On May 20th of this year, the European Commission introduced a new proposal called the Traineeships Directive. Its goal is to enhance and enforce better working conditions for trainees who are in an employment relationship.
The core of the proposal is to ensure that trainees in an employment relationship are treated fairly, in line with the principle of non-discrimination, and are not given less favourable treatment compared to regular employees. It also seeks to prevent the misuse of traineeships when they are, in reality, regular employment.
The proposal aligns with President von der Leyen’s policy goals of strengthening Europe’s social market economy and promoting growth that generates quality jobs. Traineeships are viewed as essential for meeting the growing demand for skills and boosting the competitiveness of businesses across the EU, especially in light of the green and digital transitions. However, the Commission also highlights significant concerns about regular employment being disguised as traineeships, which raises the risk of workers becoming stuck in precarious working conditions.
It goes without saying that good conditions should be provided for trainees and that traineeships should not replace regular employment. While the directive’s approach is sound, it raises the question: are new rules truly necessary?
For legislation to be effective, it must meet certain fundamental criteria: it needs to be necessary, consistent, and enforceable.
In its proposal, the Commission has not clearly identified the true extent of the problem or the need for a unified European solution. Its impact assessment highlights a lack of data on the number of employment relationships disguised as traineeships, and the impossibility of identifying whether specific regions or sectors are most affected. Instead, the Commission relies on a few limited studies and some court rulings that do not specifically focus on trainees in employment relationships.
In Sweden, there is no evidence that traineeships are being used to replace regular employment. Swedish labour laws and collective agreements already address potential abuses in such situations. Both at the national and EU level, trainees in employment relationships are well-protected by comprehensive rules regarding working and employment conditions, employment relationships and work environment. As a result, the proposed directive risks creating a fragmented labour market, leading to overlapping regulations and challenges in application.
The proposal aims to tackle the misuse of traineeships by introducing a principle of equal treatment. However, trainees and regular employees are fundamentally different, as traineeships inherently include a learning component. This makes it challenging to apply the concept of equal treatment in legal disputes, as the two categories are not directly comparable. Instead of solving the issue, this rule may create legal uncertainty, discouraging employers from hiring trainees.
A major issue for Sweden is that the proposal lacks provisions for collective bargaining solutions, which are central to Swedish labour standards. In Sweden, collective agreements are the foundation of labour regulation. The proposal suggests that authorities should monitor working conditions and determine when a regular employment relationship exists based on criteria set by the directive. This directly conflicts with the Swedish labour market model, where compliance is overseen by social partners and ultimately reviewed by the courts. Additionally, the proposal interferes with the national definition of ”worker.” Its compatibility with Article 152 of the EU Treaty, which requires consideration of national labour market differences, is therefore highly questionable.
If the European Council chooses to proceed with the proposal, a significant re-evaluation will be necessary. The Swedish Parliament has already issued a yellow card to the Commission, signalling its concerns. The directive must include exemptions for labour market policy measures and traineeships within the regular education system. Additionally, it should take into greater account national labour market models and provide more flexibility to meet companies’ skill supply needs. As it stands, the directive risks being ineffective and could counteract the stated political goals: to facilitate transition, ensure skills supply, and improving conditions for trainees.
EU