Proposition 53K2503

Projet de loi contenant le plan pour l'emploi.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Nov. 13, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work pay pay policy minimum pay older worker social-security contribution social security employment policy employment aid

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 13, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we will support this draft law on employment, because it fits into the relance strategy agreed by the government, with, on the one hand, the balance between keeping the path of reducing the deficit and, on the other hand, a number of highly targeted measures to give those with the most difficulties access to the labour market additional opportunities for employment.

For us, the most important element in the implementation of the measure is, in any case, that it has been done in close consultation with the regions and with the social partners. In fact, we had agreed that we would no longer take new target group measures. Necessity breaks law, we can’t sit unemployed watching the crisis sweep around and the younger and especially older workers do not offer additional opportunities for employment.

This was done in consultation with the regions. Social partners also agree. So this is good. However, it is especially important to work on this in close consultation, as there is still a lot of concrete work to be done with regard to those measures, and this must be done in cooperation with the social partners and the regions, because we will need a very broad support to ⁇ what we want. We will need the commitment of the social partners and of the regions to create such internships, such as work-learning places.

However, I still have some concerns from our group to take into account in the further development of the measures.

First, we engage our federal for 10 000 internship benefits, but the concrete internships will need to be created in the regions and in consultation with the social partners. There is also a reduction in the burden for mentors. We know that the story of those mentors today is not a success story. Today there are 128 in the whole of Belgium. The question is how to organize it. What other conditions will be imposed so that those mentors can truly be accompanying those who complete these internships?

Second, there is a collective internship obligation of 1 % for private sector companies. It would be good to create clarity as soon as possible on what will be eligible to comply with the 1 % obligation in addition to the entry stages. It is also important to know what happens if that 1 % is not reached by 31 December 2013. Will there be sanctions? What initiatives are taken if that 1% is not achieved?

Third, it is necessary to ensure that the creation of these entry stages does not involve the systematic use of cheap labor. The danger is unimaginable that one fills stage after stage with young people and that one thus creates a system of cheap labor. We must ensure that the necessary frame conditions are met in order to avoid this.

We also call for a good monitoring system. There are at least 35 employment measures in our country. In fact, we do not have good evaluations of them. We can see in absolute numbers how many jobs are created with it, but in fact we do not have a good evaluation system.

It would be good, especially in these times of budgetary constraints, that we properly monitor and evaluate the measures we now take so that these measures effectively create additional opportunities and additional employment. This applies not only to these measures, but to all employment measures. We need to think carefully about how we want to follow them and what evaluation system we can reach.

It would also be good that we consult with the regions so that they themselves have the space to refine their target groups if necessary, based on qualifications or on the duration of the internships and the like. In this way, the entry stages can be even better focused on the labour market.

Fourth, my preliminary point of attention is that a younger person will be able to enter at the earliest time when he is registered as a job seeker for 7 months. For an employment benefit, that duration is 12 months, but there the younger must prove that he has been looking for work in those 12 months. I think that seven months should also be an active search period for the younger. We need to build something that shows that the entry stage is intended for young people who are actively looking for work.

I conclude that the line that is being followed, namely, very focused action towards the target groups that have the least access to the labour market, is the right choice. We must continue on this track and we will therefore support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, it is my colleague Demir who has entered into discussion with you on a number of very concrete points. I will therefore limit myself to a more general consideration.

As you know, I am a neofiet in the Social Affairs Committee, but the coincidence wants me to read last week in Free to Work by Jan Denys, the man of Randstad. It is a book that I can recommend to everyone. Everything we should actually do in connection with labour market policy is in there. Anyone who ever wondered what we should do now should return to this book. This book explains how to conduct a 21st century labour market policy. Unfortunately, this is not what is present here today.

I have to confess to you, Mrs. Minister, that I was looking forward to seeing you as Minister at the end of 2011. I also have to admit that you have a reputation. You also talked immediately about a strategic note that would address the major problems of the labour market. We are about a year later and here is your employment plan, as it is so beautifully announced here. I am a Germanist of education and in fact this is a language error. Employment means forced employment and it should actually be about work.

