DIn his program for the 2017 presidential election, Emmanuel Macron promised to compensate resignations in order to streamline the labor market. This proposal reflects a desire to increase “flexibility”, in particular by taking as an example the employment policies in force in the Scandinavian countries. The aim of these policies is to easily end unproductive jobs, facilitate professional transitions and labor reallocation, while guaranteeing employees generous unemployment insurance and good training and retraining prospects.
Contrary to the 2017 proposal, now the question, in search of savings, is reducing the conventional layoff system created in 2008 with the same philosophy: allowing employees to leave their jobs while retaining their right to unemployment insurance if their employer is prepared to pay severance pay. Conventional layoffs appear to be a casualty of its success: nearly half a million employees will use them by 2024, at a cost of 9 billion euros.
The difficulty in evaluating unemployment rights-friendly layoff systems is that examples of abuse and harm to public finances are readily apparent, while indirect benefits to the labor market are much more difficult to measure. However, we do have some elements.
First, economists Cyprien Batut and Eric Maurin show that the goal of fluidification was indeed achieved: the overall level of inequality increased by almost 20% after the implementation of the system in 2008. At the same time, worker recruitment also increased, but at a lower rate, which also led to a slight decrease in total employment.
Costs and benefits
But what are the productivity and efficiency gains for? According to the widespread picture of the labor market as a matter of matching company needs and employee skills, reallocation should be a source of increased efficiency. Simply put, because it is the most unsuitable employees who have to leave in search of more productive and well-paying work.
You have 39.15% of this article left to read. The remainder is provided to customers.
