[ad_1]
The lack of control on the part of the employment service concerns them if they are jointly and severally affiliated to the unemployment benefits.
If there is a general idea of the operation of the job seekers' control by the employment agency, it probably contains stories about people forced to leave a rotten colony to work in a new place, in the "new cold Sweden".
Photo: Fredrik Sandberg / TT
The members of a cashier will finance an insurance plan, but will pay a fee for something that tends to be a supply system.
The reality is another. The Unemployment Insurance Inspectorate notes with a very unusual distinction that the employment service does not fulfill its supervisory role. Some examples: if a job seeker does not look for work – and is therefore not available on the job market – the cash register will be notified – this does not happen in the majority of cases. When the employment service contacts employers and checks whether a job seeker is actually looking for a vacancy, he responds in 35% of cases where the job is not correct. In the majority of cases, when a job seeker is not looking for a designated job, the agency never leaves notice to the cashier.
Lack of control is losing everything. The unemployed end up even more in the labor market if they do not look for work sooner. Confidence in government diminishes when authorities do not follow targeted decision-making.
But there is a rarely mentioned group that is also a loser.
The rate of connection to the cashier is about 70%. Members of the 27 a-box agreed on what should be somehow a mutual insurance system. However, if the employment service does not apply rules, the insurance system becomes a kind of alternative supply system.
The members of the prize box pay five billion crowns a year in prizes. That's 30% of the cashier's expenses.
The conversion function and the insurance portfolio weaken considerably if compensation is paid in violation of the proposed regulations. The cash registers managed by the unions obviously obtain incomplete information from the employment service and pay compensation for a bad reason.
The employment service is de facto not only the taxpayers' money, but also the funds financed by the members that are funded voluntarily and jointly. Union members have agreed to criticize the employment service for defending the interests of their own members.
Source link
