Insure Workers and Their Dependents Agains Their Own Property

Abstract

The unfolding COVID‑19 crisis is challenging people, households and firms in unprecedented ways. Containing the pandemic and protecting people is the superlative priority. But disrupted supply chains, containment measures that are limiting economic and social interactions and falling demand put people'south jobs and livelihoods at hazard. An immediate employment and social-policy response is needed. Reducing workers' exposure to COVID‑19 in the workplace and ensuring admission to income support for ill and quarantined workers are essential. Working parents need help with unforeseen care needs every bit schools are closing and elderly relatives are especially vulnerable. Brusque-time piece of work schemes tin can assistance protect jobs and provide relief to struggling companies, as evidenced during the terminal financial and economic crisis. Workers who lose their jobs and incomes, including those in non-standard forms of employment, need income support. As companies are suffering from a abrupt drop in demand, rapid financial support through grants or credits can help them span liquidity gaps. Many afflicted countries introduced or announced bold measures over the concluding days and weeks, often with a focus on supporting the most vulnerable who are bearing a asymmetric share of the burden. This notation, and the accompanying policy tabular array, contributes to bear witness-sharing on the part and effectiveness of various policy tools.

The outbreak of the COVID‑xix virus poses an unprecedented, major challenge to economies and societies. The global economic system faces its biggest danger since the fiscal crunch. Containing the epidemic and protecting people is the top priority. Reinforcing health systems and medical enquiry to ensure that appropriate care can be provided to all those infected past the virus comes outset; just governments also need to notice fast and effective solutions to deal with the economic and social affect on workers and companies of both the disease itself and the furnishings of the containment measures taken to limit the spread of the virus.

This crisis is of a different nature than previous ones, and it requires a dissimilar mix and timing of policy responses. The spread of the COVID‑xix virus interrupted international supply chains, notably with China, and is forcing workers to remain at home because they are quarantined, sick or subject to lockdowns. Such a "supply shock" is very difficult to address with standard monetary and fiscal policy tools. As companies are finding themselves forced to interrupt and scale down operations, they lose the capacity to keep paying their employees' wages. This threatens households' incomes and, combined with growing uncertainty, reduces household consumption – a "demand stupor" that will put further pressure on companies and their employees likewise every bit on independent workers. In addition to fighting the public-health emergency, governments therefore have to motility swiftly to provide employers and contained workers with liquidity and strengthen income support for workers and their families.

This note is a first attempt at setting out the employment and social-policy tools at governments' disposal to counter the economical and social impact of the COVID‑19 crisis. Many of these measures are already being taken by countries around world; others will follow equally the situation evolves over the coming days and weeks. This cursory is therefore accompanied by an overview table of countries' policy responses, available online, which volition be continuously updated.

Reducing workers' exposure to the COVID‑19 virus in the workplace

Many countries are taking measures to limit physical interaction. The first focus was on interpersonal interactions in the workplace and the daily commute, given that workplaces and public transport often gather large numbers of people and thereby increase their take chances of contracting and spreading the COVID‑xix virus.

Policy options to reduce workers' exposure to the COVID‑19 virus in the workplace

Relaxing existing regulations or introducing new options for teleworking.
Providing fiscal and non-fiscal assistance to pocket-size and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to help them rapidly develop teleworking capacity and constructive teleworking routines.
Encouraging employers' organisations to inform their members of the benefits of telework and to offering assistance.
Collaborating with technology companies to provide SMEs and the cocky-employed with costless and rapid access to communication and sharing tools.
Providing, or encouraging unions and employers to negotiate guidelines to reduce workers' exposure in those workplaces where telework is not possible.

Too calls to strictly follow germ-free guidelines, governments and employers have been encouraging prolonged "teleworking" which, with the correct It equipment, is possible in many workplaces. Indeed, teleworking has become increasingly common over the past decade or and so. While some employers have been hesitant to promote it, information technology is at present in their direct interest to reduce their employees' exposure to the virus to limit sickness-related absences and maintain operations. Where a minimum staff presence at the workplace is required, "rotating" teleworking tin can be used. Employers can as well reorganise work routines to limit interpersonal contact, e.g. by reducing office sharing and cancelling larger meetings. Some activities, still, will ever require workers to be physically present, such as in the intendance, ship and retail industries, the energy sector and emergency services.