That word is also wrong for another reason, because it is too big for what it is. This is not a real employment plan. This is not a strategic note. There are no structural reforms in our labour market policy.

All important cases – the unitary statute, the modernisation of labour law, the annualization of working time, the structural reduction of labor burdens, the reduction of administrative burdens, the structures of the labour market – are not addressed. That will put you all out for you. I can imagine why, but I will return to that later.

You expect – you also said this in the committee – that the social partners will implement the reforms.

Of course, social consultation is of extraordinary importance, but what is so strange about that social consultation is that employers and workers together fail to make a significant step forward.

The striking thing in face-to-face conversations with both employers and workers – I must honestly say that I make a small exception for quite a few representatives of the socialist trade movement, who are often quite ideologically a bit stubborn, although there are others to be found – is that they also look forward and see what should actually happen. Very strange is that in the social consultation one fails to move that step forward. I have often wondered what exactly is preventing that step to be taken.

It must be clear that social consultation – I cannot say enough – is very important. Such important reforms must be supported by a broad support in society. For all clarity, trade unions are very important.

If you look at the top 10 of the world’s wealthiest countries, there are countries that are heavily syndicalized. That wants to say something. This means that wealth is created but better, carried by those organizations.

However, if they don’t – unfortunately they don’t do it with us; they can’t take that step – it’s your responsibility to take that step.

In my past life I have always heard Jean-Luc Dehaene say, I still hear it literally: “Eux c’est eux, nous c’est nous.” This is not what happens here.

In the meantime, the clock ticked frighteningly. Almost every day we hear about closures, dismissals, relocations, bankruptcies. In between, for the unity status, there are six months left to draft a scheme. We look forward to it. And then one expects from a so-called employment plan something more than the modest steps in the margin. If you look at it globally, I actually see only shifts in target audience policy.

A few years ago, Minister Milquet, who was then responsible for Work, came up with the win-win plan, the solution. With that target group policy, she wanted to employ young people under 26 years of age and over 50 years of age. You have removed that and replaced it with a new target group policy for young people under 26 and over fifty. In fact – and I try to shake the clichés – it’s a little old wine in new bags.

As long as you continue to try to take modest steps and you do not address the structural problems that, as already said, are so beautifully and clearly outlined in that book by Jan Denys, there will be no employment plan and will sort out something ahead, absolutely little effect.

What should you do? I also understand that you must make it work and that work becomes attractive, that people get to work. How should you do that? You must create breathing space for the companies, which in our system are the source of prosperity – that is something that one accepts or does not, something else does not exist – to enter enterprises, so that oxygen is supplied and jobs are created.

You need to make work financially attractive, so that, for example, the vacancies are filled. We have more than 650,000 unemployed people in this country. That is more than 13%. This is definitely not a nice figure.

Approximately half of the unemployed are told that it is not necessary to search for work too diligently. Thus the problem is resolved. This also means that we can make the figures somewhat more beautiful and in Europe we can say that we have a unemployment rate of less than 7.5%. In the Netherlands it is called a figure that stands on tension with the truth.

So our criticism is that you are not dealing with the fundamental problems in the labour market. Your employment plan is about changes to the target group policy.

However, the government agreement states that the target group policy is transferred to the subregions. Mr. Vercamer referred to it and rightly called it. It needs to be refined there and can therefore be better targeted. It is also stated in the government statement that the competence in this regard goes to the sub-regions, including – let it be clear – the financial resources. However, we find that instead of working on that transfer, which we are actually waiting for, the policy is quickly being changed so that it can be poured into certain forms. That is not too beautiful either.

The Minister concludes. The draft law that is presented here and called employment plan is not worthy of that word. Heat is not an employment plan. There is no vision, no persistence. I also miss measures to give companies the oxygen, which they currently, as you know, lack. Without employers, who can grow and flourish, there will also be no additional work. This is a law of Medes and Persians.

Nothing in this country is taxed more than labour. We must ask ourselves questions about this. This actually applies to both employees and employers. For every 10 euro gross wage increase, an employer must pay more than 13 euros, while the employee leaves 4 euros net. The remaining 9 euros will go to the government. That is essentially the fundamental problem. Something must be done about it, a job plan must be done about it, not tomorrow, preferably today. Therefore, we will not be able to support this bill.

