Gabriel Attal plans to strengthen unemployment insurance restrictions by further reducing the compensation period
Gabriel Attal also wants to tighten unemployment insurance rules
\n\n\nThe government spokesperson, Gabriel Attal, proposes a stricter approach to unemployment insurance rules, while reducing the duration of compensation. This reform project, intended to make savings, is raising numerous debates.
\n\nA controversial position
\n\nProposing to make access to unemployment insurance more difficult and to reduce the duration of payment of benefits, the government spokesperson is putting forward a reform likely to cause a stir. In these times of economic crisis, this new posture increases the concern of precarious workers and unions.
\n\nLess duration of compensation
\n\nEchoing his intentions, Mr. Attal proposes to reduce the duration ofcompensation. This dimension of the reform risks particularly affecting workers with intermittent jobs, who alternate periods of work and unemployment, as is the case for many intermittent workers in the entertainment industry.
\n\nAn already fragile economic and social context
\n\nThis proposal comes in an already precarious context, marked by the economic and social consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many therefore question the relevance of further tightening the unemployment insurance rules in such a context. Unions and opposition parties point out that unemployment insurance plays an essential role as a social shock absorber in periods of economic crisis.
\n\nSubstantial savings to be made
\n\nBut conversely, the government justifies this reform by the need to make significant savings. Unemployment insurance represents a significant cost for the State and the financial situation of Unédic, the organization responsible for its management, is particularly tense.
\n\nWhat future for this reform?
\n\nIf Gabriel Attal stated that the subject was "on the table", the implementation of this reform has not yet been decided. Many discussions remain to be conducted with the social partners before any final decision. In the meantime, this proposal arouses controversy and once again symbolises the government's desire to optimise the management of public money.
\r\n\n
