An employee who is gaining skills in their position, another who is preparing for a career change, a third who is discovering new job-related software: employee training in companies encompasses very different realities. The systems exist, but their concrete implementation remains unclear for many employers and employees.
Professional development interview: the constraint that few companies anticipate
Before even choosing a training system, it is essential to understand what compels the employer to act. Law No. 2025-989 of October 24, 2025, transformed the former professional interview into a professional development interview. The frequency changes from two to four years, with a review every eight years.
Why does this change matter? Because in case of non-compliance, companies with at least 50 employees face a corrective contribution of 3,000 euros to the employee’s CPF. This is not a theoretical risk: the traceability of interviews and non-mandatory training actions becomes a daily compliance issue.
In practical terms, the company must document each interview and prove that it has offered skill development actions beyond the mandatory training. Therefore, employee training in companies is not just about ticking boxes: it holds the employer accountable over a multi-year cycle.
Skills development plan: what the employer decides alone
The skills development plan is the central tool managed by the employer. It replaces the former training plan and encompasses all actions that the company chooses to finance for its employees.
Two categories of actions coexist in this plan:
- Mandatory actions, imposed by a collective agreement, regulatory text, or safety standard. They take place during working hours, and full pay is maintained.
- Non-mandatory actions, decided by the company to develop job skills, promote internal mobility, or prepare for a job change. They may, under certain conditions, take place outside of working hours.
- Skills assessments and actions for validating acquired experience (VAE), which the employer can include in the plan if the employee gives their consent.
The employee cannot refuse a training course included in the plan if it takes place during working hours. However, a skills assessment or VAE always requires their explicit consent.
Funding and practical organization
Companies with fewer than 50 employees can mobilize the pooled funds of their skills operator (OPCO) to finance all or part of the plan. Beyond this threshold, funding largely relies on the company’s own budget.
The choice between internal training and external providers remains free. Internal training, provided by a competent employee using the company’s resources, is well-suited for specific job skills. External training, purchased from a certified Qualiopi organization, is necessary when the goal is a recognized certification or diploma.
CPF and professional transition project: the levers initiated by the employee
The personal training account (CPF) belongs to the employee. It is automatically credited each year and allows for the financing of qualifying or certifying training, including a driver’s license or skills assessment.
One point that many employees are unaware of: the CPF can be used during working hours with the employer’s agreement. In this case, pay is maintained. Without this agreement, the training takes place outside of working hours, without salary compensation.
The professional transition project (PTP) goes further. It allows the employee to take time off to pursue long training aimed at a career change. Pay is maintained throughout the training period, subject to the employer’s agreement on the absence schedule and the validation of the file by the regional interprofessional joint commission.
Access conditions for the PTP
The criteria vary depending on the contract. An employee on a permanent contract must justify a minimum length of service. An employee on a fixed-term contract must have worked a certain number of months within a reference period. The PTP funds certifying training, not short non-degree internships.
Work-based training and hybrid modalities: what changes in practice
Competing content lists the systems without addressing a recent shift: the move towards training integrated into the workplace. The action of training in a work situation (AFEST) has been recognized as a full-fledged pedagogical modality since the 2018 law.
Its principle is simple. An employee performs a real task, supervised by a trainer or mentor, and then reflects during a structured reflective phase. This is not informal mentoring: AFEST requires a formalized educational pathway, measurable objectives, and traceability.
Traditional in-person training remains predominant, but hybrid formats are on the rise. A common combination includes online modules (distance learning via an LMS platform) and in-person sessions for practical applications. This format is particularly suitable for multi-site companies where moving employees is costly.
- In-person training remains suitable for behavioral training, management, or technical gestures requiring direct supervision.
- Distance learning works for theoretical knowledge, office skills, languages, or regulatory compliance.
- AFEST is essential when the targeted skill is inseparable from the employee’s real work context.
No modality is superior to the others. The choice depends on the targeted skill, not the budget or current trends.
Planning professional training should be thought out over the cycle of the professional development interview (now four years), rather than year by year. This allows for alternating formats, distributing costs, and especially documenting a coherent pathway in case of inspection. A well-constructed skills development plan, articulated with the CPF of willing employees, remains the strongest foundation to meet both legal obligations and the real needs of the activity.