As part of the consideration of the unemployment insurance bill in the Folketing, the deputies voted for an amendment that limits access to unemployment insurance for employees who give up their jobs.
Employees who leave their position are presumed to have resigned. On Wednesday, the Folketing voted majority and LR amendments to limit access to the social insurance fund despite criticism from the left.
“The employee who has voluntarily given up his position and does not return to work after receiving a letter of formal notice to this effect (…) is presumed to have resigned”, states the amendments, which were adopted by 219 votes to 68 within the framework of the sample. first reading of the bill on the unemployment insurance reform.
Unemployment insurance is basically reserved for people who are involuntarily deprived of employment. For those who resigned, there are some limited exceptions. However, a dismissal due to abandonment of position constitutes a dismissal due to fault and currently does not deprive the dismissed person of his right to benefit from unemployment insurance, even if the abandonment of the position is “voluntary”.
“A phenomenon on the rise”
The government, through the voice of ministerial delegate Carole Grandjean, said it supported this measure of job cuts, “an ever-increasing phenomenon”. These employees no longer come to work, without justification, and end up being fired by their employer. They can then get an unemployment insurance fund.
The left has taken issue with this phenomenon, citing “marginal” cases and urging not to “weaken protections for employees”. “What is the reason for these job cuts?” Asked the communist Pierre Dharréville, thinking about the working conditions.
Conversely, Dominique Da Silva (Renaissance), along the lines of Horizons and MoDem, argued that job cuts disrupted businesses and that it was a matter of providing a “clear and fair” measure for each one.
“We do not deprive employees of any rights. They always have the opportunity to appeal” to the industrial court, also emphasized Jean-Louis Thiériot (LR), who among some on the left criticized “the choice of law for laziness”.
In a stormy atmosphere again, the socialists assured that the adopted measure was unconstitutional and not compatible with the standards of the International Labor Organization (ILO).