Proposition 54K2298

Proposition de résolution visant à mettre l'accent sur la prévention et le bien-être afin de réduire le nombre d'indépendants en incapacité de travail.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Leen Dierick, Nahima Lanjri, Nathalie Muylle, Griet Smaers, Stefaan Vercamer
Open Vld Egbert Lachaert

Submission date

Feb. 6, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

incapacity for work quality of life social status resolution of parliament social well-being self-employed person

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP VB

Abstained from voting

PVDA | PTB

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. 20, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Ms Kattrin Jadin, the rapporteur, refers to her written report.

As usual, we open the discussion with the first applicant in particular Mrs. Smaers.

The number of unemployed self-employed in our country has increased dramatically in recent years. Since 2012, we have seen an increase of as much as 18.35%. The average sickness duration of self-employed is six years. That is a lot.

The main causes that lead to long-term illness in self-employed persons are primarily muscular and spinal disorders, followed by problems of a psychological nature. Certainly this latter category, disorders of a psychological nature, has grown very sharply in recent years.

This evolution is disturbing and rightly demands our attention.

Self-employed people often wait too long to seek help and try to work as long as possible until it doesn’t work at all. After all, being sick for a long time causes self-employed people to see their future prospects diminish and that they often have to minimize income. This is why they continue to work more.

Self-employed workers can best use some support and advice on prevention. At present, however, the social status of self-employed persons, unlike other statutes and systems, does not contain a prevention or welfare loop.

In the field, we see the need to focus on prevention. Prevention provides opportunities to reduce expenditure on the social status of self-employed persons, in particular on disability benefits, in the future. Prevention should, of course, be a measure to reduce the illness benefits in the future.

There is also a need for good guidance when re-starting after a period of disability. Reintegration paths are also an absolute necessity for self-employed persons. Therefore, I submitted a resolution at the beginning of February 2017 to call on the government to make room for prevention for self-employed persons, and for effective reintegration paths so that self-employed persons can more easily return to work after a period of disability.

In my resolution, which was supported by many colleagues, I ask in particular three important items.

First, the establishment of a specific system of prevention in the social status. It is necessary to examine how compensation can be granted to self-employed persons who wish to resort to specialised assistance during their career. A coach for self-reliance, for example.

Through this support, one can then come together to a better work organization and a better well-being of the self-employed during his activity. Thus, problems relating to work pressure or the organization of the matter can be addressed in a timely manner and one does not have to wait until one effectively can no longer and one is forced to go into work disability.

The possibility of a health budget in the context of prevention can also be taken into account.

In the resolution, we call for existing actors, such as health funds, social insurance funds, external services for prevention and protection at work, the RSV or the RIZIV, to be involved in the development of a possible offer for prevention for self-employed.

Those measures are always aimed at preventing disability and can therefore function budget-neutral in the long term. We always have in mind that the additional expenditure that we would make from the social statute in the context of prevention and a health budget should aim to prevent disability and illness benefits.

Second element, the resolution also calls on the government to support initiatives that encourage self-employed to help each other and help to tackle problems together. Self-employed people in the same situation understand each other better and can therefore better help each other. That was already introduced in the past by Minister De Block, specifically for the status of doctors. It would be nice that the scheme that was introduced for doctors will also be rolled out for and extended to other independent sectors.

Finally, with this resolution, we call on the government to take specific measures to promote reintegration and that self-employed persons, as well as workers, may resort to reintegration programmes after disability, which are then actually adapted to their individual situation.

This legislature has already rightly paid much attention to the reintegration of long-term ill workers. The government, and in particular Minister De Block, had always indicated that it was a choice to be able to introduce that first for workers and that the self-employed would then deal with it.

With this resolution, we request that the reintegration paths for self-employed persons also be made possible and started. A quick work recovery, with or without adjustments, is also very important for them.

The resolution was welcomed and a number of amendments were submitted by the coalition partners and the opposition. Ultimately, the resolution was approved in the Committee on Business with 11 votes for and 2 abstentions.

