Spanish training contract
The legal minimum, and what the company contributes.
| Effective working-time cap (art. 11.2.i) | 26 h/week |
| Share of a full working week | 65 % |
| Agreement floor (60 %) | €624.00 |
| Minimum-wage floor, prorated | €793.65 |
| The minimum that governs | €793.65 |
| “60 % of the agreement”the common reading, and it overstates | €960.00 |
| “At least the minimum wage”the common reading, and it overstates | €1,221.00 |
| Agreement pay above which the percentage governsbelow it the minimum wage governs | €2,035.00 |
- Here the agreement percentage does not reach the prorated minimum wage, so the minimum wage sets the floor and the 60 % or 75 % adds nothing.
- Article 11.2.m) closes by saying pay cannot fall below the minimum wage “in proportion to effective working time”: a full minimum wage is not the floor of a contract that by law cannot be full time.
- That minimum cannot be made up with overtime: article 11.2.k) forbids it except in a force-majeure case.
Indicative figures based on article 11 of the Workers' Statute and Order PJC/297/2026. This is not employment or financial advice.
2026 minimum wage €1,221.00 a month. Occupational-accident floor €1,424.50, General Scheme minimum base €1,424.40. Alternating training runs 3 to 24 months. The collective agreement governs all of these figures and there is no national register of agreements that would let us bring it in here.
Video: how to use the calculator
One contract with two modalities, and the law has dropped the old name
Article 11 of the Workers' Statute is titled «Contrato formativo», in the singular. Its paragraph 2 is the alternating-training contract and its paragraph 3 the one «destined to acquire professional practice appropriate to the corresponding levels of study». Across the whole operative article the word «prácticas» does not appear once, and yet it is still what half the people looking for this contract type. What decides which modality is available is whether the person ALREADY holds the job's qualification: without it, alternating training; with it, professional practice and a clock running.
The two percentages multiply, and that is most of the subject
Letter m) of paragraph 2 sets pay at whatever the collective agreement says and, failing that, at no less than «sixty per cent in the first year nor seventy-five per cent in the second, with respect to that fixed in the agreement for the professional group and pay level corresponding to the duties performed, in proportion to effective working time». Letter i), four letters earlier, says that effective working time «may not exceed 65 per cent, during the first year, or 85 per cent, during the second, of the maximum working week provided for in the agreement». Both limits live in the same paragraph and apply one on top of the other: the 60 % is computed on the share of the working week the law allows, not on the full salary.
Which is why both common readings land too high
On a 1,600 euro monthly agreement, a 40-hour week and the 26 hours the law allows in year one, the legal minimum is 793.65 euros. "60 % of the agreement" would give 960 euros and "at least the minimum wage" would give 1,221: both of the readings in circulation sit above the floor the rule actually sets, and both for the same reason, because they skip the proportion. Letter m)’s closing sentence says it of both at once: «in no case may pay be lower than the minimum interprofessional wage in proportion to effective working time».
And on most agreements the percentage never governs
Both floors carry the same proportion inside them, so it cancels when they are compared and the agreement pay above which the percentage overtakes the minimum wage is a single figure, the same at any working week: the minimum wage divided by 0.60, which is 2,035 euros a month in year one, and divided by 0.75, which is 1,628, in year two. Below those the 60 % and the 75 % are decorative and the only thing setting the minimum is the prorated minimum wage. The tool says which of the two governs in each case, because it changes with the agreement and with the year.
The same person, the same job, and twice the money
Paragraph 3 reduces nothing. Its letter i) says that «pay for effective working time shall be that fixed in the collective agreement applicable in the company for these contracts or, failing that, that of the professional group and pay level corresponding to the duties performed»: one hundred per cent of that figure, not a percentage of it. And paragraph 3 has no working-time cap at all, so a professional-practice contract can be full time. On the same 1,600 euro agreement, a first-year alternating contract has a floor of 793.65 euros and a full-time practice contract one of 1,600. The only thing separating the two figures is whether the person already held the qualification.
Paragraph 3's third floor can never govern
The same letter i) adds that pay may not be lower «than the minimum pay established for the alternating-training contract nor than the minimum interprofessional wage in proportion to effective working time». That reference to the alternating minimum never comes into play: at the same proportion, the alternating minimum is the greater of 60 % of the agreement and the minimum wage, while the practice contract’s own floor is the greater of 100 % of the agreement and the minimum wage, which is larger or equal term by term. It is a floor the rule beside it already covers, and the tool computes it so it can be seen being dominated rather than asserted.
