The National Assembly voted on Wednesday to equate “post dropout” with resignation as part of the unemployment insurance reform. “An aberration”, for some jurists.
An employee who disappears overnight: “leaving office” annoys many small bosses, but the Assembly’s decision to equate it with resignation to limit access to unemployment insurance is considered hasty for an unquantified phenomenon. These employees who no longer come to work without justification generally end up being fired by their employer for misconduct. They can then receive unemployment insurance.
As part of the first reading debates on the Unemployment Insurance Bill, the Assembly voted this week on amendments by the majority and LR so that these employees are ” presumed resigning », Thus limiting access to compensation.
The government said it was in favor, citing ” a growing phenomenon “. The elected representatives of the majority have indicated a mechanism” well known to employers who experience it “and that” interrupts activities, especially smaller ones “, For instance ” a creperie in Brittany lose one of his three employees. The LRs also relied on SMEs in the catering, construction or school transport sectors concerned.
“No legal practitioner welcomes”
In unison with the unions, the left indicated the cases ” marginal and pleaded not to weaken employee protection “.
For Eric Chevée, CPME Vice President of Social Affairs, ” it’s a complicated subject », Experienced differently depending on the size of the companies. ” In VSE it is considered as a desertion that interrupts the company and must be sanctioned. The entrepreneur cannot stand it he says. ” But in SMEs it allows to resolve conflicting situations (…) because the business manager does not necessarily want to pay for a contractual resolution », Subject to specific compensation.
Such dropouts occur mainly in labor-intensive services (personal services, housekeeping, hotels and restaurants, etc.) but ” we don’t meet them every day, plus there are no statistics “, He adds. In his eyes” the deputies rushed a little “, And fears that it is” a nest of controversies “.
From a legal point of view, the presumption of resignation, ” it seems to me an aberration “, Also states Déborah David, lawyer in social law (employer side) at De Gaulle Fleurance, making sure that he does not have” I haven’t seen a single legal practitioner welcoming of this measure. It is also emphasized that the employee who leaves his / her position already has ” a first punishment: he will be deprived of the notice allowance “. The ” second kiss-cool effect, now it will be the absence of unemployment benefits “.
” So, honestly, what do you do when you are an employee who can’t take it anymore and who can’t give his notice, because for example he is not paid, is harassed, has his employment contract changed unilaterally? “, she asks. These employees they are not good at their job “we’ll see again” blocked, double penalty “, He fears.
“Hasty solutions” to a “problem without diagnosis”
Romain Boulanger, 39, a forklift operator in the logistics sector in Ile-de-France, told AFP he had resorted to quitting work three times. ” It is not going to unemployment. This is how you don’t lose your unemployment rights if things don’t go your way. “, He assures, noting that conventional breakages are often rejected” office “.
By changing the rules, we will start looking for other reasons for dismissal: we will insult our managers, we will start not working … “, He predicts. ” The bosses found their account there. Everyone found their account This worker complains. Or them “
oblige “employers to accept conventional layoffs”, or they leave this exit door. We cannot be forced to stay in a job “.
Economist Bruno Coquet points out in his blog of the ” hasty solutions ” to a ” problem without diagnosis which could simply be a consequence of ” seize a more satisfying job opportunity very quickly (salary, quality, retraining, etc.) “. And this unemployment insurance specialist notes that” a hasty change of unemployment insurance probably would not solve a problem that may not exist “.
