One of the basic principles of social insurance in general and unemployment insurance (UI) in particular is to protect employees when they are at risk of losing their jobs.
However, in reality, as the National Assembly deputies pointed out at the discussion session in the hall about a number of contents with different opinions of the draft Law on Employment (amended), on the morning of May 7, it showed a paradox: many employees, despite having their monthly unemployment insurance contributions deducted, still do not enjoy unemployment benefits, because businesses do not pay their obligations to the insurance agency.
This problem is not new, but has been persistent for many years. There are many cases where businesses deduct workers' salaries regularly, but deliberately owe, or even evade paying unemployment insurance.
When workers quit their jobs, they could not close their insurance books and were not eligible for unemployment benefits, while all evidence of deduction was on the salary table. Obviously, workers are not wrong, but they are the only one to suffer the consequences.
The question is where is the fairness and responsibility of the management agency? Has the mechanism to protect vulnerable people really played a role?
The delegate of Vo Manh Son (Thanh Hoa) proposed additional regulations: If the employer has deducted from unemployment payment of the employee for 12 months within 24 or 36 months before termination of the contract, the employee is still entitled to unemployment allowance, which is a very reasonable proposal, need to be studied to be added to supplement into the law.
We cannot let businesses violate but workers suffer. Just like we cannot let the weaknesses in the monitoring and enforcement of debt collection stage of social insurance agencies become a "legal loophole" to deny responsibility to employees.
Because if we consider legal principles, employees have fulfilled their obligations when their salaries have been deducted. The remaining issue is whether the collection and payment is transparent and whether there is fraud or not, that is the responsibility of the enterprise and the management agency.
There is no reason to force workers to suffer double consequences: job loss, and loss of insurance coverage.
Moreover, allowing employees to receive allowances based on the deducted portion does not mean laxing off the violating enterprise. The State can and must use measures of administrative enforcement, sanctions, interest calculation, and lawsuits against enterprises to recover to the insurance fund.
This not only ensures social security, but also demonstrates the principle of rule of law, where anyone is at fault, that person is responsible, not allowed to " blam" or push damage to weaker subjects.
If the current legal loopholes are not closed, it will erode trust in the social security system, and cause insurance policies to be "inactive" in the eyes of those who need the most protection.