I would like to thank all colleagues who have worked constructively for the exchange of thoughts, the amendments and the approval.

Collega Vanden Burre van Ecolo has in the plenary session yet another amendment no. 7 on the resolution submitted to ⁇ a complete abolition of the care period for sick and unemployed self-employed persons.

You know that in recent years the government has done a lot of work in reducing the one-month care period in case of incapacity for work. In the past, a self-employed person had to wait a month before he could apply for an illness benefit. The government has reduced this period from one month to fourteen days in the last two years, which was already a major step.

I have understood that colleague Vanden Burre, along with a number of others, has re-submitted an amendment to include in the resolution also the question of reducing the existing quarantine period of fourteen days to zero. Colleague Vanden Burre, I can inform you that we will agree with your amendment. We will support it in the plenary session so that it can be added to the resolution.

However, I continue to emphasize that despite the fact that this measure is taken as a problem in the social status of the self-employed, we must continue to keep an eye on preventive measures. It should not be the case that one will abolish that full care period only to be able to receive the sickness benefit faster. It is absolutely necessary to avoid the need to provide sickness benefits. So we must do everything we can to reduce that absolutely. This means that we need to invest much more in prevention. In the implementation of this resolution, it is a priority that the recommendations on prevention are included.

Thank you for the cooperation. Hopefully this resolution will be approved later in the plenary session.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, on the principle, our group adheres to the approach that aims to work for the well-being of self-employed workers and to emphasize the issues of prevention. It is true that Free Mutualities showed in a November 2017 study that the burn-out phenomenon was very important among these self-employed. Thus, one in five self-employed persons present precursor signs of burn-out and many self-employed persons remain in denial in this regard and take poor care of themselves.

That said, we agree with the opinion of the National Syndicate of Independent Workers (SNI) which, in essence, tells us that the real problem is not to bring back to work the long-term disabled self-employed. It is, on the contrary, to allow them a little to let go when they are sick and to make sure that they take care of themselves. Today, according to the SNI, eight out of ten independent workers continue to work while they are sick or burn-out. There are, they say, economic reasons for this. This situation is a consequence of the deficiencies in the social status of self-employed workers. It is also stated in this tribune that employees are covered from the first day of incapacity. They receive an allowance that represents 60% of their gross salary, while independent workers still have those fourteen days of absence. Although this duration has been reduced from one month to fourteen days, it remains an obstacle for a number of them to accept treatment.

We therefore believe that the number one priority is to work on social coverage. We obviously regretted that in the commission, the former majority or the former minority majority rejected the opposition amendment aimed at removing this period of shortage, because we think it is wrong to understand the hierarchy in the needs of the independent. Today, we hear an openness from Ms. Smaers about incorporating this amendment into the resolution. We are delighted, but it was ⁇ more useful to make this resolution to a full-time government than to a minority government. No matter what, this openness should be emphasized. Ideally, it would be possible to adopt a bill that actually abolishes this period of shortage. This is what should be achieved in order to provide a concrete solution to a number of health problems.

Finally, when it comes to reintegration routes, it is still unclear whether they will be voluntary or mandatory, as it is unclear what will be of a sanctions regime, because we have not obtained answers to these questions in committees. Our group recalls in any case that it does not want compulsory reintegration journeys.

These are the reasons why we abstained from the resolution. Obviously, if we now incorporate in the text the removal of the day of lack, it will give a little more consistency to this text, even though I agree to say that this is not the only issue, that we can also do about prevention after that. We believe that the primary priority is to truly abolish these fourteen days of shortage for self-employed workers, and not only in writing in a resolution but also in the facts.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to thank Mr. Smaers for her draft resolution, which we have already discussed in the Committee on Economy.

This proposal deals with an important topic, namely the social status and well-being at work of self-employed and self-employed. It is true that we talk a lot about the quality of employment, which is a major topic for us, environmentalists, but the quality of employment must apply both to employees and to self-employed workers, whose number in our country is now close to 1.1 million. This is an important topic.