Mr. Bracke, I agree with you but on one sentence: "This is not a plan for employment." On the rest, including your reading, I think we will not get the same conclusions.

I’m not very enthusiastic about coming up to this tribune. With a plan for employment, we say that we will be able to give answers to all those people we meet every day and who tell us: “I look for employment, I send CVs, I meet employers, I present myself, I want to work, I want to build my life, I can’t, I’m stuck. The only answer I get is to reduce my allowances. For the rest, I am on a garage path."The young people we meet today are in this situation. And what will be offered to them is unfortunately not very exciting!

We are presenting measures, as we have already seen many. The most dense dust reigns. In a committee, it was also surprising to see the majority parties question the proposals of the government; indeed, many measures explain what may be done but the decision is referred to the taking of royal arrests. The fact that the measures are not very clear is a real problem for conducting quality parliamentary work.

An employment plan is expected to include measures in terms of employment but also economic measures, the determination of the sectors that will be supported, the reasons for this support, the modalities of implementation. However, this is not what we are going to talk about today.

What does this plan contain? Measures like those we have often discussed: a set of contributions reductions, the employment bonus. These measures seem to us to be moving in the right direction and have been included in our program for many years, such as the plan +1, +2, +3. Self-employed workers who start, start their own business and hire their first workers must be supported. This is a good measure; we have been advocating for it for years. We regret somewhat the quite complex way it is proposed. However, we know that it is precisely SMEs that are launching themselves that find it difficult to grasp the complexity of measures.

Another measure is the reduction of contributions, targeted but not conditioned. I am not the only one who considers that it is necessary to stop granting contributions without targeting the measures. A few days ago, in a committee, one of my colleagues said: “Don’t you think it’s time to put in place measures that will link companies receiving subsidies to conditions of employment maintenance? Indeed, it is unacceptable that a state-subsidised company decides to relocate its activities. Do you want to intervene in this direction? If so, in what time?” Destrebecq (MR) who asked Mr. by Elio Di Rupo.

Clearly, more and more colleagues are considering conditioning employment aid. For us, the tool of contributions reductions must be used with parity. The period is difficult from a budgetary point of view and every euro must be used intelligently.

Intelligently using tax cuts is targeting them, as you do, but also thinking about promoting quality jobs. Currently, when a half-day interim job is offered, the company can use a reduction in social contributions. The problem is that these cuts are not reserved for the bosses who strive to create real jobs. For us, this is problematic.

It also creates a substitution effect that remains possible and is not sufficiently bypassed. This is evident through the explosion of internships and student jobs. It is positive that students can work and thus round their end of month. However, when the small supermarket in Madou Square dismisses workers in order to hire students, this becomes a problem. However, this is what is happening with regard to student jobs.

Here too, the risk is therefore important to witness a carousel: throwing away some to engage others that cost less. Measures to prevent this substitution effect do not seem to me to be effective at all. This was noticed with win-win plans: many older workers were fired to be replaced by younger workers. Here, we are not at all reassured that this will not happen again. In times of crisis, we cannot afford this.

One last thing I would like to mention: the stages of young people. The intention is to work with young people at the beginning of their professional career in order to put them on the footsteps. This viewpoint is excellent and for years we have considered that this is an audience that requires a particular boost.

On the other hand, when I analyze the measure you propose, I fear that it is a very short pathway and that employers do not keep their trainees for a long time to replace them with other young people that will cost them even cheaper at the beginning of engagement. Putting someone’s foot in the staircase should not lead to destroying a sustainable job and replacing it with an internship.

In this regard, you said in the committee that you want to think about it and remedy it if this happens. I think this is not the right way to react. As for the win-win, while we had warned before the implementation of the measure, it was this situation that occurred. I don’t understand why not foresee the difficulty from the thinking phase about a measure.

You said that you were going to communicate a number of elements about the assessments on which you were based to correct the measures taken last year; in fact, each year, these famous measures of reduction of contributions are changed or new ones are added, making the system a little more complex.