Regulations permitting teleworking exist in many OECD countries, both in law and collective bargaining; sometimes these are quite restrictive and may crave an ex dues understanding by social partners. Such requirements can exist eased. Italian republic for case simplified the procedure for teleworking: for the side by side half dozen months, companies and employees can arrange teleworking without a prior agreement with unions, without a written agreement and at the employee's identify of choice. To ensure the wellness and safety of workers who cannot work from dwelling house, social partners have signed a bounden agreement on the procedures to reduce workers' exposure to the COVID‑19 virus in the workplace.

Governments are also providing different types of back up to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to help them quickly develop teleworking capacities through fiscal help to purchase equipment and past supporting the evolution of suitable teleworking policies. In Nippon, for instance, firms can now receive a subsidy of fifty% (up to JPY 1 million) towards the cost of installing telework facilities. The Italian Ministry of Innovation has set up a website that provides an overview of the various available web-based tools that permit remote work and remote education (https://solidarietadigitale.agid.gov.information technology/). Some large tech companies, including Amazon Web Services, Cisco, Dropbox and Google, provide temporary free-of-accuse access to some of their communication and sharing tools to companies and workers.

In some countries, and for some groups, poor housing conditions may brand it difficult for people to self-isolate and can make effective teleworking impossible. In the confront of an communicable diseases like COVID‑xix, overcrowding can exist particularly problematic equally it prevents concrete distancing and facilitates the spread of the illness when a household member gets sick. More a quarter of all households in Latvia, Mexico, Poland and the Slovak Republic live in overcrowded conditions. Also, up to a quarter of households in ten OECD countries practise non have a personal computer; in Turkey and Mexico, fewer than half of households have access to a estimator at home.

Providing income replacement to ill workers and their families

Paid sick leave is a crucial tool for addressing the economic impact of the COVID‑19 crisis for workers and their families. It can provide some income continuity for workers who are unable to work because they accept been diagnosed with COVID‑19 or have to self-isolate. By ensuring that ill workers tin afford to remain at home until they are no longer contagious, paid sick exit also helps to slow the manual of the virus.

Policy options for strengthening income back up for sick workers and their families

Extending paid sick leave coverage to not-standard workers, including the self-employed.
Extending the duration of paid sick go out or waiving waiting periods and aligning them with quarantine and medical recommendations.
Adapting reporting requirements to admission paid sick leave, due east.m. past waiving the demand for medical certification.

Well-nigh OECD countries provide workers with financial compensation during sick leave. Often, the initial period is covered by the employer, in the form of continued wage payment for a period of 5-15 days in nigh OECD countries, but upward to several weeks or months, e.g. in Austria, Federal republic of germany or Italian republic and fifty-fifty 2 years in the netherlands. In add-on, almost all OECD countries provide publicly paid income support for ill workers that tin can extend far beyond employers' liabilities, for upward to one year in many OECD countries and fifty-fifty longer than this in some. The level of compensation during ill leave is high in many countries, typically replacing around 50-80% of the last wage, and fifty-fifty up to 100% in countries similar the Netherlands and Norway. In countries with the virtually generous systems, total spending on paid sick get out, including employer payments and public sickness benefit, sums to 3% of full employee bounty or more than (come across Figure i).

Figure 1. Sick-leave compensation is substantial in some countries

Still, in some countries, sick-leave compensation only covers a pocket-size fraction of the previous wage and / or is shorter than the recommended period of cocky-isolation for people with COVID‑19 symptoms. For instance, Korea and the United States have no generally applicative statutory obligations for employers to continue wage payments in example of illness and also do non provide for statutory public sickness benefits (OECD, 2018[1]). Comprehensive spending data on employer-provided sick pay is non bachelor for the United States, simply a quarter of U.S. workers practise not have access to paid sick get out at all (rising to i half for depression-wage workers), and 2 thirds of workers who do accrue less than 10 days of paid sick exit per yr (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019[ii]). With the "Families First CoronaVirus Response Act", the United States introduced two weeks of paid sick leave for workers impacted past the COVID‑19 virus, which will initially be paid by employers only be fully reimbursed past the federal government.

In many countries, access to paid ill leave is limited for non-standard workers. Heavy reliance on voluntary employer provisions can mean lower coverage in role-time jobs and for employees on curt-time contracts. These gaps are a concern particularly when wellness risks are elevated for these groups, eastward.m., considering of greater exposure to infection risks in the service sector. In Australia for example, self-employed and casual workers are not entitled to sick pay. But gaps impact public provisions also, especially for self-employed workers (see Figure two). In holland, they practise non have to be insured against temporary income loss acquired by disease; they can opt for private insurance but only a minority do so. They can, however, receive an income supplement, upwards to the level of regular social assistance or a zero-interest loan. In Italy, self-employed workers practise non take any statutory sickness insurance, although some may be covered past occupational schemes. For temporary workers, maximum sickness benefit durations are typically shorter than for those on permanent contracts considering the do good duration is ofttimes limited past the end appointment of the temporary contract. For temporary workers in Italy, the benefit duration also depends on days worked in the past year (which is non the example for permanent employees).

