the Ministry decided to revive the non-state model of unemployment insurance. In case of realization of this idea, with employers will begin taking contributions in the special budget Fund, which is then lost place workers will get benefits applying to employment centers. While such a perspective seems vague: categorically against the business – not every company is willing to increase the financial burden, especially in a crisis.
the Position of the Ministry of labor reflected in the document sent to the Russian tripartite Commission on regulation socially-labour relations. Headed by Anton Kotakova the Agency proposes to amend the legislation of the Russian Federation changes that pertain to insurance principles of protection against unemployment. But this conceptual puzzle is not formed without the consent of the other two sides of the conditional triangle – the Russian Union of Industrialists and entrepreneurs (RSPP) and the Federation of independent trade unions of Russia (FNPR). First against the motion and second, and a trade-off there is no smell.
meanwhile, in Russia since the early 1990s to 2001, worked quite successfully the mechanism of unemployment insurance in the form of extrabudgetary employment Fund, which is filled by collecting contributions in the amount of 1.5–2% of the payroll. This model is characteristic of most Western States. Its economic sense to ensure compensation for loss of earnings. At least twice in the past decade – in 2014 and 2017 – for the opportunity to go back to the system advocated by the then labor Minister Maxim Topilin. The Minister called concrete figures: 1% of insurance contributions from salaries is of the order of 200 billion rubles a year.
Until recently on unemployment benefits on average spend about 40 billion rubles a year, thus, theoretically, payments could grow five times. In addition, said Topilin, gone rigid adherence to the expenditure obligations of the budget, not having a specific funding source. But then (as now), the initiative met with fierce resistance from employers. They were outraged, reminding that list for their employees insurance premiums in the amount of 30% of salary to the Pension Fund, social insurance Fund and mandatory medical insurance Fund.
in 2001 When the government refused insurance funding of employment policies and introduced purely fiscal, it made a mistake. So the return to the former practice would have been quite a smart move, says ex-Deputy Minister of labour, member of the Board of Confederation of labour of Russia Pavel Kudyukin. The main difficulty the interlocutor of “MK” sees extremely large unregistered sector. To the social Fund of the informal sector are not going any taxes or deductions. And if a new insurance scheme from BasraBotica will fail to start, then some additional amounts for non-state employment Fund will still have to take from the budget.
it is Understandable why employers are against – it is another burden, Kudyukin says. But what are the deductions to the social Fund? In fact, this form of social solidarity, however, somewhat forced. For example, I have a job, but someone else, without it, receive benefits, thanks paid to me by company contributions. Not everyone is insured insured cases.
According Kudyukin in the new system, unemployed people must apply for benefits in the employment center at the place of residence. Now benefits are financed from regional budgets at the expense of subsidies from the Federal Treasury (this is called delegated authority). As non-state employment Fund. The launch of such a mechanism will only be a matter of political will, says the expert.
“I do Not believe such a prospect, says Professor of the Financial University under the government of the Russian Federation Alexey Prong. – In principle, non-insurance mechanism against unemployment can be created, but to make it mass – barely. We must understand that we are talking about money, and our government is not interested in extension of unemployment benefits”.
According to experts, the size of the current payments are sufficient not to die of hunger, nothing more. The authorities do not want to in Russia there was a class of hereditary unemployed, as, for example, in Spain, where a monthly allowance of €1.5 thousand allows you to live in peace, even in large cities. Benefits should not be an alternative to salary. In addition, like Barb, we have two-thirds of employees are not threatened by job loss. This state employees, civil servants, employees of the defense industry. What they should be insured, as well as the personnel of oil and gas holdings? Remains small and medium businesses, but he is now broke and will not be able to kick anyone a penny.
