a view to facilitating their acquisition of a decent job (where they can perform adequately and exercise their labor rights) and/or continue their training process within the National Education System (Interview 1, 2018⁹).

The problem of youth unemployment in the context of high vulnerability was the center of the trade union political discourse justifying the need for a dual apprenticeship policy. The association made between poverty and vulnerability on the one hand and dual apprenticeships on the other hand in a social policy vision contrasts to the business groups, who connected an economic vision with dual apprenticeships (^{Láscarez & Schmees, 2021}). This is also identified in different political positions published in different media and in the conducted interviews.

4.2 Definition of Dual Apprenticeships

The context of dialogue was conflict-ridden due to the employers’ and unions’ diametrically opposed respective approaches to dual apprenticeships. Thus, one of the most important ideas proposed by both actors was to establish an ultimately agreed-upon definition of dual apprenticeships: A proposed definition of dual apprenticeships was to provide dual model participants with the qualifications, knowledge, skills, abilities, and aptitudes required to adapt to a changing environment through quality, structured, and comprehensive training that enables participation and responsible participation in society and the world of work (Interview 1, 2018).

For labor unions, the construction of the concept of dual apprenticeships was based on a series of philosophical, educational, and labor principles (see Table 2):

As can be seen, though the proposed definition of dual apprenticeships is general, upon breaking down the principles surrounding the definition, unions opt for a “labor” view of the training process. This is most evident when they relate principles around “decent work” to the idea of dual apprenticeships.

According to the interviewees, dual apprenticeship is regulated by law and based on a contract that includes a compensatory payment and adequate social protection, emanating from the labor and social legislation in force in the country. The construction of the dual apprenticeships proposal is based on four pillars: social dialogue, clear definition of roles and responsibilities of the actors, an adequate legal framework and a shared financing scheme (Interview 1 2018; Interview 2, 2018).As can be seen in the definition and established principles, dual apprenticeships are associated within the conceptualization of a work-based learning process in an alternating modality (two learning environments) regulated by the corresponding labor legislation.

4.3 Promotion of Tripartism

Tripartism in dual apprenticeships is understood in two senses for the trade unions: First, it is understood as a political tool for dialogue. For union representatives, it is important to maintain tripartite dialogue to resolve technical and political differences and create consensus proposals on the subject.

As a political tool, the diversity and representativeness of union, state, and employer actors must be maintained in a balanced and transparent manner. The ILO as a central actor in the promotion of the tripartite dialogue - along with its national and international experience - is the guarantor and a legitimate actor in achieving the proper development of the dialogue on vocational training.

Secondly, tripartism in dual education is understood as a process politically driven by the state and by workers’ interests. The state directs and coordinates public policy with the support of the private sector. The governing body of a dual apprenticeship system would be the Ministerio de Educación Pública (MEP) in coordination with the Instituto Nacional de Aprendizaje¹⁰ (INA). According to the unions, dual apprenticeships should be a matter directed and coordinated by the state, following the existing legal framework that empowers the MEP and the INA to implement this modality under the criteria set in the 1971 Apprenticeship Law. As can be seen, the proposed dual learning system is statist in the sense that the dualization process is managed by public institutions, and that public institutions play the central and most active role.

During discussions at the dialogue table, as well as in some forums and other discussions, union representatives wanted the process of selection and recruitment of apprentices in the companies to be carried out in a tripartite manner through a tripartite technical commission, so that the union side could oversee the selection processes in compliance with the agreed-upon principles. For example, they supported the idea of having a single register of dual apprenticeships contracts at the Ministry of Labor, though employers reacted negatively to this idea. For union representatives, the central objective of the dialogue was establishing the principles and definition of dual apprenticeships via consensus, establishing a training model based on the principles, interests, and motivations of all stakeholders. Interestingly, for the unions, tripartism around a possible dual apprenticeships policy ended via consensus (not just simple dialogue, or simple exchange of ideas). However, as pointed out, the employers did not have the same opinion, because they did not want, initially, the governance to be tripartite. If the governance of the dual apprenticeship system was not tripartite then it was a sufficient point for the unions not to participate in the dialogue process (Interview 2, 2018).

4.4 Characteristics of the Apprenticeship Contract

According to a union representative, the problems began when the nature of the dual apprenticeship contract began to be specified, as there were two opposing positions, the business sector and the union sector. While the union sector said that the apprenticeship contract should be regulated by a labor contract that includes proportional salary, social protection, and labor rights as understood in Germany, the business sector and the government said that it should be a tripartite civil or special contract, employer-institution-student, or bilateral as institution-student (Interview 2, 2018).According to the union representatives’ arguments, Costa Rica did not need a dual education law because the legislation that existed before Law No. 9728 “Dual Technical Education and Training Law” was understood as sufficient to adapt to this modality. However, according to a union representative, for the employers, a new law was necessary, in addition to different institutional reforms. The unions perceive institutional reforms of the MEP or INA as not only unnecessary, but also negative, since they could reformulate aspects that have nothing to do with dual apprenticeships and that could affect workers and the educational processes and bases to favor private interests.

With respect to the salary issue, it is possible to visualize the union position and the differences with the business representatives, for example, the unions speak of dual apprenticeships protected and regulated by a framework of labor relations, and the employers speak of scholarships or stipends. While the unions talk about wage progressivity (50%, 75% and 100%) the employers do not see clear wage compensation schemes. (Interview 1, 2018) From the unions’ point of view, a salary in proportion to time worked would help employers, especially small companies that could not pay high salaries, without abandoning the social security that regulates protection for workers - for example, medical insurance against work-related accidents, vacations, and pension contributions. For this reason, the unions opposed any form of regulation of dual apprenticeships not framed within the framework of labor regulation- e.g., the company proposal to implement student health insurance instead of an occupational health insurance.

4.5 Financing the System

The previous topics on the nature and characteristics of the apprenticeship contract and the labor regulations of dual apprenticeships led the discussion to another topic on which there was no consensus: the financing of a dual apprenticeships system. According to those interviewed, and according to the proposal formally presented at the tripartite dialogue table, the proposed financing was broken down as follows:

The company must guarantee:

The payment of the salary and other benefits of the student-apprentice agreed upon in the apprenticeship contract, according to current labor legislation and the corresponding training program, time for training and certification of trainers in companies, the student-apprentice’s occupational safety equipment, and differentiated incentives to support the opening of apprenticeships in companies operating in relatively less-developed areas.

To this end, a collaboration scheme was proposed by the unions, combining partial and progressive financing with the characteristics of the company, given its location in areas of lower development, the establishment of local production chains, compliance with blue flag standards, and compliance with gender equity principles, among others to be considered.

It is important to mention that the issue of the apprenticeship contract and financing were issues on which there was no political consensus. On the one hand, the unions argued the need for labor legislation around dual apprenticeships to continuously ensure the payment of wages and the protection of apprentices’ labor rights, given that this would happen under a tripartite shared financing scheme, and on the other hand, the employers proposed a contract of a civil nature, financed by the state.

Through a public statement, an educational union expressed its opposition to the approval of the dual education law does not strengthen public education, but affects technical education in addition to the work and functions of education workers, weakens social security, defunds the INA by recharging its regular budget for the granting of scholarships generates a lot of cheap labor for the benefit of companies and does not provide for the protection of labor rights due to the civil nature of the dual education agreement (^{APSE, 2019}).