In some countries, sickness benefit coverage is mandatory for self-employed workers with incomes above a sure minimum (for others, coverage may be voluntary). Simply maximum entitlement periods may be shorter and waiting periods much longer for self-employed than for dependent employees, e.g. 10 days in Portugal (iii days for employees), and 7 days in France (3 days for employees).

Governments have been adopting a series of measures to supervene upon incomes for ill workers during the COVID‑xix crunch. Portugal waived the waiting flow for self-employed workers on sickness do good. The United Kingdom appear that it will abolish the iii-day waiting period for employer-provided statutory pay every bit well every bit the 1-calendar week waiting period for an allowance is payable to low earners and the cocky-employed. In Austria, people who may have COVID‑19 are non required to transport a sickness document because Austrian policy is very strict on non going to a doctor or infirmary to avoid spreading the virus. Too, for workers on sick leave with COVID‑19, employers become their continued wage payments reimbursed after ten days of absence while they have to continue wage payments for up to 12 weeks for normal sick go out. In Federal republic of germany, according to existing legislation aimed at curbing the spread of infectious diseases, the self-employed can claim an income replacement do good at a level of their declared earnings in the previous tax year.

The private sector besides has been taking action. Some companies are providing their employees with paid sick go out to allow those who experience sick to stay domicile.

Figure 2. For non-standard workers, statutory access to sickness benefits can be limited

Providing income replacement to quarantined workers who cannot piece of work from domicile

In lodge to incorporate the spread of the COVID‑19 virus, most OECD countries introduced quarantine requirements for workers returning from high-risk countries or who have been in close contact with people who bear witness symptoms or have been diagnosed. An increasing number of OECD countries are on lockdown. While some workers may be able to continue working while being in cocky-isolation at home, many cannot.

Policy options to support quarantined workers unable to work from home

Adapting regulations to ensure that quarantined workers take access to paid ill leave.
Reimbursing employers if they provide paid ill leave to quarantined workers.
Ensuring that non-standard workers in quarantine receive support.

The legal state of affairs of workers in mandated quarantine who cannot work from dwelling differs across countries. In some countries, quarantined workers are covered by sick pay. In Republic of austria and Germany, for case, existing legislation treats quarantined workers who cannot work from habitation as on sick leave, i.eastward. they continue to receive their salary (for 4-12 weeks in Austria, for half-dozen weeks in Germany). In kingdom of the netherlands, quarantined workers generally go on to receive their usual pay from their employer, though this may depend on the reason for the quarantine (following professional travel or holidays) and the type of employment contract. The United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland announced making statutory sick pay bachelor to all workers who are advised to self-isolate because of the COVID‑nineteen virus even if they have non displayed symptoms. In some countries such as Belgium, France and Netherlands, quarantined workers who cannot piece of work from domicile may be covered by brusque-time piece of work schemes that are fabricated bachelor in the instance of force majeure.

In light of the potentially high costs to employers and large public-wellness benefits, countries have been supporting employers in shouldering the cost of the absence of workers: in Germany, employers can merits continued wage payments dorsum from regional government. The state of affairs in Austria is similar. The United Kingdom announced that companies with fewer than 250 employees volition exist able to merits refunds for statutory ill pay paid to staff off work because of COVID‑19 for a period of upward to fourteen days. In Portugal, quarantined workers volition receive sickness benefits paid by social security at a level equivalent to their wages.

The self-employed face much greater income insecurity if they have to quarantine, except in countries with specific provisions for such cases. In Frg, income replacement for the self-employed extends across those who are sick to those with a justified reason for quarantine.

Helping workers bargain with unforeseen care needs

The large-scale closure of childcare facilities and schools now implemented in an increasing number of OECD countries can cause considerable difficulties for working parents who have to (arrange) intendance during the working day. A further complexity is that grandparents, who are often relied on as informal care providers, are especially vulnerable and are required to minimise close contact with others, notably with children.

Policy options to support workers and families with caring responsibilities

Offering public childcare options to working parents in essential services, such as health care, public utilities and emergency services.
Publicly providing alternative care arrangements.
Offering direct financial back up to workers who need to take leave.
Giving financial subsidies to employers who provide workers with paid leave.
Adapting telework requirements to workers' caring responsibilities in terms of working hours and piece of work load.