The resolution proposed by colleague Smaers implements a series of requests addressed by Parliament to the government in connection with a prevention scheme aimed at combating illnesses, work disability, burn-outs related to overwork and work-related difficulties for self-employed and self-employed persons. As I said in the committee, this is an important topic for us. This proposal is accompanied by requests that go in the right direction and which we support.

I would like to repeat one point that I have already highlighted in the debates: this catalogue of real good intentions stated in the resolution, on important topics, deals with a number of points related to the quality of employment and well-being at work, which is fundamental. Today, however, it is known that the absolute priority for independent workers in their claims and in the claims of the bodies that represent them, is the period of lack.

For us, every worker in this country, whether employed or self-employed, has the right to be supported in case of physical difficulties, related to illness or disability. This is one of our priorities. There is no reason to make a difference when it comes to dealing with illness, burn-out, inability to work.

For this reason, I had interpelled the colleagues in the Economy Committee and, in particular, you, Mrs. Smaers, because it was you who submitted the text. I told you that our group supported your demands. But let’s really go to the essential. Let us make a resolution that sends an extremely strong signal compared to the whole of the independent and the independent because it is the priority today to be able to be compensated in case of illness and not to have to wait for fourteen days. It is true that before, the deadline was one month. It was reduced to fourteen days. We have supported this reform, but we believe that there is no reason to keep this difference.

Therefore, two and a half weeks ago – in another political world, some will say – I filed this amendment which was rejected in the committee.

Today I hear your opening. I think it is good that we can join. So I re-submitted this amendment, together with other colleagues in the opposition, because it is fundamental to consider it in the same way as the other requests you make. It is not the reduction of the shortage period that will solve all the problems related to well-being at work. I agree with you. Prevention is fundamental, as well as support and accompaniment in cases of difficulties related to illness and disability to work.

For us, having the same rights in the face of illness, regardless of the employee’s status, is a priority. For this reason, I wanted to make a call here. You came ahead of me and told me that you would support the amendment. I am delighted. I hope that colleagues from other political groups who regularly declare that the condition and well-being of independent workers is a priority for them will be able to join us on this amendment as it is a priority for the whole sector. This is a resolution. This is not a bill, but it is a strong signal that we are sending to this 1.1 million self-employed workers in our country. I really hope that we will be able to join and welcome positively this additional request regarding the removal of the shortage period.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, our group is obviously in favour of this resolution.

Many self-employed people give up the opportunity to be recognized in illness and, therefore, benefit from compensation – especially when they are faced with burn-out. It is a reality.

During this legislature, significant progress has been made to strengthen the social status of self-employed workers. Nevertheless, we must continue our efforts by developing more devices for prevention and support of self-employed people suffering from mental disorders and burn-outs.

It is also important that the existing measures are better communicated to workers and that we insist with them on the solution that mechanisms such as return to the company at half-time and without loss of compensation can already constitute.

Finally, for our group, it is worth emphasizing the essential nature of reintegration routes adapted to the situation of independent workers. Indeed, it is necessary to take into account their position as head of business as well as the economic imperatives surrounding this path of reintegration.

We discuss a positive text for self-employed workers. That is why we will support it.

Finally, I would like to add a few words about the amendment that you submitted to the committee and which is now back in the plenary session.

We have had little time to examine it, but I assume that everything that produces advances in favour of independent people deserves our support. With the resolution proposal, we wanted to take a step forward by planning for fourteen days. In this case, the amendment intends to go further. After reflection, we are ready to support this amendment, because it is a strong signal to the self-employed sector.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, the text submitted to us today by our colleague and discussed in the committee was preceded, Mrs. Smaers, by written opinions from various sources.

Since this document is a proposal for a resolution, it will be necessary to move to the next step by concluding an agreement to transform it into a text of law. In any case, it is already a strong signal addressed to the independent and independent – the latter being, sometimes forgotten, very many.

