Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Når hun har fått fagbrev, skal hun ha jobbet i denne fabrikken i fem år. - When she has received her trade certificate, she will have worked at this factory for five years.

In Norwegian, you do not use a future marker like vil or skal inside a time clause introduced by når when talking about the future.

Norwegian uses present tense or present perfect in the når‑clause, even if the time is in the future:
- Når hun har fått fagbrev … = When she has got / has received her trade certificate …
- Når hun får fagbrev … = When she gets her trade certificate …
So Når hun vil få fagbrev sounds wrong/unnatural in this context.

Use vil or skal in the main clause, not the når‑clause, to talk about the future.

What is the difference between Når hun har fått fagbrev and Når hun får fagbrev?

Both can be used, but there is a nuance:

Når hun får fagbrev, skal hun ha jobbet …
- Focuses on the event of getting the certificate.
- More neutral: When she gets a trade certificate, she will have worked …
Når hun har fått fagbrev, skal hun ha jobbet …
- Uses present perfect (har fått) to stress that the action of getting the certificate is completed before the time we are talking about.
- Feels a bit more like: By the time she has received her certificate, she will have worked …

Both are grammatically correct; har fått just emphasizes the state of having received it.

What tense is har fått, and what does it express here?

Har fått is the present perfect tense:

har = auxiliary verb “have” (present tense)
fått = past participle of å få (“to get/receive”)

In this sentence, present perfect is used in a future time clause (Når …) to express a completed action that will be finished before a later future point (the time when she will have worked five years).

What grammatical form is ha jobbet, and why do we use ha here?

Ha jobbet is the perfect infinitive:

å jobbe = to work (infinitive)
har jobbet = has worked (present perfect, finite form)
ha jobbet = (to) have worked (perfect infinitive, non‑finite form)

After a modal verb like skal, we use an infinitive, not a finite verb:

skal jobbe = will work (simple future)
skal ha jobbet = will have worked (future perfect)

So skal ha jobbet corresponds to English “will have worked”.

What exactly does skal hun ha jobbet mean compared to skal hun jobbe?

skal hun jobbe i denne fabrikken i fem år
- = she will work in this factory for five years
- Simple future: the working happens in the future.
skal hun ha jobbet i denne fabrikken i fem år
- = she will have worked in this factory for five years
- Future perfect: by some future point (when she has her certificate), the working is already completed / accumulated over five years.

So skal ha jobbet expresses that those five years of work will be in the past relative to another future event.

Why does the main clause start with skal (skal hun ha jobbet) and not with hun?

Norwegian is a V2 language: in a main clause, the finite verb (here skal) must come in second position.

The structure is:

First element: a clause or adverbial (Når hun har fått fagbrev)
Second element: the finite verb (skal)
Third element: the subject (hun)

So you get:

Når hun har fått fagbrev, skal hun ha jobbet … ✅
Når hun har fått fagbrev, hun skal ha jobbet … ❌ (ungrammatical word order)

Putting skal right after the comma keeps the verb in second position.

Why is it i fem år and not for fem år for “for five years”?

For duration (“for X time”), Norwegian normally uses i:

i fem år = for five years (duration)
i ti minutter = for ten minutes
i to uker = for two weeks

For before a time expression usually means “for (the next) …”, often with a future plan or limit:

Hun skal jobbe her for fem år.
= She is going to work here for a period of five years (with more of a planned, fixed time frame).

In your sentence, we simply describe how long the action has (by then) lasted, so i fem år is the natural choice.

Why is it i denne fabrikken and not på denne fabrikken? Are both possible?

Both i and på can appear with fabrikk(en), but they have slightly different typical uses:

på fabrikken
- Very common when talking about working at a factory as a workplace.
- Feels more idiomatic in many contexts:
  - Hun jobber på fabrikken. = She works at the factory.
i fabrikken
- Literally “in the factory”, more about being inside the building/space.
- Can sound more physical/spatial.

In a natural-sounding sentence about employment, many native speakers would say:

… skal hun ha jobbet på denne fabrikken i fem år.

Your version with i denne fabrikken is understandable, but på is often preferred for “working at a place”.

Why is it denne fabrikken and not dette fabrikken?

Because fabrikk is a masculine noun in Bokmål:

Indefinite: en fabrikk (a factory)
Definite: fabrikken (the factory)

The demonstratives:

Masculine: denne fabrikken = this factory
Neuter: dette huset = this house

Since fabrikk is not neuter, you cannot say dette fabrikken. You must match the gender:

denne fabrikken ✅
dette fabrikken ❌

What does fagbrev mean, and why is there no article (et fagbrev) here?

Fagbrev is a vocational / trade certificate, often after an apprenticeship in a skilled trade (e.g., electrician, mechanic, etc.).

About the article:

You can say et fagbrev (a trade certificate).
But often, fagbrev is used without an article when we talk about the concept/status in general:
- Hun har fagbrev som elektriker.
  = She has a trade certificate as an electrician.

In your sentence, fagbrev is treated more as a status or qualification than as a specific, countable physical document, so dropping the article is natural.

Could we use da instead of når here: Da hun har fått fagbrev, skal hun …?

No, not in this sentence.

Når is used for:
- Present or future time: when something happens / will happen
- Also for repeated or general events in past, present, or future.
Da is used for:
- A single, specific event in the past.

Your sentence refers to a future situation, so you must use når:

Når hun har fått fagbrev, skal hun ha jobbet … ✅
Da hun har fått fagbrev, skal hun ha jobbet … ❌

Da would be used in a purely past sentence, like:

Da hun fikk fagbrev, hadde hun jobbet i fem år.
= When she got her trade certificate, she had worked for five years.

Can we say kommer til å ha jobbet instead of skal ha jobbet? Is there a difference?

Yes, you can say it, and the meaning is very close:

skal ha jobbet
- Slightly more neutral/common way to express future (perfect).
- Often just “will have worked”.
kommer til å ha jobbet
- Also “will have worked”, but kommer til å can sound a bit more like “is going to end up having worked”, sometimes with a nuance of prediction based on current facts.

In many contexts, they are interchangeable:

Når hun har fått fagbrev, skal hun ha jobbet i denne fabrikken i fem år.
Når hun har fått fagbrev, kommer hun til å ha jobbet i denne fabrikken i fem år.

Both are acceptable; skal ha jobbet is slightly shorter and more typical.

Is it grammatical to say Når hun har fått fagbrev, hun skal ha jobbet … instead of Når hun har fått fagbrev, skal hun ha jobbet …?

No, that is ungrammatical in standard Norwegian.

After a fronted clause like Når hun har fått fagbrev, the finite verb of the main clause must come in second position:

Når hun har fått fagbrev, skal hun ha jobbet … ✅
- [Når‑clause] + [finite verb skal] + [subject hun] …

If you say:

Når hun har fått fagbrev, hun skal ha jobbet … ❌

you are putting the subject first and the finite verb second, which breaks the V2 rule for the main clause.