Teleworking full office hours tin be very difficult if not impossible in do, notably for families with young children, couples where just one partner can telework and single parents. In detail lower-skilled, lower-paid occupations are less probable to exist able to work from home (OECD, 2016[6]), but may too not be able to beget buying in external care solutions (e.yard. private childminders), where these are available.

Working parents may exist able to request exit from work. In the short term, they might be able to use statutory annual leave, although this often remains at the discretion of the employer. In the United Kingdom, for example, workers must provide their employers with notice before they take get out, and employers tin can restrict and/or decline to give get out at sure times. In the United States, at the national level, workers have no statutory entitlement to paid annual get out at all.

Parents' rights to accept boosted fourth dimension off in the case of e.g. school/facility closure are oft unclear. Almost all OECD countries provide employees with an entitlement to get out in order to care for sick or injured children or other dependents (OECD, 2020[7]). In some countries, parents take a right to a exit in instance of unforeseen closures (e.g. Poland and the Slovak Republic) or other "unforeseen emergencies" (e.g. Australia and the United Kingdom), which would likely include sudden school closure. Others (east.yard. Austria, Germany) have recently antiseptic that existing emergency go out entitlements volition employ in cases of schoolhouse or childcare facility closure. Yet, these rights sometimes extend merely as far as unpaid leave, with the decision to continue payment of salaries typically left to the employer. Many parents may be unable to afford taking unpaid exit for whatsoever length of time. Moreover, in some countries (eastward.g. Austria, Frg and the Slovak Democracy), these leaves (or the right to payment during leave) are time-express, while in others, it is unclear how long these rights would go along to use.

Some countries have begun implementing emergency measures to assistance working parents in cases of closure of schools or childcare centres. In several countries where childcare facilities and schools have been closed (eastward.1000. Republic of austria, France, Frg and kingdom of the netherlands), some facilities remain open, with a skeleton staff, to wait after children of essential service workers, notably in wellness and social care and teaching. In French republic, for instance, childcare facilities for such families can host upwards to 10 children, and childminders working out of their homes may exceptionally receive upward to half dozen rather than 3 children. In the Netherlands, the listing of essential occupations too includes public transport, food production, transport and distribution, transportation of fuels, waste product management, the media, police and the armed forces and essential public authorities.

Countries are as well offering financial support to help with the costs of alternative care arrangements. In Italian republic affected working parents with children below 12 have the possibility to take 15 days of leave, paid at 50% of the salary or unpaid for parents with children in a higher place 12. Alternatively they can have a voucher of EUR 600 (EUR i 000 for medical workers) for alternative intendance arrangements. This possibility is open to both employees and the self-employed. France has stated that parents impacted by school closure and/or self-isolation will be entitled to paid sick leave if no alternative care or work (east.chiliad. teleworking) arrangements can be found. Portugal announced that parents with children below the age of 12 who cannot work from home and whose children are afflicted by school closures receive a benefit of two-thirds of their monthly baseline salary, paid in equal shares through employers and social security. Cocky-employed workers tin can claim 1-third of their standard take-dwelling pay.

A farther measure is financial support to employers who provide workers with paid leave. In Japan, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has announced a subsidy to firms that establish their own paid-get out systems for workers afflicted by school closures. Employers will exist compensated for the connected payment of salaries while workers are on leave upwardly to a limit of JPY 8 330 per person per twenty-four hours.

Workers with elderly dependents may confront an every bit pressing need for time off. Several OECD countries provide workers with a statutory right to leave to care for parents or adult relatives with a serious or critical illness (e.chiliad. Austria, Germany, Korea, the netherlands and the United Kingdom), often unpaid. However, these rights would likely apply in cases where relatives develop serious symptoms, just information technology is non clear whether they extend to elderly relatives with (initially) mild symptoms or those cocky-isolating. Moreover, even where a statutory correct applies, workers are frequently required to provide find before taking get out which may not be practical where a relative requires urgent care.

Securing workers' jobs and the economic viability of firms

In lite of the enormous challenge that firms across all sectors are facing in dealing with a combined supply and demand daze, immediate measures are needed to secure jobs and incomes and grant firms flexibility to quickly recruit staff replacements, where necessary.

