Taller Práctico: Cargue de Matrices de Planta Personal

Summary of the video’s main points (SENA: apprenticeship contracts vs. “monetization” + how to file company “matrices”)

1) Response to a circulating claim (“8,000 companies prefer to pay a fine instead of hiring apprentices”)

• The speakers argue the claim is incorrect and is based on a misunderstanding.
• They clarify that “monetization” is not a fine. It is presented as one option for companies to meet their learning/quota obligations under SENA’s framework.
• They stress that context matters: you cannot interpret a figure like “8,000” without knowing the total universe of regulated companies.

2) Data and “context” provided by SENA

• SENA states it has almost 42,000 regulated companies nationwide (i.e., companies required to hire apprentices).
• After the labor reform, a regulatory transition created business uncertainty.
• Of those 42,000 regulated companies, 8,000 made monetization payments at some point during the year—but that does not mean they became permanent monetizers or monetized continuously.
• How monetization is defined
  • Monthly payments made in advance.
• Comparison over time
  • April 2025: 9.2% of regulated companies made monetization payments
  • April 2026: 12.5% made monetization payments (+3 percentage points)
• System stabilization
  • On average each month, about 5,200 companies make monetization payments.

3) Focus on apprenticeship contract performance (the metric they say matters most)

• SENA ties outcomes to apprenticeship contracts, not monetization alone.
• Reported performance:
  • 2024 (before reform): goal 364,000 contracts; achieved 392,000 (~108%)
  • 2025 (after reform approved): goal 370,000 contracts; achieved 379,800 (~103%)
  • 2026: “as of yesterday,” 260,000 registered contracts, about 70% of the 371,000 goal for that period
• Conclusion: contrary to claims that contracting would “collapse,” SENA reports continued/near-goal achievement.

4) Argument that hiring apprentices is not more expensive than monetizing

• The speakers present monetization as a misconception of cost advantage and say SENA created a tool: the Apprenticeship Contract Simulator.
• Using 2026 salary data, the simulator is said to show savings for hiring apprentices:
  • Technical programs: about 12 million pesos saved vs monetization
  • Technologists: up to about 24 million pesos saved
• “Secret” explanation emphasized:
  • Companies should hire apprentices from day one of training, using full contracts covering both academic + productive stages.

5) Why confusion happened: companies hiring only during the productive stage

• SENA says some companies previously hired apprentices mainly for the productive stage (where dropout risk is highest during the academic stage, undermining support).
• Claimed improvement:
  • Contracts beginning in the academic stage increased from ~10% in 2024 to ~17% so far in 2026.
• Intended result:
  • Longer, higher-quality contracts that support apprentices throughout training, reducing dropout risk.

6) Changes in monetization amounts and resource allocation after labor reform

• Monetization rate change
  • Previously: monetization equivalent to at least one minimum wage
  • After reform: monetization set at 1.5 minimum wages (+50%)
• Where SENA allocates resources
  • 50% to the Emprender Fund (support for new business creation)
  • 25% to close urban-rural training gaps
  • 25% for support to apprentices without an apprenticeship contract

7) Legal/regulatory explanation for company “regulation matrices” workshop

The workshop focuses on how companies must submit staffing/regulation matrices through SENA processes, especially via the SGVA (Virtual Apprentice Management System).

Key legal basis and governance

• Colombian Constitution (Art. 54): State and companies must train future workers.
• Law 789: defines which companies must be regulated and provide internship/training opportunities.
• Law 2466 (2025): modifies apprenticeship contract conditions (articles 30 and 34).
• Decrees referenced:
  • Decree 223 (2026) regulating Law 2466
  • Decree 1334 (2018) governing submission (“matrix”) procedures and options for filing windows

Companies subject to regulation

• Companies with more than 15 employees, with stated exclusions (e.g., certain construction categories via the FIP mechanism).

Two submission “options” (specific months)

• Option 1: matrices submitted in January/July
• Option 2: matrices submitted in March/September
• They emphasize that companies must submit updated matrices when staffing changes in prior months affect quotas.

8) What companies must file (“package”)

They outline required documents for a complete filing:

1. Cover letter to the regional coordinator
   • Signed by the legal representative
   • Includes company status details (e.g., liquidation, liquidation process, employer change, etc.)
2. Staffing matrices
   • Matrix 1: skilled/exempt trades categories and skilled positions
     • Includes instructions to list even exempt trades as “reported” via the matrix structure (use 0 if none)
   • Matrix 2: other categories (messengers, security guards, drivers, cleaners, etc.)
3. PILA forms
   • Social security payroll documentation for the last relevant months
4. Certificate of legal representation
   • Chamber of Commerce document
   • No older than 2 months

Emphasis

• Correctly match PILA totals vs matrices
• Provide hours accurately

9) Apprentices and staffing measurement rules

• SENA states apprentices from SENA are not counted as permanent staff for quota calculation the same way permanent employees are.
• Under the Matrix 2/Matrix 1 structure, apprentices are handled through compliance logic rather than as standard permanent staffing for regulation purposes.

10) How SGVA works (practical workshop)

The SGVA workflow described includes:

• Logging in as a company
• Selecting/formalizing the reporting period
• Creating/registering workforce entries:
  • choosing monthly vs semi-annual reporting
  • selecting trades/occupations from an updated list
• The system generates Excel outputs and helps produce PDFs for bulk submission.

Trade/occupation coding update

• Updated list expanded from ~4,000+ to ~14,000+ qualified trades.

11) Filing timing, resubmission, and consequences

• Verification timeline
  • Verification and response within two months
  • Longer timelines may apply for full resolutions due to administrative act processing (signatures, notifications, etc.)
• Objection/appeal
  • After notification, companies have 10 business days to object/appeal (reconsideration)
• When resubmission may be required
  • If staffing changes significantly (e.g., affecting quotas), resubmission may be needed in later windows
  • If nothing materially changed, SENA may issue letters/responses confirming existing quotas/resolution rather than a new resolution

12) Q&A highlights (selected questions addressed)

• If matrices were filed in January, must they be refiled in July?
  • Only if there is a significant change; otherwise existing resolutions may remain valid.
• Do SENA apprentices count for staffing placement in the headquarters?
  • Not as permanent staff; apprentices should be handled through the appropriate regulation structure.
• How are working hours calculated for people working fewer days?
  • Input actual working hours (e.g., 1–5 days) and multiply by the number of workers to compute weekly totals—no need for exact “full-month” uniformity.
• If a worker incapacity suspends the apprenticeship contract:
  • Incapacity lasting 5+ days suspends the contract; it must be uploaded so the contract extends appropriately.
• If the company is liquidated/canceled:
  • Still submit matrices so SENA can identify the status and apply special handling.

---

Presenters / contributors listed in the subtitles

• David Garzón García — National Director of Promotion and Corporate Relations at SENA
• Natalia — host / moderator for the session
• Dr. Luis Ernesto Urán — National Coordinator of Business Relations and Apprenticeship Contracts (described as responsible for the regulation process)
• Jaqueline Mejía — Professional from the Antioquia region; Technologist of regulation and apprenticeship contract
• Jacki / Jaqueline from the Antioquia Regional Office — mentioned as part of the workshop delivery
• Dr. Elbert Joel Mosquerabadía — regional coordinator referenced in an example letter header (speaker not stated)