You said it would be interesting, for once, to work quietly to evaluate what worked and what didn’t work. We would like to understand why we are changing measurements, and not just because you have anticipated things at the CPAS of Antwerp. It seems a little short to make a decision. You promised to send us documents, but we did not receive them. I hope that, this time, we will receive them, in order to understand exactly why these measures are taken and why they are more targeted than last year, the year before, or even earlier.

Mrs. Minister, I think some colleagues have said it before me: there is a lot of hope in the bill that contains your plan for employment. In fact, at the exit of the conclave last July, the government announced a genuine relief strategy, including about forty measures to sustainably relive the economy, support citizens’ purchasing power, strengthen the competitiveness of companies and create more jobs – and quality jobs.

The measures proposed in this plan seem to ultimately go in the right direction and even fulfill a number of promises that were made in July. At first glance, it can be said that we are also in favor of increasing the employment bonus, reorienting the reductions for target groups, creating enterprise integration internships for low-skilled young people, implementing projects for risk workers ... Many measures are extremely interesting.

However, if you look at the plan for employment a little closer, you are finally disappointed, because unfortunately you are not going far enough. You simply define a framework for employment. It remains incomplete, vague and requires taking multiple execution stops, we just talked about it. There is therefore a kind of blur, a lack of responsiveness that delays the implementation of your measures and that only reinforces the climate of uncertainty in which our companies and our workers evolve.

It is not surprising then to find that the confidence of the latter is in Berne and that growth forecasts need to be revised.

I think it is essential that workers and ⁇ are better informed of the planning of implementation of these measures. In this regard, could you tell us when these arrests will be put on the government table? When can we consult them? When will these measures be implemented?

I also wanted to relay the concerns of field actors who ask themselves many questions about the implementation of the integration stages you are proposing to create. We support the objectives you pursue in this regard. The fact of allowing low-skilled young people to get acquainted with the labour market and to participate in their training seems quite appropriate when one knows the causes of unemployment, ⁇ in the Brussels Region. However, there are still a number of questions. How are you working with the regions? What will be the impact of this new device on existing plans, namely the training-insertion plan, the insertion internship, alternating training? Does the new arrangement, which does not include a commitment obligation at the end of the internship, not risk competing with existing arrangements, or even causing them to disappear? Does an evaluation of existing devices not justify the introduction of new devices? Have you taken into account the risks of counter-effect associated with the integration stage?

With regard to the employment bonus, we are ⁇ favorable to this.

However, there are still a number of unanswered questions and we hope you can enlighten us.

Mr. President, I would like to thank Mr. Vercamer for the report and the explanation.

It is true that the crisis strikes. Therefore, we have tried to draw a complementary policy with the regions from the federal level, and that is absolutely not an easy exercise. It is a complementary policy around the employment plan. You may find that this has been expressed too strongly, but let me outline the context.

The employment plan was prepared in spring and discussed in July at the Council of Ministers. The plan was intended to identify, for specific target groups for which there were already reasonable measures, which measures were effective or not, and to make a number of shifts in them. So what comes forward now is not a large strategic employment plan with all sorts of measures. I have only been instructed to review this within the resources I have, because we are not in such a good period on budget. I have examined the extent to which a more efficient and targeted policy could be designed.

There are currently two major challenges in the labour market.

First, we must ensure that younger people, often very low-skilled, enter the labour market. Apparently, the transition from education to the world of work is not so obvious, especially not for people with low to very low education.

Second, we need to keep older people on the labour market. It is primarily about people over 50, but some agencies even talk about people over 45.

We have started negotiating with the West because there is a field of tension regarding powers. In addition, the target group policy is transferred to the Regions. We are doing this very positively. To the colleagues Wathelet and Verherstraeten you can ask to what extent we are making progress. I hear it goes pretty fast.

There is currently an economic crisis. We could have made it easy by asserting that those powers would nevertheless be overwhelmed, so that we did not have to attract from them. Nevertheless, we have looked at what we can still do, but in agreement with the West. The consequence is also that the funds are subsequently transferred to the West.

One must conduct a complementary policy with the three Regions, each having its own policies. This is an exercise in higher mathematics. Therefore, one must find a key that fits all individual measures but is at the same time flexible enough.

