“If the activity is in deficit, why do they continue to exercise it?“, asks Georges-Louis Bouchez to the address of the trade unions.
“I think they keep unemployment management for historical reasons, analysis Jean Faniel. The trade unions have always taken on this task, they are keen on it. Then, because the unions could fear that, if the management of unemployment insurance is taken away from them, it would be to abolish it completely, as the Flemish parties sometimes demand, and not to assign it to another body. For the unions, there is always the issue, as in the 1900s, of maintaining the average level of remuneration which remains at a certain level thanks to the existence of unemployment insurance, so they want to preserve it.“
The three organizations have roughly the same discourse on this issue. “We do it for our affiliates“, they all three assert. “Lost job seekers are unemployed between two jobs and they were affiliated with us before becoming unemployednotes Olivier Valentin of the CGSLB. And then a job seeker must also sometimes be trained and pushed towards a job and this is part of our missions. Finally, it happens that a worker who loses his job does not have all the documents in order from his previous employer and therefore we accompany him in these steps. So it is logical that we intervene during this period of unemployment.“
For the trade unions, dealing with unemployment makes it possible, as Jean Faniel suggests, to continue to defend the unemployment benefit system. “deal with unemployment nWe allow us to maintain legitimacy on issues when we have to position ourselves on the future of social securitypoints out Thierry Bodson. Dealing with these cases, meeting the unemployed gives us a “know-how“.“
The trade unions are in any case against the proposal to transfer the management of unemployment benefits to a public institute. And if that were the case, they do not believe in possible savings, far from it. Calculating such a scenario is probably impossible, but Thierry Bodson tries it. “Of the 7.25 million unemployment cases, 86% are currently taken care of by the unions, i.e. 6.2 million cases. Each case costs €21 more, which means an additional €130 million payable by the State each year, to which must be added the first years of numerous investments in terms of infrastructure and buildings.“
This quick calculation is impossible to verify. But it does not take into account the cost of files that do not lead to payment and incorrect payments which are currently two costs borne by the trade unions.
Not only do the unions want to keep this management, but they would also like to see this activity financed at its fair cost. “NWe believe that we should rather operate on the basis of true cost, as is done for health insurance or family allowances, rather than having an ideological vision of things. A calculation formula developed in the 90s no longer corresponds today“, denounces Marie-Hélène Ska.
The political trend is not, however, for the refinancing of payment bodies by the public authorities. In 2012, the Di Rupo government “imposed savings of 5.5 million euros for private payment organizations from the 2013 financial year“, told us the Onem.
More philosophically and politically, Jean Faniel actually points to a desire among the liberals, or before them, the N-VA and the Vlaams Belang, to reduce overall the influence of trade unions in the political balance of power.