Lately I've heard many a time of people, both Swiss and foreigners working here- saying that they've had enough and want to give up their job and sign on RAV.
An article written by a legal specialist in employment in our local paper has clarified the situation, following the case of an employee who gave up his job and then signed on and was refused RAV and appealed the decision- which was refused again. Legally RAV can refuse to pay unemployment contributions if the employee has not discussed any difficulty incurred with his job, his employer, mobbing, or whatever- and asked for help in solving such problems and made every effort to improve the situation. An employee cannot decide to just quit, without all procedures put in place to make every attempt to 'make it work' with the recorded support of the employer. In many cases, RAV can be merely delayed for a certain period- or refused all together. The advice is a/ to discuss any difficulties with the employer and work with them on resolving the issues and b/ ensure that you have a new post in place before quitting- or be faced with a refusal from RAV.
Article in the Neuchâtel Express employment section today.
Hardly a surprise as RAV benefits are insurance against LOSING ones job. I am surprised leaving by choice is ever covered at all.
Indeed- however you'd be surprised how many people I've heard recently say they are fed up with the job, have worked the statutory time required for RAV, and intend to just give up job then look for something else- expecting RAV to support them in the meantine. One of our Swiss friend did exactly that- but his problems with hir Firm were well recorded, including meetings, advice and how support/changes were NOT implemented- it was also well-known that the Firm was going to close and remove activities abroad. He lost 3 months RAV, but then got it until he found a new job 4 months later.
I didn't think that it was ultimately the RAV that decide on payments, fines and refusal, etc. In the past, while I've been under the RAV, they always maintained that it was the Kasse that implemented such sanctions and it was up to the RAV to report to them their individual cases.
For example, if you are late in submitting your monthly job search form, or you refuse to go on a language course or turn down a job, the RAV is duty bound to inform the Kasse and they then impose the sanctions.
The RAV, in my experience seems to just be the "client-facing" arm of the unemployment process.
Given that there is no such thing as "constructive dismissal" in Switzerland, it damn well should be covered.
It's not covered by the unemployment benefits but I believe it's possible to pursue it independently through the employment courts. The RAV isn't there to act as arbitrator or apportion blame, which is quite right - it is there to provide insurance under the criteria set out by law. Any mitigating circumstances are dealt with separately.
That's not what I was trying to say. If someone is unable to go to work without being (for example) bullied or in other ways mistreated, then they should be able to leave. Fatmanfilms said "I am surprised leaving by choice is ever covered at all." I was pointing out that there are circumstances when one should be able to leave by choice, whatever the mechanism after that might be that allows one to receive unemployment money.
"Constructive dismissal" is open to abuse though, so I think it's right that they consider each case on its merits.
The trouble with a generous benefit like the RAV is that it's designed for nice law-abiding Swiss people. If there is too much abuse it will become harder to get, even for those who really need it.
Absolutely, I agree, but the question is how would you police it so it wouldn't be abused?
The current criteria can (fairly) easily be policed but if you wanted to leave because you were basically forced out you would need some pretty hefty evidence.
When I worked in the UK for a newspaper, one of the sub-editors was effectively forced out by the editor in chief. Everyone knew what was going on and it went on over a period of months. The poor bugger tried to go through the constructive dismissal route based on a few emails and hearsay from colleagues. Needless to say, it was thrown out.
Constructive dismissal is a slippery fish at the best of times, even when there is tons of documentation and evidence. I can't see the RAV touching it, preferring to leave it to the individual to pursue it via the employment courts.
Of course you can leave by choice, but the point made earlier was that if you expect to be supported by the state, you should at least have evidence that you had reported the problem and tried to resolve it, and that resigning was a last resort. If you are allowed to leave your job on a whim and claim RAV then it is likely to be abused.
With RAV benefits you must by law do any work your offered, so if you left on your own you don't have a chance of getting paid out its insurance against loosing your job, not insurance for not liking your job. You could always ask to be fired........
I agree. There's a ton of grey between black and white and many "voluntary" resignations are far from voluntary.
Apart from that, there's a difference between being fed up with a job and saying you want to quit - and actually doing it. I know plenty of the former category but hardly any of the latter. Those who eventually did quit usually did so after having a new job lined up, or took the risk and didn't sign up for RAV at all, despite not having a new job. I also know plenty of people who actually did lose their jobs and still didn't go to the RAV.
I dare to say there is VERY little abuse of the system in Switzerland. I go even further and say that the unemployment rate would be substantially higher if all unemployed actually registered as such.
maybe they should be able to charge higher insurance premiums for the high risk clients
I suspect 100% of people entitled to unemployment benefits are registered.....It would be curious why people would turn down money they are entitled to, for which they were forced to pay an insurance premium.
LOL- the term mostly used on EF- chômage for you and me (well not me- I've never benefited from it)-
User, the point is, that you can't leave and say it is because of bullying/mobbing- if you have not discussed this with HR, or boss- asked for some advice and support- and making efforts to implement changes on both sides, over a fair period of time. The guy in the case in the paper claimed he was being mobbed- but as he had never discussed this with Seniors, nor asked for advice and support in resolving the problem- it was refused. He didn't give the business a chance to deal with the problems - and didn't himself show evidence that he had followed advice, etc + of course as nothing was recorded on either side- it was impossible to prove in hindsight.
The great advantage of not speaking the local language is you can ignore a lot of the background crap if you want to .
Because they are ashamed.
I guess its the same for people who fail to claim on their medical insurance when they are ill, car insurance when they crash their car.
Very much so. Employer says 'we can fire you or you can resign and we'll put on your reference that you left voluntarily'. Rock and a hard place.