Spain's CEOE Head Proposes Training Migrant Minors as Future Engineers

Garamendi proposes training migrant minors as "future engineers"

The president of the CEOE (Spanish Employers' Confederation), Antonio Garamendi, has advocated for training unaccompanied migrant minors arriving in Spain «so they can be the next engineers». The proposal, reported by El País, comes with a second message: accusing Labor Minister Yolanda Díaz of resorting to «pre-democratic regulations» to approve what she cannot pass in Parliament. These two topics in one speech have landed like a bomb in the Economy subforum, where the conversation has shifted into something far more uncomfortable than a simple exchange of statements.

What exactly Garamendi proposes and why it reads like a joke

The central idea is training unaccompanied migrant minors in sectors with high employability. A typical program cited in the material is the SAMU School of Trades: four-month courses for unemployed minors with specialties such as maintenance apprentice, painter, bricklayer, gardening, welder, kitchen assistant, and support monitor for people with intellectual disabilities, including internships at companies. In other words, basic trades, not university degrees.

Hence the confusion. The gap between a four-month short course and an engineering degree is so wide that many responses interpret it as out of touch. «Being an engineer is not a 20-hour PowerPoint course», summarizes one of the most repeated messages in its logic. Another points out that many of these young people arrive without complete primary education, making it difficult, to say the least, to undertake a university career.

The most circulated data point is the four months of training versus the years required for a technical degree. The comparison is not innocent: it serves to measure the credibility of the announcement.

The cheap labor argument: the forum's economic reading

This is where the conversation becomes analytical. The dominant thesis holds that the real interest of employers is not educational excellence, but replacing local workers with cheaper and more compliant labor. «Spanish bosses need cheap labor no matter what», summarizes one of the most cited interventions, adding that Spanish competitiveness «has always come from wage devaluation».

The reasoning has a second leg: regulated and public positions—medicine, nursing, teaching—are shielded by civil service exams, so pressure concentrates in the private sector. «Not taking civil service exams today is suicide», states another message. The idea that a parallel access route is being created, with subsidized training and company internships, while local youth compete with extremely high cutoff grades, underpins much of the discontent.

Some go further and describe a complete circuit: public money for training, companies to exploit, and an entry-level job with low pay. «We are going to pay for their studies so that entrepreneurs can then take advantage of them», one reads.

Comparative grievance with Spanish students

The most repeated comparison is that of cutoff grades. Against four-month courses for some, it is recalled that Spanish students need almost perfect scores to enter careers like Medicine. «Asking Spaniards for a 13 out of 14 to study Medicine», summarizes one of the most upvoted responses.

The argument is reinforced by the situation of professionals trained here who leave abroad. «He doesn't talk about those who go abroad well-trained to seek a future», notes a message directly pointing to the generation that managed education in recent decades. The complaint is not only economic: it is about perceived unequal treatment.

The contrast with middle-aged Spanish workers also appears. «If a 55-year-old father, hard to place, goes to the town hall to see if there is anything for him, they tell him he can get kicked out», another summarizes. The feeling that there are two yardsticks for access to employment and training is likely the emotional thread running through the entire debate.

Skepticism about results: who stays and who leaves

One of the strongest objections in the thread is talent retention. If a migrant minor were to complete the training, why would they stay in Spain with current wages and conditions? «Why would they stay here to work with the terrible conditions we have, if they have no roots?», asks a message pointing to Paris, Geneva, or Brussels as more logical destinations.

Added to this is doubt about the actual training provided. «MENA trained by the administration = three-month gardening course», ironizes another, adding that many do not know how to fill out a work report in Spanish. The gap between official discourse and the real capacity of programs is, for much of the thread, insurmountable.

The end of the debate does not arrive. The question of whether these programs are a serious integration policy or a way to provide cheap labor to specific sectors remains exactly where it was: unanswered, and with the feeling that Garamendi's announcement says more about who makes it than about what he proposes.

---

Key data from the debate:

• Four-month duration courses in trades such as maintenance, construction, gardening, metalwork, hospitality, and social services.
• Specific specialties: maintenance apprentice, painter, bricklayer, gardening, welder, kitchen assistant, and support monitor for people with intellectual disabilities.
• Cited cutoff grade for Medicine: 13 out of 14.
• Entry salary mentioned for jobs after training: 1,000 euros per month.
• Reference figure for a junior engineer: 1,300 euros.