Set up on a very large scale at the start of the health crisis, partial unemployment – or “partial activity”, to use the official terminology – has saved thousands of jobs. But this device, which is very costly for public finances, has at the same time been the subject of numerous “Abuse”, the controls being “Insufficiently targeted” and faced with multiple “Operational obstacles”. This is one of the lessons of a report published on Monday July 12 by the Court of Auditors, which takes stock of the action of the Ministry of Labor in the face of the recession triggered by the Covid-19 epidemic.
Concretely, partial unemployment results in the payment of a ” allocation “ companies that have to slow down, or even cease to operate, the goal being “To avoid layoffs” while guaranteeing the payment of staff. This measure was used extensively, in particular at the start of the first confinement, with some 8.4 million employees affected in April 2020 (i.e. “44%” private workforce). It would represent, for the past year, an expenditure slightly higher than 26 billion euros, endorsed to two thirds by the State while the unemployment insurance scheme covers the remaining third.
“Limited results”
The system constituted “One of the pillars of support for the economy”, underline the magistrates of the Rue Cambon – where the Court of Auditors sits in Paris. Despite the problems encountered at the beginning due to the surge of requests, the amounts owed to the employers were settled quickly. A “Collective result”, who owes a lot to “Commitment” ministerial services and the Services and Payments Agency (ASP), responsible for granting the money.
Wanting to open the floodgates wide, the public authorities have modified their control policy on the requests submitted by the bosses: the filtering carried out “A priori” has been reduced, or even practically abandoned in certain regions, in favor of a ” countryside “ 50,000 checks “A posteriori”. This plan was “Imagined in a hurry”, by emphasizing the cheating which consisted for an employer to benefit from short-time working while placing its teams in telework. Very “Publicized”, against which “Important forces” were mobilized, but “For limited results” : gathering the evidence turned out to be ” very difficult “, notes the Court.
You have 43.73% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.