Therefore, we have created the stage exercise, complementary to what already exists in the regions. In Flanders there is the IBO system, a six-month training with subsequent recruitment obligation. That internship service to see if young people are interested in the job, have the right attitude, want to work in the sector and whether they want to learn. After a positive evaluation, the internship can be extended with an IBO. If it remains positive, the young people can get a fixed contract. This is for all clarity about young people leaving school without a diploma, about young people from the fourth secondary, vocational secondary education, who otherwise have very few opportunities on the labour market.

We know that it requires efforts from employers. Young people need to be guided, they still have to learn everything. That costs the employees money and involves a certain risk for them.

I would like to compare it to the 1950s. Many working children who could not or were allowed to study were wise enough to start a business. In doing so, they have learned and have thus created a great job for themselves.

We now notice that a lot of young people do not even get the opportunity to start somewhere in a business. For various reasons, they are not even given the opportunity to learn a job.

Especially those thresholds that need to be removed. We must also give opportunities to employers who want to take social responsibility in this regard, without too much risk for both parties, so that young people can enter the labour market and get a decent job.

Indeed, we have evaluated many employment measures on their effectiveness. On the one hand, we have abolished or weakened some measures. On the other hand, we also put together a number of measures.

Mr. Vercamer, people do not really have to wait six or seven months. It is intended to go faster, which is also agreed with the West. For all clarity, the federal level should absolutely not accompany. We have agreed with the regions that they call the concerned within four months, grab the collar and accompany them to a stage. For all clarity, I want to do that guidance myself, but I cannot do that.

It is our concern to simplify and make some measures more effective. Permanent evaluation is underway.

I read Free to Work by Jan Denys. As is often the case with books, entering a book is very stimulating. For all clarity, I would like to say that Jan Denys can write very well. When entering a book, the reader also enters a paradigm of the writer. Sometimes the reader then loses his critical mind or the reality appears to be harder than can be found in the book. For all clarity, it is a very interesting book.

The difference is that Jan Denys is alone. He can decide. He can make his drawing. I can also make a drawing, but in reality, however, we meet many partners and with those partners we must continue. Whether we like it or not, we need to talk to them. They all have different perspectives. I hope, of course, that they all have the same ultimate goal, especially employing good employees, who like to come to work and with which they advance. However, not all of them see it that way.

I admit that this employment plan is ⁇ not a strategic note. However, I have said in the committee that we will also prepare them. The big lines of it are already in my head. I want to explain it, that is not a problem.

That we have no vision and no persistence is not correct. We need to work with the trade unions and the employers that are there now. I have the impression that the dynamics of the 50-plus, as in our entire society, also hit a little there. I mean by this that they think that in the past everything was beautifully constructed and now they are quite defensive. Everything that has been achieved in the past, they want to defend. I understand that, but we must also look to the future. We need to think about how our society is evolving and what tools we need to develop now. The goal remains the same, but what tools do we need to develop now to ⁇ that goal?

If one has a very beautiful house, it is difficult to rebuild it for the future. What do you want to preserve and what do you want to change? Many things have to be said goodbye, and often it is not yet clear what will be replaced in the future.

All those topics, such as the unity statute, annualization and administrative burden, are on the table. We are working on that. During the budgeting process, we talked with the social partners about annualization, overtime, school bell contracts and flexibility.

We have a tradition of social consultation. You have said yourself that countries where social consultation has worked well are usually also countries where it is pleasant to live and work. Our goal is to preserve that.

However, different developments can be experienced in this area. Let me take the example of Germany, where there is no minimum wage. One can perfectly legally hire someone there for five, six or seven euros. This is also done, by the way. This, however, leads to a very dualistic labour market. On the one hand, there is a group with certain characteristics, which is very poorly paid, enjoys little protection and has little well-being at work and is mostly allowed to work in labour-intensive sectors. On the other hand, there is a group that deserves pretty much.

Such a system can be sustained for a while, but a society in which such great inequality is created will one day be punished for it. It is our challenge to pursue a reasonable form of equality, but ⁇ not to evolve into a dualistic labour market.

