Should unemployment benefits cap frames?
The UMP is considering the possibility of lowering unemployment benefits for top earners. Medef protests. Update on the controversy. The compensation of executives in unemployment in the viewfinder of the UMP. What exactly is the proposal of the UMP?
Speaking of "proposal" is a bit premature. It is rather a reflection outlined by Bruno Le Maire in an interview with L'Express, in the form of question: "Can we keep a system of unemployment benefits among the most generous in the world, especially for executives with high salaries? "asked the Minister of Agriculture, also supports the party platform for 2012. But this idea does not come from nowhere. It was brought by Peter Méhaignerie early years, in an interview with Marc Landre, Le Figaro journalist and host of the blog The Cartoon Network.And quickly put away in the closet.
Why is unemployment compensation cap frames?
Because the government does not know where to save money, and that the financial situation of the UI is poor: 10.5 billion euros of debt accumulated by the end of the year, and a deficit of 2 billion for 2011. Yet some executives, those who earn 11,000 euros a month and can accommodate up to 6000 euros per month. And for two years. The temptation is great to scrounge money from this population, especially as our European neighbors, the limits of compensation are much lower: 1400 in Spain, Germany 2200 or 1000 in Italy, as Marc Landré points.
It would still not a measure of social justice?
Difficult to present it as such … Managers reported more than they cost to unemployment insurance, as confirmed Unedic.Bernard Van Craeynest, the President of the CFE-CGC, for his part said on BFM TV "they account for 30% funding of unemployment insurance and consume roughly 15 or 17%." In fact, they are less affected by unemployment than other occupational groups and the contributions they pay are higher, since these contributions are a fixed percentage of salary and wages are higher. Lower the contribution limit would create a mechanical reduction of these contributions, and crop revenue so the UI, as outlined Laurence Parisot, president of MEDEF, against the proposal. Unless you do not reduce contributions … "It would be discrimination, an analysis of the trade union CFE-CGC. And it would be questionable in court for breach of equality, the principle is that you receive based on what you contribute."