An of import lesson learned from the 2008 global financial crisis is the positive role that short-fourth dimension work (STW) schemes can play in mitigating the economic and social costs of major economic crises (OECD, 2010[viii]; 2014[nine]; 2018[10]). STW schemes seek to preserve jobs at firms that experience a temporary drop in demand. They provide public income support to workers whose working hours have been reduced or who have been temporarily laid off while firms maintain their contract with an employee during the period of STW or the pause of work. This permits employers to concord on to workers' talent and experience and enables them to apace ramp upward production once economic atmospheric condition recover.

Policy options to assistance securing jobs and incomes as firms are struggling with a demand shock

Introducing, extending and temporarily relaxing participation and conditionality requirements in curt-time work schemes.
Simplifying procedures and provide easy access to online information for employers.
Promoting the uptake of online training to invest in the skills of employees during the downturn.
Facilitating rapid recruitment of staff to replace sick workers in core functions.

Most OECD countries operate STW schemes. Institutional differences chronicle, amongst others, to the atmospheric condition for participation (e.g. economic justification, social-partner understanding, unemployment do good eligibility), the weather condition for their use (e.g. recovery programme, training, task search) and the way the costs of STW are shared betwixt governments, firms and workers. The challenge for policy makers is to strike the correct balance between ensuring acceptable accept‑up and maintaining cost‑effectiveness, i.eastward. limit the extent to which jobs that would have been preserved anyway or are unviable even in the long-term are disproportionately subsidised.

The principal priority in the electric current context is to promote rapid take-upward of STW. This requires clear and easily accessible online information on how to utilize STW schemes, as well temporarily relaxing participation and conditionality requirements.

A number of countries have taken recent steps to expand STW and facilitate access. Germany simplified access to Kurzarbeit. Firms can now request support if x% of their workforce are affected by cuts in working hours, compared to one 3rd before. In addition to compensating 60% of the difference in monthly net earnings due to reduced hours, the labour bureau will now also cover 100% of social insurance contributions for the lost work hours. This is an increase compared to the fiscal crisis, when just 50% of social insurance contributions were subsidised and employers had to cover the other one-half. Germany also extended the Kurzarbeit to encompass temporary/agency work hence pre-empting greater labour market segmentation.

Italian republic has extended short-fourth dimension work (Cassa Integrazione Guadagni) to all sectors and companies for up to 9 weeks. Nihon expanded the coverage and eased the requirement of its brusk-time work scheme, the Employment Adjustment Subsidy (EAS). Previously, ane of the weather for EAS was a x% reduction of product for more than than three months; now this menstruation has been reduced to only one month. In addition, in regions in "land of emergency" (currently simply in Hokkaido) this requirement is regarded equally satisfied regardless of firms' product or sales, the subsidy rate is increased, and non-standard workers are also covered.

Korea also relaxed the requirements for its employment retention subsidy programme. Information technology also raised for six months the level of the wage subsidy that companies can claim if they keep their employees on paid-leave or leave-of-absence programmes, from half to two thirds of the wage paid for big companies, and from 2 thirds to three quarters of the wage paid for SMEs. Portugal announced a "temporary lay-off scheme", permitting companies in economic difficulties to retain their staff, with employees standing to receive two thirds of their pay, seventy% of which volition exist covered through social security. The Danish Government agreed with the social partners to cover 75% of workers' salaries in companies striking by the crisis upwards to a maximum threshold if the companies continue to pay the remaining 25% rather than to lay off workers. Employees contribute past taking five days of mandatory annual leave. French republic unified and simplified its STW schemes and expanded them to all workers, with a replacement rate of 84% of the gross wage (100% if the workers participate in training or are paid at the minimum wage) fully covered through the full general budget, instead of targeting the schemes to workers around the minimum wage. In some countries, such as Belgium, France, and holland, existing brusk-term work schemes can be extended to utilize in the example of a strength majeure, roofing people placed in quarantine or companies affected past an epidemic.

During the period of stoppage, companies could promote the uptake of online preparation to invest in the skills of employees. France, for instance, is encouraging firms to utilize a special grooming subsidy, the FNE Formation, instead of traditional STW. FNE Formation had originally been developed for companies undergoing structural changes that needed to re- skill or upskill their workforce.

France and Italy accept also introduced limitations to economic dismissals to strength companies to employ the expanded STW schemes instead of laying off workers. Such measures can reassure workers in a period of already strong anxiety, limit opportunistic behaviours of few employers who may use the crisis every bit an alibi to dismiss "difficult" workers and avert the social stigma of being fired. However, they may as well atomic number 82 to a few company bankruptcies if access to STW schemes for firms turns out to be incomplete, impractical or too plush. Moreover, if limitations to economic dismissals are not rapidly lifted once the epidemic is over, they may inhibit restructuring processes and boring down the recovery. Some workers may get locked in unviable companies instead of being taken intendance of by public employment services that could offer re-training and other back up.

