Should Training Costs Be Part of a Living Wage?

Paulien: Let’s start with the key question from an employer’s perspective: how can you ensure your staff receives proper training, and who is responsible for organising and funding it?

Dani: From an employer’s perspective, we can think of a few key steps: Ideally, you start with a trained workforce: hiring people who already have the basic skills needed for the job. Then, through collective agreements or company policies, you arrange additional training to keep skills up to date or support career development. For very expensive training, it’s common to agree that the employee stays for a few years afterward. If they leave earlier, they might have to pay back part of the cost; this protects the investment but still encourages access to training. So while the employer usually pays, the responsibility is often shared, but always with clear agreements in place.

Paulien: What happens if very little training is required, or if it’s just a short three-hour session, does that change anything?

Dani: Usually, that kind of short training is seen as part of the job itself, something needed to get started or keep up with small changes. So in most cases, the employer pays for it, both in terms of time and cost.

Paulien: Can you argue that most people, and their parents, and governments, take care of education?

Dani: Yes, that’s true. Basic education is mostly covered by individuals, families, and the public system. Even at higher levels, like PhDs, where students might receive a “wage”, the burden still largely falls on the student, who is basically “investing” in their own education. So, it’s not entirely accurate to say that training is only the employer’s job. Employers typically step in when it comes to specific or company-related skills, or when they want to invest in key people. But the foundation was built long before that.

About Employees

Paulien: How do labour laws around the world address the issue of training?

Iftikhar: There are generally two types of training: on-the-job training (also known as skills training, which focuses on performing the job correctly with the use of equipment and following certain procedures) and Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) training, which focuses on hazards, safety at work, and emergency procedures. While OSH training is generally mandated by law, skills training is not directly required except where a collective agreement requires it. ILO Convention 155, for example, requires employers to provide appropriate training in occupational safety and health to the workers and their representatives in the enterprise. Another ILO Convention (C140) requires ratifying countries to promote the granting of paid educational leave for the purpose of training at any level. The paid educational leave means leave granted to a worker for educational purposes for a specified period during working hours, with adequate financial entitlements.

The EU's Framework Directive (89/391) requires employers to ensure workers receive OSH training on recruitment, job change, or new equipment; training must take place during working hours (and should be provided at no cost to workers). The EU Directive (2019/1152) on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union also says that when required by the EU/national law or a collective agreement, the training must be free, count as working time, and, where possible, be during working hours.

Based on these directives, the legislation in EU countries mainly requires OSH training for workers. The legislation also requires other training, required by law or collective agreement, to be paid, during working hours. A similar situation exists in other countries in Asia (India, Pakistan, Philippines, Vietnam, etc.), Africa (Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, etc.), and the Americas (Brazil, Canada, USA, etc.). There is no specific requirement under the law to provide skills training to a worker while on the job. Or maybe we should look at apprenticeship legislation, which allows companies to engage apprentices (at times, at a lower wage) and train them while on the job.

Paulien: And do employees have to pay for education?

Iftikhar: As mentioned above, there is an ILO Convention (C140) that requires employers to provide paid educational leave to workers for training and educational purposes; however, it has been ratified by only 35 countries. Zimbabwe, under a 2023 reform, requires paid educational leave. Many European countries, like Belgium, Germany, Spain, and Portugal, provide for paid education leave or training, ranging from 20 hours to 10 days per year. In some countries, the training leave is paid for by the employer, while in others, the state is responsible.

About the Self-Employed, Gig Workers and Freelancers

Paulien: So far we discussed employees with an employer. How about the self-employed? Who takes care of their training?

Dani: By definition, the self-employed are responsible for their own training. If they want to stay employable, they need to keep investing in their skills and knowledge, especially in fast-changing sectors.
Some support does exist: trade unions, cooperatives, or self-employed networks sometimes offer affordable training opportunities. But in the end, it's up to the individual to seek them out, pay for them, and make time for them. There's no employer to organise it; the responsibility is personal. That said, the self-employed will try to get a return for their investment in training by asking for a tariff that covers that cost.