This is a strong signal, and it is even stronger because the amendment that my colleagues have just mentioned before me regarding the reduction of the shortage period had already been submitted to the committee. Together with my colleague Vanden Burre, we represented him. You accepted this amendment and this seems to us to be an important step.

In this text, we discover the preventive aspect as it is proposed and supported, but we have a note to make. One often tends to think of the self-employed essentially as a workforce for economic growth. But behind the economic activity of the self-employed, and the investment he puts in it, there are people who work and who have limits as self-employed, just like the employees. They must be recognized. This status of the self-employed should, beyond economic activity, be rethinked by more integrating psychosocial aspects.

Of course, the health of the company is fundamental. She counts . This is the winning bread of the independent. More than ever, however, the health of the individual needs to be considered. It has already been mentioned here. There is an increase in the number of psychosocial diseases among self-employed, such as the famous burn-out. It is positive that aid is planned, but it will need to be put into practice on the ground.

I want to repeat to you what I said in the committee: the social insurance funds and the representative organizations of self-employed workers must be consulted. Indeed, this problem is becoming increasingly pressing.

As for prevention, it also involves direct information. According to the UNIZO and UCM report, the vast majority of self-employed persons do not know what social security already offers them in case of disability to work. It is necessary to continue to inform the independent person directly when the disease occurs and that it is about reclaiming or taking care.

It will also be necessary to think, beyond psychosocial monitoring, about a type of more technical assistance that does not exist for self-employed. I think here of aid to muscle disorders, back pain that are sometimes important in heavy jobs due to bad manipulations, bad movements. It should be possible for self-employed persons to use a specialist counselor, for example, in ergonomics. This would avoid a lot of pain and suffering.

This is, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to add while saying that we will support the text that is presented with the amendment as it is on the agenda. This is an important moment and a strong signal sent to the independent.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, a few weeks ago, the then majority in the committee approved a resolution calling on the government to establish a prevention cap from the social status of self-employed persons. It also aims to reduce the number of unemployed self-employed by improving their well-being.

In theory, one can only be in favour of the present resolution. However, if one reads the recommendations, one sees that they are drawn up in a lot too general terms. What kind of prevention do the authors want, for example? How will this be implemented among the self-employed? What measures will be taken to promote reintegration. What types of initiatives will encourage self-employed to help each other? These are all issues that were discussed in the committee.

In short, in itself it is a good thing that one wishes to provide assistance to this group, but there are, in our opinion, other and stronger proposals than the preceding catalog of good intentions. It may also be questioned whether these can be applied in the field. This is also the comment of several other opposition members.

The hearings, which included UNIZO, which were organized some time ago, showed that the priorities concerning the social status of self-employed persons are as follows. They want to improve pensions. They want to improve the protection in case of work incapacity. They want structural support in the combination of work/family. I will give an example: 75 % of male self-employed men indicate that they find it difficult to combine work/family, especially young men want an increasingly normal family life. This is also confirmed by La Ligue des Familles.

I was therefore surprised that the legislative proposal of sp.a and Ecolo, to introduce an allowance for paternity leave in the social system of self-employed persons, was received in the committee negatively. For self-employed fathers, there is no financial intervention that allows them to interrupt their professional activity for several days. This award would be an important step forward in the well-being of the independent young parents.

A second missed opportunity, unless you still approve our amendment today, is the reduction of the self-employed care period to zero days, which is a measure that interest organisations have long sought. The complete abolition of the care period is a fair social measure that allows the self-employed to temporarily interrupt their activity in case of illness and with the preservation of a basic income. By abolishing the care period, self-employed workers would have the same rights as workers.

Colleagues, the majority at the time — I don’t know how to name them otherwise — also opposed the amendment or proposal and voted it out in the committee. She is therefore unwilling to do anything concrete for the self-employed and prefers vague, less concrete recommendations, which, in my opinion and according to the sp.a, is truly a missed opportunity.