By the way, there is the possibility that people will just assume you are on the RAV. In which case you end up with the worst of both worlds - the nasty rumours with no money.
I'm still working as hard as ever (the grant ended before my thesis did, is all ) so doubt there'll be any rumors going around. Unless some of my new neighbors are on EF...
I'll email your village and tell them.
[/laughs evilly] [/thunder claps]
Lest I overstate the case, the Swiss friends-and-colleagues I asked didn't all come out against it on social-stigma grounds, and even those who did often qualified their objections: "if you still lived in Zurich it'd be a different story, but..."
Hassle was at least an equally common objection though, hassle vs. payout and also hassle vs. need. If the sum had been bigger, if I had a family to support, etc. etc.
I think social security is a great thing we accomplished in the western world, if only people would use it who actually need it. If you loose your job and you have no new offer or a large bridge period it's a God send (or whatever that is called). The Swiss had a system of low taxes and a good social security system. Mainly because of the fact the Swiss (usually) only took what they needed. I foresee this system will fail in the future if too many people start to want cash.
But only thinking as it as money on the table is misuse of Government funds and not very correct, rightfully or not.
You can say and rant about Swiss people whatever you like, but the common way of acting in this country was always: "what's good for my country is good for me". People from other countries (incl my own home country, Holland) seem to follow the motto. "What's good for me it is good for me, me , me"
Many cantons (if not all) have more than one Kasse to choose from and clients are asked to select one. The Kassen actually compete for your business to pay out benefits! They are paid to pay out!
As noted above, unemployment benefits in Switzerland are not standard "social security" payments, but straight-out insurance claim payments. Why pay into the scheme unless you're going to claim? Since it's compulsory to pay in, why not get paid out when unwanted unemployment strikes?
As for your statement about "a good salary", I think MathNut made it clear that we're not talking merchant banker remuneration here -- so, all the more reason to take the money that's rightfully hers. And what if the new job offer goes belly-up? Is it then still "frankly disgraceful" to claim on unemployment insurance ? And who are you to decide whether one "should need" unemployment benefits? Do you profess to know the personal situation of every person in Switzerland?
You don't take any cash from RAV, as I've explained. And do you realise that the RAV does a lot more for the unemployed than facilitation of payment of benefits? If everyone who was entitled to unemployment benefits didn't claim, those "people in RAV" would soon be out of a job ... and presumably "shouldn't need" any unemployment benefits, right?
I think nowadays you simply go to the RAV and take the money. I do agree that wealthy people should not get tax money, but this is insurance money as 22 yards pointed out... and we all pay our fees for the insurance.
- I did not say it is a disgrace, just that I think it is (meaning it is my opinion), and I am entitled to my opinion
- If you already have a job lined up, you are not unemployed in my view, unemployment insurance or social security: it does not make a huge difference if all 1 month bridgers start to use it, the costs for everybody will rise and/or the benefits for the people who really need it will drop. People who really need it are people with no new job lined up, and people on a low income (and 120K is not low) who have to bridge.
What bugs me is the fact that people take this money and then also complain about what they have to do for it: well if they don;t want to sit and listen to what it means to be unemployed because they think they are not, then also don;t take that money. In my opinion you are then just taking a month holiday on the costs of the tax/premium payer. You can (again) groan about this, but that's my opinion.
Accident insurance will run out 30 days after your last job finished, it can be extended by the employer, however by law it's 30 days.
If you open a rahemnfrist it will run for 24 months regardless. It's based on your last 12 months salary. If you were to loose your job in 6 months, the salary calculations are done. If your new salary higher or lower?
If you loose your job in 5 months time, without having opened a rahmnenfrist, one month has a ZERO salary this is used in the calculations! Depending on the no of waiting days, lowering your yearly salary might not be so bad thing, especially for cash flow!
actually, i've been thinking about this since my job is looking a bit shakier and wondered what one can/should do in terms of extra insurance/protection against unemployement. any ideas?
Unemployed means has no jobs...does not mean will get a job in 1-2-3-or 6 months. So for you a 6 months bridging is impossible for a 120k earner?
There are rules and laws and if the person meets the criteria to get a bridge funding then the person should get it regardless of any personal moral judgement. That's why we have rules.
Systems that will only punish high-earners will go to a collapse sometime.
Can you be more specific....you seem to point at someone in this thread.
You built your previous argumentation on the swiss-foreigners model opposition regarding abuse of system. Don't forget that foreigners also contribute to funding the whole system.
Second I was not pointing at someone specific, but to some of the posters who were complaining about the things you have to do in order to get that money. And for the difference in foreigners/swiss people: I am only interested in the difference of moral and have not said anything about that foreigners have less rights then the swiss. What I can understand is that swiss people might feel kind of sour if they look at the new people in their country changing things because of different moral.
Cause whether you agree or not: it is a fact that if you have a system where everybody pays a certain amount and only when it is really necessary people will take an amount, that system will not work when people change and take whatever they can get. Money will disappear like water in a bach. One way or another: the premiums will rise or you'll get less if you are in the need. Is that what you want?
To add: I have seen this in my home country: the Netherlands, where everybody took what they could get. The rules are now tightened so hard that it mainly hits the people who are really in the need, it changed the entire morale of the country from a cultural diverse into a xenophobic country. Switzerland is not so xenophobic as lots of people think it is, but that might change and I would not like to see that happening cause what is happening in NL is not fun.