The quickly rising count of workers who are sick, quarantined or absent from work to care for their children also risks undermining the performance of essential economical sectors, notably in health and long-term care and transportation. Measures may therefore be needed to facilitate the rapid recruitment of temporary staff that tin take over core functions, e.g. tailored exemptions to regulations that limit hiring of workers on temporary contracts and/or targeted incentives for workers that take up these jobs despite the health crunch.

Providing income back up for those losing their job or their self-employment income

The COVID‑19 crisis puts jobs and livelihoods at risk in the brusque to medium term, both considering of disrupted supply chains and falling demand. In addition, workers who do not have access to adequate exit in example of sickness or caring responsibilities may have to cut downward their activities or fifty-fifty go out their jobs entirely. Further, rising economic insecurity may undermine some households' chapters to pay their rent, make monthly mortgage payments, or cover the cost of utilities. During a period where many governments are asking people to "shelter at home", support measures to ensure that households can remain in their abode are especially important.

Policy options to protect workers and families who lost their jobs or self-employment income

Extending access to unemployment benefit to non-standard workers.
Providing easier access to benefits targeted at depression-income families.
Considering one-off payments to afflicted workers.
Reviewing the content and/or timing of reforms restricting access to unemployment benefits that are already scheduled.
Helping economically insecure workers stay in their homes by suspending evictions and deferring mortgage and utility payments.

Unemployment benefits and related income support are crucial for cushioning income losses. But not all job losers have access to such support, which is specially problematic if wellness insurance is tied to employment or benefit receipt. Recent OECD assay (OECD, 2019[11]) shows that, prior to contempo and forthcoming policy reforms, income support for "standard" workers (those with past continuous total-time piece of work) was relatively attainable in French republic, Luxembourg, Iceland, Spain, Slovenia and Belgium, with 90% or more receiving at least some support post-obit a task loss. Support was less accessible in Republic of estonia, United Kingdom, Austria, Latvia, Portugal, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Commonwealth, but the likelihood of receiving back up was still above 70% in these countries. In Poland, Greece and Italy, even standard workers had a significant gamble of non receiving whatsoever support post-obit a job loss (Figure iii).

Workers in non-standard forms of employment are, on boilerplate, significantly less well protected that workers in standard forms of employment against the hazard of task or income loss. In some countries, such as the Czech republic, Estonia, Latvia, Portugal and the Slovak Republic, workers engaged in contained piece of work, short-duration or function-time employment are 40-l% less likely to receive any class of income back up during an out-of-piece of work spell than standard employees. Even where non-standard workers receive support, they often receive much lower benefits than standard employees, for example in Hellenic republic, Italia, Slovenia and Espana.

Figure 3. Non-standard workers receive little income support in some countries

Already before the COVID‑19 crisis, many countries were exploring how to shore up access to out-of-work benefits in the context of irresolute working arrangements. For instance, Republic of austria, Canada, France and Espana have extended entitlement to unemployment benefits to independent workers. Kingdom of denmark has also strengthened the portability of earned entitlements across different jobs and forms of employment. Italy has facilitated admission to means-tested safety-net benefits.

Boosted temporary emergency measures may be needed to provide urgent and easy-to-admission income support during the COVID‑19 crisis. Several countries have announced initiatives, which are sometimes modelled on the initial responses to the global financial crisis in 2008/09 (OECD, 2014[9]).

I focus has been on easing admission to benefits targeted to low-income families. The United Kingdom has announced that self-employed workers with low earnings volition have more ready access to the master means-tested programme (Universal Credit), and a new hardship fund for local authorities is to support vulnerable people in their surface area.

Another option is to make one-off payments to workers in urgent need . In France, for case, during the global fiscal crisis, a temporary lump sum payment of EUR 500 was paid directly past the public employment service to workers who lost their jobs merely were not eligible to unemployment insurance. Australia has announced that 6.5 1000000 lower-income Australians with do good entitlements will receive a one-time lump-sum payment of AUD 750. In Italy, some self-employed workers will receive a lump-sum payment for the month of March of EUR 600.

Governments may likewise want to review the content or timing of reforms that are already scheduled . In France, for instance, the 2019-twenty reform of the unemployment insurance tightens minimum contribution eligibility conditions, from four to 6 months of work over a 24-month period, and limits replacement rates for workers on fixed-term contracts. Since those workers are not merely well-nigh at run a risk of losing their jobs but too less likely to benefit from other forms of protection, such as STW schemes, the reform has been partly postponed for several months. In the United States, access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assist Program (SNAP, previously "nutrient stamps") was due to be tightened in Apr.

Public employment services may need to arrange procedures for challenge benefits, the delivery and composition of active labour market policies and the awarding of activation criteria. Do good applications past phone, email or online should quickly become the norm during the current health emergency. Remote benefit claims are already possible in most countries, just several of them still require applications to be made in person.1 Federal republic of germany cancelled all personal interview appointments for jobseekers; the Estonian and Belgian public employment services now offer online job search counselling and chore mediation. Also, the provision of employment measures has to exist halted, especially if these accept place in groups (such as grooming or job clubs), in favour of online courses and virtual grouping counselling.

Countries are also implementing responses to ensure that households can remain in their dwelling if they struggle to cover rent, mortgage or utility payments due to a chore or wage loss. Several (Italy, Espana, the Slovak Democracy and the Britain) have introduced temporary deferments of mortgage payments; others temporarily suspended foreclosures (United states) or evictions (France, Kingdom of spain, the Great britain, the United States, and some Canadian regions and municipalities). Through a modify in legislation, Hellenic republic is temporarily allowing tenants whose employment contract has been suspended because of the COVID‑nineteen crunch to pay simply 60% of their monthly rent on their main residence in March and Apr. Japan is allowing households afflicted by COVID‑19 to postpone payments on utility bills if needed. Some countries have introduced measures to support the homeless, who are peculiarly vulnerable to the spread of COVID‑19 and lack the power to effectively "shelter in place": French republic, for instance, has requisitioned hotel rooms to exist used by the homeless during the lockdown.

Providing financial support to firms affected by a driblet in demand

Besides means of chop-chop adjusting staff numbers, many firms will require financial support. This applies in particular to modest businesses and the self-employed, including shops, restaurants and the cultural sector.

Policy options to provide financial support to firms afflicted by the crisis

Deferring tax and social contribution payments.
Setting upwardly financial facilities to temporarily support companies' liquidity.

Several countries have taken rapid steps to help firms to cut costs or to provide them with liquidity by permitting a deferral of revenue enhancement and social contribution payments. Australia, for case, appear a parcel to reduce the financial burden to SMEs including changes in depreciation rules and the possibility for businesses hit difficult past the downturn to defer taxation obligations. Denmark announced to provide a credit facility of DKK 125 billion (five% of Gross domestic product), allowing firms to postpone VAT and tax payments. The Uk volition abolish taxes on modest retail or hospitality business backdrop for a year. Federal republic of germany has fabricated it easier to grant tax deferrals, to accommodate tax prepayments and has waived enforcement measures and late-payment penalties until the cease of the year if the debtor of a pending tax payment is direct affected by the COVID‑19 crisis.

Many countries take also been responding past offering public grants and emergency credits. Australia volition provide temporary liquidity support to small and medium businesses with employees affected past the COVID‑nineteen crisis of upward to AUD 25 000, which is predicted to benefit around 690 000 businesses. The United Kingdom appear an emergency business loan scheme that provides lenders with an 80% government guarantee for loans made to SME and that covers SMEs' interest payments and fees for up to 12 months. The United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland Government also announced GBP 3 000 cash grants to all small businesses, which amounts to a total pay-out of GBP two billion. Italy and Deutschland will expand existing liquidity aid programmes to make it easier for companies to access cheap loans.

A number of countries accept as well announced refunding firms for the costs of sick pay to staff who are off work because of COVID‑19, run across above.

Providing financial support to firms likewise requires the mobilisation of the fiscal sector and the support of key banks, measures that are beyond the scope of this brief. Other specific measures for SMEs can be found in the notation past the OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Regions and Cities (CFE) [bachelor online].

References

[2] Agency of Labor Statistics (2019), Paid Exit Benefits, https://world wide web.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2019/benefits_leave.htm.

[12] Fernández, R., H. Immervoll and D. Pacifico (forthcoming), "Beyond repair? Anatomy of income support for standard and non-standard workers in OECD countries", OECD Employment, Social and Migration Working Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[xiii] Immervoll, H. and C. Knotz (2018), "How demanding are activation requirements for jobseekers", OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 215, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/2bdfecca-en.

[seven] OECD (2020), OECD Family Database, http://world wide web.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm.

[xi] OECD (2019), OECD Employment Outlook 2019: The Hereafter of Piece of work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/ten.1787/9ee00155-en.

[ten] OECD (2018), Good Jobs for All in a Changing World of Work: The OECD Jobs Strategy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264308817-en.

