The Renaissance president of the Laws Committee in the Assembly Sacha Houlié estimated on Sunday that reducing the duration of compensation for the unemployed, as the government envisages, was “not the right path”, joining part of the left wing of the majority.
If we reduce the duration of compensation, for what purposes do we do it? A cost-saving measure. Do I think we should take a cost-saving measure for the unemployed today? I don’t think so, declared Mr. Houli on the stage of the RTL/Le Figaro/M6 Grand Jury.
The elected official from Vienna argued that the executive had already reformed unemployment insurance twice, in 2019 and 2023, in particular by putting in place a countercyclicality measure, that is to say that the conditions of compensation becomes tougher when unemployment falls, and becomes more flexible when it increases.
Is there a need for a new reform on this subject even though we see that unemployment is no longer falling? I say it is more of an economy measure than a return to employment measure, lamented Mr. Houli.
From the moment I see that it is not the return to employment which is the motivation, that it is savings which are sought, I say that this is not the right path, he continued .
On Wednesday, Prime Minister Gabriel Attal opened the door to a reduction of several months in the duration of unemployment compensation, currently 18 months for those under 53, without going below 12 months.
A measure which would garner the support of the French in opinion surveys. But the French are still in favor of reducing unemployment benefits until we find ourselves unemployed, argued Mr. Houli, believing that the rules were already strict.
According to the president of the Laws Commission, who prefers in particular to point out a concern for the attractiveness of professions to explain the persistence of unemployment, several parliamentarians from the left wing hold the same line regarding the government’s project.
Thus, the former Minister of Transport Clément Beaune said on Sunday on franceinfo that he was cautious about this new reform, recognizing that there was a risk of making the most vulnerable more vulnerable if we moved towards parameters that are too harsh.