The company's cuota is flat on one modality and ordinary on the other
Chapter IV of Order PJC/297/2026 is titled «Contributions on alternating-training contracts» and its article 46 fixes, where the base does not exceed the minimum, a single cuota of 69.23 euros of common contingencies (57.72 the company and 11.51 the worker), 7.95 of occupational contingencies, 4.38 of wage-guarantee fund and 2.44 of vocational training. Professional practice is NOT in that chapter: article 33.1 sends only alternating training to article 46, so a practice contract contributes like any other. Two modalities of the same article of the Statute with opposite contribution regimes.
Two contribution details that are in no summary
The first: both modalities pay an open-ended contract's unemployment rate of 7.05 %, not the 8.30 % a fixed-term pays, because article 33.2.a).1.º names them expressly alongside open-ended contracts. The second: the unemployment base on an alternating contract is neither the contract's own nor its group's minimum. First rule 2.º of article 46 sends it to «the minimum base corresponding to occupational accident and disease contingencies», and article 2.2 sets that floor at the minimum wage «increased by one sixth, and not below 1,424.40 euros». In 2026 that is 1,424.50 euros, ten cents above the floor the article itself writes down and ten above the group 7 minimum base.
What happens when the contract is wrong is not a fine
Letter h) of paragraph 4 is short and is the most expensive thing in the article: «Formative contracts made in fraud of law, or those in respect of which the company breaches its training obligations, shall be understood as having been made as ordinary open-ended contracts». There is no penalty to grade: the contract converts. And letter g) of the same paragraph counts the formative contract's duration «for the purposes of seniority in the company» and forbids a fresh probation period if the person stays on.
And the asymmetries inside one article
Alternating training admits no probation period whatsoever (letter l of paragraph 2) and professional practice admits up to one month (letter e of paragraph 3). Alternating training runs 3 to 24 months and practice 6 to 12. Alternating training has no general upper age, and letter b)’s cap of 30 reaches only contracts hanging off a level 1 or 2 certificado de profesionalidad or an alternating-training programme from the national Catalogue. Practice instead has a three-year window from the end of the studies, five with a recognised disability. None of those four rules holds for the other modality.
Worked example
Someone without a qualification starts a first-year alternating-training contract at a company whose collective agreement pays 1,600 euros a month for a full 40-hour week. Article 11.2.i) limits their effective work to 26 hours a week, which is 65 % of the week. On that proportion the agreement floor is 1,600 × 60 % × 65 % = 624 euros and the minimum-wage floor is 1,221 × 65 % = 793.65: the minimum wage governs and the legal minimum is 793.65 euros a month. The two readings in circulation give 960 and 1,221, both above it. The same person, if they already held the job’s qualification, could sign a full-time professional-practice contract and their floor would be the agreement’s 1,600 euros, more than double. And the company, on a base of 1,424.40, contributes 161.24 (itself) plus 36.01 (the worker) on the alternating contract, 197.25 in all, against the 546.97 an ordinary fixed-term contract would cost on the same base with occupational contingencies left out of both sides: 357.67 less a month and 4,292.04 less a year.
Frequently asked questions
How much do you earn on a Spanish alternating training contract?
Do they have to pay me at least the minimum wage?
Does the contrato de prácticas still exist?
How many hours can I work on a formative contract?
How long does each modality last?
Is there a probation period?
Is there an upper age limit?
How much does the company contribute on a formative contract?
What happens if the company does not provide the training?
Can I work overtime to earn more?
Related calculators & reading
Embed this calculator
Paste this code on your site to show the calculator. It includes an attribution link.
Preview
Sources
- Estatuto de los Trabajadores (RDLeg 2/2015), art. 11: el contrato formativo, con la alternancia en su apartado 2 y la práctica profesional en el 3 · Boletín Oficial del Estado
- ET art. 11.2.i) y 11.2.m): el tope del trabajo efectivo y los dos pisos de la retribución, los dos «en proporción al tiempo de trabajo efectivo» · Boletín Oficial del Estado
- ET art. 11.3.i) y 11.4.h): la retribución de la práctica profesional y la conversión en indefinido ordinario del contrato en fraude de ley · Boletín Oficial del Estado
- Orden PJC/297/2026, capítulo IV y art. 46: las cuotas únicas de la formación en alternancia, y su art. 2.2, que fija el tope mínimo de accidentes de trabajo en el SMI incrementado en un sexto · Boletín Oficial del Estado
- Orden PJC/297/2026 art. 33.2: el tipo de desempleo del 7,05 % que estos contratos comparten con los indefinidos, frente al 8,30 % de un temporal ordinario · Boletín Oficial del Estado
- Modalidades de contrato: los modelos oficiales del contrato formativo y sus prórrogas · Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal
Author: Thorben Rasmus Idel · Reviewed by: Nahar Geva · Last reviewed: