“Socially not fair”
Supreme social justice judge calls for mini-jobs to be abolished
January 30, 2024, 4:26 p.m
The President of the Federal Social Court, Rainer Schlegel, sees a significant need for reform in the German welfare state: abolishing marginal employment and restructuring spouse splitting. He believes that more drastic steps are possible when it comes to sanctions for those receiving citizens’ benefit.
The President of the Federal Social Court, Rainer Schlegel, is calling for an end to marginal employment, so-called mini-jobs, in Germany. “Many labor market policy measures come from times when we had high unemployment. Even marginal employment, the so-called mini-jobs, are an anachronism,” Schlegel told the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung“. Therefore he demands: “They should be abolished or only allowed for schoolchildren and students. Such a reform would relieve the burden on social security funds and be good for the labor market.” The 65-year-old Schlegel has been President of the Federal Social Court since 2016.
From his point of view, the mini-job job model, in which up to 538 euros per month can be earned tax-free, is “socially not fair” because it causes costs for the general public – especially as soon as the employees reach retirement age. “If people are marginally employed throughout their lives, they do not receive an adequate pension,” said the President of the Federal Social Court. “Although the legislature has also introduced compulsory pension insurance for marginally employed people, it allows mini-jobbers to be exempted without any further justification.”
He also criticizes other political measures as misguided because they create incentives for part-time work, such as non-contributory co-insurance of spouses in health insurance. “We should also think about converting the spouse splitting into a family splitting. This would make marginal employment less attractive.”
Citizens’ money sanctions are “going in the right direction”
Schlegel also criticizes the twelve percent increase in citizens’ allowances that took place at the beginning of the year. “It was provided for by law, so the law should have provided for less drastic increases. Even the threshold at which someone is in need was significantly lowered in the Citizens’ Benefit Act.”
From his point of view, federal policy could also decide on more extensive sanctions against recipients of citizens’ benefit. “Politicians should not have backtracked on sanctions as much as they did after the Karlsruhe ruling on benefit cuts,” says Schlegel. “In its case law on Hartz IV, the Federal Constitutional Court stated clearly that total refusers can be denied benefits if they refuse work that is reasonable for them without an objective reason.”
In his view, the federal government’s current plans to temporarily completely cut off the salaries of those receiving citizens’ benefit are, in his view, “going in the right direction”. One could take even tougher action, according to Germany’s highest social judge. He sees no problems with the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court. “Karlsruhe also allows complete withdrawal of benefits. The government won’t go that far. It wants to deny the entitlement for a maximum of two months. Only the standard requirements would be affected; payments for accommodation and heating should continue.”