IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v53y2024i4p679-710..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Problems and Paradoxes with the EU’s Regulation of Traineeships: A Way Forward

Author

Listed:
  • Joanna Helme

Abstract

Traineeships are becoming too big an issue to ignore: over half of all young Europeans now complete one. This article provides the first comprehensive critique of EU-level regulation on traineeships, uncovering the problems and paradoxes within the existing regime and offering solutions. Part I examines the problems with the current patchwork of regulation, comprised of the Quality Framework on Traineeships, Court of Justice case-law and European Committee of Social Rights’ decision in YFJ v Belgium on unpaid internships. Challenges include the ‘hollow’ status of a trainee, the paradoxical requirements for employers to provide ‘solid and meaningful’ learning content without offering ‘real or genuine’ work and the incoherence of the ‘bogus’ traineeship approach, which is dependent upon a ‘non-bogus’ traineeship that does not exist. Part II then outlines three criteria for future regulation with a view to resolving the problems of the existing regime. Part III then evaluates the new regulatory proposals of the European Parliament and the Commission against these criteria. It is ultimately argued that the European Parliament’s approach is preferable to the Commission’s ‘disguised employee’ approach, since it fundamentally re-envisions trainees as workers with additional rights, reversing the current negative trainee status as those without working rights.

Suggested Citation

  • Joanna Helme, 2024. "The Problems and Paradoxes with the EU’s Regulation of Traineeships: A Way Forward," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 53(4), pages 679-710.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:53:y:2024:i:4:p:679-710.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwae022
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:53:y:2024:i:4:p:679-710.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.