Continuing training is an essential component of the labour market in the Greater Region and of the Lisbon Strategy. And yet it is a reality that is hard to harmonise at European level and one which resists statistical analysis. Only the European statistical surveys, in particular the labour force surveys, get anywhere a satisfactory degree of comparability of the indicators. They indicate the insufficiencies and imperfections of the continuing training systems in the Greater Region. Thus rates of participation were stagnating in the different components of the Greater Region at the end of the period, and even falling in Luxembourg and Wallonia, remaining below the European target of 12.5%. The allocation of continuing training efforts appears to be suboptimal insofar as it is the best rained works in large companies that have the best access to continuing training (cf. "all other things being equal" analysis). As for the content of the continuous training, an excessive focus on the current workstation means there is a risk of failing to meet the European target on "flexicurity". If the continuing training systems in the Greater Region have some identical features, the differences are worthy of note.
For example there is a more pronounced openness in the Luxembourg and Walloon systems, which allows for training that is less connected to the current post and extends outside of working hours. Lorraine stood out for its higher rate of participation at the end of the period, although this comes at the price of shorter training courses. In 2020, continuing training remains a challenge for Europe and the Greater region, with a target of 15%. Even more so as the current economic difficulties risk curbing efforts in continuing training, even though they are a lever for emerging from the crisis.
Based on a wide-ranging survey carried out in 2010 and 2011 with a representative sample of cross-border workers in Luxembourg, the CEPS/INSTEAD has published, in conjunction with Forum EUROPA, the University of Strasbourg and the CNRS, a collection of articles devoted to the everyday lives of cross-border workers. It contains 13 sections on a range of complementary topics, which together form a synthesis of the main findings on the mobility of cross-border workers. One of the main findings of the survey is the significant increase in the use of public transport as a main means of commuting, even though car use continues to dominate. The quality of the public transport offer (journey time, services, reliability, comfort, etc.) plays a decisive role in cross-border workers' choice of transport mode, as do parking facilities at the place of work. Cross-border workers live an average of 44 km from their place of work and take 53 minutes to get to work. This distance from the place of work means that half of cross-border workers leave home before 7 am. 60% of car drivers say that they are satisfied or very satisfied with their commuting arrangements. Cross-border workers who take the train are generally more satisfied, with 74% saying they are satisfied or very satisfied. Furthermore, it is among those who take the train that fatigue makes itself felt the least compared to everyday perceptions in the different modes of transport. If 73% of cross-border households have at least two cars, generally opinions about cars are quite contrasted. But cross-border workers' mobility is not only limited to commuting for work, since one person in five crossing the border goes to Luxembourg for a non-work-related activity, mainly to eat out or to go shopping. On average, people crossing the border spend 2 hours a day and cover 100 km for all their movements.
This special edition focuses on national borders. It deals with the development of border regions and highlights various forms of mobility. It deals with four topics of border studies: daily cross-border mobility, directing commuter flow, cross-border housing migration and the consequences of demarcations.
In “Contribution B/Ordering in the Greater Region. Mobilities – Borders – Identities” Christian WILLE questions the quadrangle inhabitants' sense of belonging as predicted in the model for regional-political cooperation in the Greater Region. The author examines “which orders of self/other are apparent in the self image of the inhabitants of the Greater Region and to what extent they suggest a cross-border identity” (p. 52) and elaborates on three central features of identity constructions.
At the heart of the Greater Region Saar-Lor-Lux, the development of a border-crossing labor force has been met with a diversification of its forms, including cross-border temporary labor. Temp-work agencies have begun to play an important role as intermediaries in these cross-border spaces, privileging the development of particular forms of employment and taking advantage of the different social and fiscal legislation characterizing different jurisdictions, all the while contributing to the recruitment of a cross-border labor-force.
Throughout the Greater Saar-Lor-Lux Region, the development of border work has been accompanied by a diversification of its forms such as temporary cross-border labor. Temporary-work agencies have imposed themselves as new intermediaries of employment in these cross-border spaces, privileging the development of particular forms of employment and taking advantage of the different social and fiscal legislations operating in different jurisdictions, as they contribute to the recruitment of the cross-border labor-force. These detached temporary workers are relatively well-trained and well-qualified, and most of all they are tied to the temporary employment agencies. While such detachment of temporary workers remains the classical form of a flexible labor-force allowing for access to human resources not available in a given jurisdiction, it also represents a tool for the management of cross-border labor-cost differentials. On a larger scale, such practices of cross-border detachment threaten to speed up the process of deterritorializing systems of national law, and compel within the GR increased competition between national regulatory systems that have, notably, to do with finance and social protection.