You are asking a lot from the federal government. However, you must realize that a lot of lifts and instruments, meanwhile, are coming to the West. I mean everything that has to do with education, activation, guiding people from education to the labour market, innovation and economic projects.

The challenge for the next ten years will be to what extent the federal government can cooperate with its policies and the regions with their policies complementarily, depending on goals and certain results that really need to be achieved. I do not have the impression that we are already at the stage that every partner sees this.

I am convinced that we really need to support employers and that there are a number of ethically high-level employers who attach great importance to their employees and to the development of their employees.

Madame Genot, I said that this was not a tewerkstellingsplan in the classical sense. This plan, launched in July last year, was mainly targeted at risk groups in the world of employment.

I would like to clarify another thing, because it has been demanded for labour-intensive sectors such as construction and hospitality. We will examine the extent to which we can link wage cost subsidies and support or exemption from social security measures to labour-intensive sectors. Sensu stricto cannot do this according to European law, although it would not be such a bad measure.

Then comes the question that has come back several times today. On the one hand, everyone wants very simple measures with little administrative burden for employers, and I understand that. On the other hand, when intervening with resources, one wants to control very strictly the extent to which they are effective and one asks employers to fill quite a lot of administration and include obligations. Here is a risk. Here we have developed a number of measures for employers and employees that we do not want to be overwhelming. We are not naive: we will see what effects this gives after a year. We will definitely set up a monitoring system to see who wants to work with, who is malafide and who doesn’t think so well.

There are still KBs to be implemented. I personally also regret the many and long procedures and the advice that must be sought between the decision on the Council of Ministers and its concrete implementation. It seems that little can be done about it. We try to strictly follow this. We will ⁇ try to bring the KBs for implementation to the Council of Ministers next week, so that we can start with a number of measures at least on 1 January.

Regarding the stages, I must regrettably refer to the West. We are the financing system. Instead of simply giving unemployment benefits or employment benefits or wait allowances, we want to activate. We want to pay people who follow stages. In terms of concrete guidance and fulfillment, we can do very little at the federal level.

Thank you, Madame, for this very comprehensive intervention.

What I regret is that we cannot learn from the mistakes of the past!

You say that a monitoring will be carried out for a year, and then we will see what happens. We know it very well! The substitution effect is a highly documented matter. There are studies. The fact that employers can use these measures for day-to-day jobs, etc., all this is documented! I do not understand why they persist. We know the advantages of these measures and the inherent traps. Why can’t we draw conclusions right now?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for taking the effort to answer in detail. I like that. At the same time, I am struck by her honesty, in the sense that I am a concession to a reality to which one should not give up too quickly in my taste. I hope the Minister will not do that. After all, the minister’s answer comes down, in short, to the fact that we have done what we could and, in addition, we must not forget that it is a crisis.

Mrs. Minister, it is just to provide an answer to that crisis, which you need to reform to a large extent.

The same applies to what you say about the book by Jan Denys. We both appreciate this very much. You say that in that book a world is created, which is of course true, because this is how a book works. But I’m referring to the message on a wall– I’m of course a bit older person and this is one of the few things I’ve remembered from the events of May ’68 in Paris – that one must be an idealist in order to remain realistic.

All the warnings you make, because the reality is different from what is described in that book, may be kept out, but I would like to ask you to keep in mind the great goal, because in it you are mistaken. About those people you literally say that we will have to do it with them. What a confession that is! Maybe you can try to remove those people from yourself.

You also say that we have a very nice house. I do not know if that is true. In my opinion, it was once a very beautiful house, but it is now in decline. If you do nothing about it, then you will, to speak further in your image, ⁇ not be able to pass that house to the children and ⁇ not to the grandchildren.

This brings us to our ideological differences. You are referring to Germany. This comparison is always applied. I always answer the same thing. You must explain to me why in Germany the poverty rates are what they are and in Germany they are not what they are with us. Is it because so many people are being exploited? Do they keep it silent? I believe nothing of that.

I think that your fulfillment of equality will precisely lead to the dualization of society. However, you will try to sell it in a different way. We differ deeply in opinions. Therefore, we will not, by the way, support the draft with conviction.