Who benefits from vocation training: A study of Brazilian firms and the labor force
This study investigates the role non-formal education (i.e., vocational training) plays in increasing the probabilities of upward socio-occupational mobility of the Brazilian workforce. The field research was conducted in 60 firms in the two largest urban centers of Brazil--Greater Sao Paulo and Greater Rio de Janerio--from February to August of 1978. The firms were selected from those branches and sectors of economic activity which most frequently use training courses of the National Services for Industrial, and Commercial, Apprenticeship known respectively as SENAI and SENAC. The sample includes 15 textile industries, 15 mechanical industries, 15 sales businesses and 15 hotels. From each of the 60 firms, 12 employees were selected (totaling 720 employees) regardless of personal or professional characteristics. Two types of questionnaires were administered: one to the employees (labor supply); one to each of the 60 employers (labor demand). The main observations derived from the field research are as follows: (a) The non-formal educational system rather than being a second alternative for those who do not have access to the formal system of schooling constitutes a second strong social mobility barrier, with its own explicit and implicit selection criteria. (b) Firms establish criteria to select potential candidates for vacancies or promotions. Among these criteria, education--latu sensu--does not rank high, and non-formal education is among the least important. The significant criteria are: sex, race, age, level of formal schooling, previous professional experience and references, recommendations from direct supervisors, "good" personality traits (docility, obedience, assiduousness, respect for authority, personal appearance, relationship with co-workers and supervisors), productivity, etc. (c) Firms make limited use of existing fiscal incentives for labor training under existing laws, partly because they were unaware of these incentives and partly because bureaucratic and administrative costs severly limit the access of smaller firms. (d) Less than half of the employees in the sample had had any vocational training. Thirty-two (out of 720) had been promoted because of courses taken. (e) The study also includes an analysis of the major shortcomings that both employers and employees report in their experience with vocational training institutions. (f) The data from this sample suggests that firms may benefit more from vocational training investments than do workers. To the extent workers' skills are upgraded this may translate into increases in productivity on the job. But workers' wage increases seem sharply limited.