We represent two unions, which together represent almost two of three employees at the employment service. One of our members has fluctuated between confusion and despair, as well as many other citizens. Now, we and the responsible politicians to be constructive, and seriously addressing the challenges that exist. We want to contribute to a wise conversion of labour market policies and the public employment service.
It is with this constructive approach, we are now looking at what policy signals in januariavtalet, directions and budgetspecificeringar. And it is now the second wave of concern present themselves. We must not confuse it. In a lot of areas are not in a position for it to land well. There are countless hard facts that will not be able to deliver it as januariavtalet stipulates.
• a budget that matches the desire in januariavtalet.
• the organisation or the skills that are required for it to be ensured that the stand-alone players offer high-quality services.
• the established collaboration with municipalities is required.
• the allocation of resources in the förvaltningsanslaget necessary to safeguard the disabled.
• digitaliseringskunskap of the job seekers or the digital infrastructure that makes digitization can solve the situation when were third at the employment agency is terminated.
• stand-alone operators with all the specialist skills required to take over such large parts of the public Employment service’s mission.
It can be both more efficient and streamlined. But there is not the budget, the organisation or the skills in place it will not work. Those who mainly suffer are the seekers, not least those furthest away from their next job.
To go from the 242 to the perhaps over 70 staffed offices is not a reasonable and sustainable transition.
When the to and with the public Employment service’s director-general says that he doesn’t have a clue about what the politicians think will happen with, for example, newcomers ‘ introduction, and the disabled, both of which are very large mission within the employment services, we mean that it is time to make halvhalt, think, and do if.
Some extremely visible areas that need to be clarified and ensured in a short time to the reform of the employment services and labour market policies should fall out well are:
1 Secure PERMISSION . We need to find a good way to assure the quality of LOV-the solution that is described in the januariavtalet. The employment service has a bad experience of the previous GOODNESS-solutions that establishment, and job coaches. Both specifications payment models and the control function must be developed. How can PERMISSION be secured in places where there is no stand-alone player, or maybe just one? LOV is a model for freedom of choice for the job, but based on that they can make an informed choice and have good options to choose between. It can not be ensured with the present conditions.
2 Interact with the municipalities. To go from the 242 to the perhaps over 70 staffed offices is not a reasonable and sustainable transition. They small the offices serve an important function, not least for those furthest from the labour market. Cooperation agreement must be immediately signed with the municipalities which clarifies the division of roles that should exist between the employment agency and Sweden’s 290 municipalities, in order to ensure a local presence of recruitment agents throughout the country. The agreements must also solve the lokalfrågan.
3 Take the opportunity in vårändringsbudgeten. A majority in the parliament think that the M/KD:s budgetreservation do not have a reasonable impact assessment. It must be revised in vårändringsbudgeten. It can’t be lost nearly a billion from the förvaltningsanslaget for independent operators instead should match and equip, but that it is provisioned to the right stand-alone players. Today, it is the addition to zero. 4 500 fewer advisers are not free to replace with stand-alone players.
4 Use anslagskrediten smart. We welcome the fact that anslagskrediten to the public employment service has been increased from 3 to 5 per cent. The credit means 150 million to ”borrow” from the next year in order to mitigate a reduction in appropriations of nearly 900 million. One-sixth of the money makes no miracles, but it makes clear that they must be used smartly to ensure key features and suppress the notice. They can not be used solely to digitisation which is good, but in a few way helps job seekers who are furthest from the labour market.
5 Protect the disabled. In januariavtalet that ”the efforts of persons with disabilities is not affected by this change”. At the same time, we now have the signals of two of three of the employees on the affected unit (AR – Vocational rehabilitation) will be terminated. There are psychologists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, social workers, audiologists and others, whose professions are very rare among independent actors. If januariavtalets intention to apply, politicians have to return to the question of how it should be solved. Just lay off is not a solution.
6 Be clear about the establishment. 2010 gave the alliance government, the so-called etableringsuppdraget to the employment service having previously been a municipal responsibility. Then was the Employment mission much larger, which is an important explanation for the number of employees increased so much. In januariavtalet is not one word about etableringsuppdraget. Clarifies it.
7 spark an industrial emergency. Now given 4,500 people – one of the largest notice we have seen in Sweden. When the other big notice added Wednesday, a major industrial emergency plan started, from policy direction. Why not do it now? Why value the government different groups, the spectre of unemployment so different?
Where there were excellent opportunities to straighten out the question marks are. But the only thing that has changed is that a date for the projections has been moved a month and anslagskrediten has been increased by sek 153 million. It is only clear that has happened since the debacle with the M/KD-reservation, in december, is thus an extended anslagskredit. It is a much needed decision, but fail.
It is possible to create a good labour market policy also in other ways than in the way the public employment service has been organised so far. It can probably also be done if you get to a smarter LOV-solution than the ones we have seen so far, even though the challenges are many. But it will not go through to the prang employment service which now unfortunately is the main scenario.
It is only clear that has happened since the debacle with the M/KD-reservation, in december, is an extended anslagskredit. It is a much needed decision, but completely inadequate, write to the authors.
