The conditions of compensation have evolved since June 1, in particular the sanctions in the event of breaches of the rules. It is both stricter and more “flexible”. Explanations.
It was planned, and it is the top floor of the so -called “law full employment” rocket. Which provides for a unification of all employment players (France Labor, Mission Local, Cap Emploi, Department), to create the employment network. “This was already the case, we worked together, we exchanged information,” conceded Catherine Guilbaudeau, the territorial director of France Labe, “but it is now concretized by the establishment of a unique commitment contract, common to all actors.” This allows, in particular, to select the courses best suited to each individual. “Yes, each case is different, some need a journey to employment, others with a social boost to go to employment, others of real social support. And that can change depending on evolution, nothing is frozen.” As a result, it is the “commitment contract”, a kind of confidence pact.
Individual contracts
“It is a contract that engages the two parties. It is individualized and the novelty is that it is signed after an individual interview, opposite, with the advisor who will then follow the person in his career, whatever the structure that takes him into account. It is a real commitment, which is coconstructed with the beneficiary and therefore completely individualized, taking into account all the aspects.” Suddenly, there is necessarily an even greater reciprocity between the two parties, and this commitment contract is compulsory for all beneficiaries of social benefits (unemployment insurance, RSA, special solidarity allowance, etc.), and it includes automatic registration in the France work file for a job search.
Unified and graduated sanctions
Uniform obligations, that implies identical sanctions in the event of a breach … with a single scale, which also takes into account individual situations. To put it simply, in the event of a breach, there is no immediate penalty, the services launch an “alert”, and contact the person concerned. “The idea is not to punish as it could be done in the past by radiating directly. Because it is not effective, in any case the beneficiary can re -register after a few months, and all that we had done is to be redone. The objective is rather to re -mobilize, to start on the right foot.” Obviously, it’s for “little” breaches. Otherwise, the sanctions are graduated, with suspensions of the services which can range from 30 to 100 % on more or less long periods. “Again, the legislator did not want to punish directly by removing the performances overnight, but to cause awareness.” Obviously, for “serious” shortcomings, radiation always hovers above the most recalcitrant heads. It can intervene in the event of recurrences, but also for refusal of two so -called reasonable offers (which is always questionable) of employment, or in the event of fraud or false declaration, a radiation which induces the stopping of services, and can be doubled by a prohibition of re -enrollment up to 12 months. As for the sums unduly perceived, they are the subject of a tight hunt and are, in most cases, recovered.