Paulien: People with higher education often earn more as employees, but what about those who are self-employed?

Dani: We have to be careful here: it’s important to remember that people get paid for the work they do, not for the degrees they hold. So if someone has two degrees but works in a field unrelated to their studies, they won’t necessarily earn more just because of their education.

For self-employed workers, it's a bit different. There are no fixed pay scales, and their income depends on the rates they can negotiate. That’s exactly why we introduced the concept of a Living Tariff, which is a fair rate that allows self-employed people to cover not just basic living costs like food and housing, but also taxes, social security, admin time, acquisition, and yes, also some room for training and skill development.
This makes the Living Tariff significantly higher than a Living Wage, and far above most minimum wages. But it reflects what’s really needed to work sustainably as a self-employed person.

Paulien: How big should the share of education be within the Living Tariff? Can you explain the percentage, for example in the Netherlands or South Africa?

Dani: As a standard setting, the Living Tariff tool doesn't add a percentage for training, but a certain amount of time, which is about 1 hour per week (52 per year). This was based on desk research and talks with platform workers, and is currently the same in all countries. However, the tool allows for customization, so users can decide to include more time for training if they think this makes more sense in their case, or if that's what they actually had to take up to get the required skills.

Paulien: In some countries, more than half of the workforce is self-employed. If you would like to have a well-educated workforce, who pays then for ongoing education? People live longer and work longer—till they are 70 or even longer. How to deal with it? Arguing it should be part of the Living Tariff might not be sufficient.

Dani: I think you are right: relying only on the Living Tariff to cover lifelong education isn’t enough, because, while the Living Tariff includes time for basic, job-relevant training, it can’t carry the full weight of reskilling and upskilling over a 50-year working life. In countries where self-employment is the norm, we need other solutions and shared responsibility. I am thinking of public investment in adult education and training also for the self-employed, not just for employees. In the EU, there are quite some funds available in countries for training unemployed people, which could then direct them to becoming self-employed when they have the right skills. Private initiatives, for example by platforms, could also be helpful: platforms that work with freelancers could co-invest in training, especially when they benefit from a skilled and loyal workforce. If we want people to stay productive, and protected, throughout longer working lives, education needs to be accessible, affordable, and flexible across an entire career, regardless of employment status. So yes, part of the cost can be included in a fair Living Tariff, but we also need to think bigger and treat education as a public good, not just a personal investment.

Paulien: And what is our Gig specialist, Martijn’s, take on this?

Martijn: Training in the gig economy often falls under unpaid labour. Data workers, for example, often have to take an unpaid introductory course before they can start working for a client. The knowledge they gain during that introductory course is not particularly valuable to the worker in the long term. It is therefore also important to look at compulsory training courses that are required in order to do the work. In my opinion, the employer or client should pay for the time spent on these courses.

In the Netherlands, self-employed workers pay double for their own education compared to employees. In the case of an employee, the employer may not only pay for the course (as indirect wages) but also for the time the employee spends on the course or education. If you are a freelancer, you cannot claim training costs that are not related to your current activities as business expenses, and you must pay for all the hours you spend on your own account. An employer has the option of giving these hours to the employee “for free,” which gives them a considerable (tax) advantage over a self-employed worker.

Paulien: How can gig workers stay employable within and outside the platform business?

Martijn: You could look at training from a different angle and formulate it more broadly as “what contributes to keeping a worker employable in the long term?” When you look at it from this broad perspective, you can also consider, in the context of the platform economy, whether you should share data about experience and reputation with platform workers earlier on. This brings us to my GigCV project. Sharing this data makes it easier for workers to work on multiple platforms or to use their experience outside the platform economy. And you reduce the lock-in of a worker. This is not so much training, but rather another way to increase opportunities for workers.

Paulien: And can you state that self-employed people are better off when it comes to education?

Martijn: Sometimes self-employed may have an advantage over employees when it comes to the need for further training. As an employee, you are “stuck” and only need to retrain if you lose your job, whereas as a freelancer, you have to ensure that you remain attractive on the labour market. This might mainly apply to knowledge workers.

November 2025