[1] OECD (2018), Towards Better Social and Employment Security in Korea, Connecting People with Jobs, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264288256-en.

[half dozen] OECD (2016), Exist Flexible! Background cursory on how workplace flexibility tin help European employees to balance piece of work and family unit, http://www.oecd.org/els/family unit/Exist-Flexible-Backgrounder-Workplace-Flexibility.pdf.

[9] OECD (2014), "The crunch and its aftermath: A stress test for societies and for social policies", in Society at a Glance 2014: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/soc_glance-2014-5-en.

[viii] OECD (2010), OECD Employment Outlook 2010: Moving across the Jobs Crisis, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/empl_outlook-2010-en.

[4] Spasova, South. et al. (2017), Admission to social protection for people working on non-standard contracts and equally cocky-employed in Europe, European Commission, Brussels, http://dx.doi.org/x.2767/700791.

[v] SSA and ISSA (2018), Social Security Programs throughout the World: The Americas, 2017, https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2016-2017/americas/ssptw17americas.pdf.

[3] Whiteford, P. and A. Heron (2018), "Australia: Providing social protection to non-standard workers with tax financing", in The Future of Social Protection: What Works for Non-standard Workers?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264306943-5-en.

Note

← 1. See Tabular array three in Immervoll and Knotz (2018[13]).

References [1] OECD (2018), Towards Better Social and Employment Security in Korea, Connecting People with Jobs, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264288256-en.
Open DOI References [ii] Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019), Paid Leave Benefits, https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2019/benefits_leave.htm.
Open up URL References [3] Whiteford, P. and A. Heron (2018), "Australia: Providing social protection to non-standard workers with revenue enhancement financing", in The Future of Social Protection: What Works for Non-standard Workers?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264306943-five-en.
Open DOI References [four] Spasova, Due south. et al. (2017), Admission to social protection for people working on not-standard contracts and as self-employed in Europe, European Commission, Brussels, http://dx.doi.org/x.2767/700791.
Open DOI References [5] SSA and ISSA (2018), Social Security Programs throughout the World: The Americas, 2017, https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2016-2017/americas/ssptw17americas.pdf.
Open URL References [6] OECD (2016), Be Flexible! Background brief on how workplace flexibility tin help European employees to balance work and family, http://world wide web.oecd.org/els/family/Be-Flexible-Backgrounder-Workplace-Flexibility.pdf.
Open up DOI References [7] OECD (2020), OECD Family unit Database, http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm.
Open DOI References [8] OECD (2010), OECD Employment Outlook 2010: Moving beyond the Jobs Crisis, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/x.1787/empl_outlook-2010-en.
Open DOI References [9] OECD (2014), "The crisis and its aftermath: A stress test for societies and for social policies", in Gild at a Glance 2014: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/x.1787/soc_glance-2014-five-en.
Open up DOI References [10] OECD (2018), Proficient Jobs for All in a Changing World of Work: The OECD Jobs Strategy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/x.1787/9789264308817-en.
Open up DOI References [11] OECD (2019), OECD Employment Outlook 2019: The Futurity of Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9ee00155-en.
Open DOI References [12] Fernández, R., H. Immervoll and D. Pacifico (forthcoming), "Across repair? Beefcake of income support for standard and not-standard workers in OECD countries", OECD Employment, Social and Migration Working Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris. References [11] OECD (2019), OECD Employment Outlook 2019: The Time to come of Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/x.1787/9ee00155-en.
Open DOI References [nine] OECD (2014), "The crisis and its backwash: A stress examination for societies and for social policies", in Society at a Glance 2014: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/x.1787/soc_glance-2014-5-en.
Open DOI References [xiii] Immervoll, H. and C. Knotz (2018), "How demanding are activation requirements for jobseekers", OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 215, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/2bdfecca-en.
Open DOI

brownalit1974.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/supporting-people-and-companies-to-deal-with-the-covid-19-virus-options-for-an-immediate-employment-and-social-policy-response-d33dffe6/

Insure Workers and Their Dependents Agains Their Own Property

Abstract

Reducing workers' exposure to the COVID‑19 virus in the workplace

Providing income replacement to ill workers and their families

Providing income replacement to quarantined workers who cannot piece of work from domicile

Helping workers bargain with unforeseen care needs

Securing workers' jobs and the economic viability of firms

Providing income back up for those losing their job or their self-employment income

Providing financial support to firms affected by a driblet in demand

References

Note

0 Response to "Insure Workers and Their Dependents Agains Their Own Property"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel