As part of the unemployment insurance reform, the government intends to reduce the duration of the compensation by 25%, reveals The Sunday newspaper this November 20. The aim is to encourage people to return to work. Labor Minister Olivier Dussopt also returned to the reduction of the allowance in Grand Rendez-vous Europe 1/CNews/Les Echos this Sunday. He actually confirmed JDD’s information and warned that executive power was on the way “work on the maximum duration of compensation while making sure to keep floors”. But he reassured that he meant nothing “compensate no less”.

A dip in the compensation period?

Today is the amount of unemployment benefits “at about 57% of previous salary”remembers Olivier Dussopt, who assures that it is a question of ” the European average Regarding the duration of the compensation, the minister stated in subsection Big meeting that the government relied on investigations that ” shows that there are two periods when return to work is the highest: immediately after registration for unemployment insurance and immediately before the end of benefits “. Between these two periods the rate is “lower a little”. That is why the state wants tighten this period », assures Olivier Dussopt.

Also read – Does France have the most generous unemployment system in Europe, as Olivier Dussopt claims?

“More protective” rules when “employment is bad”

The government also counts on the reform of the unemployment insurance to alleviate the lack of labor in deficient professions, which especially concern catering, transport, hotel, metallurgy, the health sector or even medico-social.

Read also – The state takes over the a-kassen
In total there is in France 400,000 vacancies “, confirms Olivier Dussopt in Grand Rendez-vous. He also considered that this problem was explained not only by the lack of attractiveness of the professions, but also by ” training, availability “. In general, the Minister of Labor finally wants a reform that responds to the following strategy: ” When employment is going well, there is a need for more incentive rules, while, of course, protection is maintained. On the contrary, when employment is poor, the rules must be more protective. »