Claimants' protests open Belgian autumn

Download article in original language : BE9809154NFR.DOC

September 1998 saw a demonstration by 30,000 people in Brussels in support of increasing social security benefits, in an attempt to put pressure on the government just before the debate on 1999's Budget. The central question is a choice between improving the level of benefits and cutting social security contributions to reduce labour costs.

The start of autumn 1998 was marked in Belgium on 11 September by a major demonstration of 30,000 people in Brussels, called by all the organisations representing workers and social security claimants - trade unions, mutual insurance companies, pensioners' associations and the League of Families (Ligue des Familles). The demonstration was called to support an increase in benefits and to protest against the deterioration of the living conditions of unemployed people, old-age pensioners, disabled people and sick people. Their benefits have not been reviewed since 1981.

The organisers considered the turnout a success, since it increased pressure on the government just before the debate on 1999's Budget. The central issue is a choice between, on the one hand, refinancing social security and improving the level of benefits for various groups of claimants and, on the other, the reduction of social security contributions to reduce labour costs.

Five demands were presented by the organisers of the demonstration:

1. a "link between social benefits and welfare" - that is, increases in retirement pensions, sickness benefits and unemployment benefits. For instance, in the first year of a claim, unemployment benefits amount to between 30% and 60% of former gross pay, with a monthly ceiling of BEF 58,000. As this ceiling has not changed since 1981, the benefits, which ought to be in proportion to the pay that has been lost, have decreased in comparison with earnings, and are essentially becoming flat-rate benefits, which is contrary to the spirit of the law. The same applies to the other benefits. Pressure groups are thus demanding that the ceiling be raised by 1% for the retirement pension, 2% for disability benefit and 3% for unemployment benefit;

2. a single status for unemployed people, whatever their personal and social circumstances. An unemployed person living with someone who has a job receives lower benefits than a person whose benefits are their household's sole income, and they also risk losing their benefits for "unusually long unemployment", as a penalty imposed by the National Office of Employment (Office National de l'Emploi/Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening, ONEm/RVA), the organisation that allocates benefits (BE9804140F). This mainly affects women. These differences in status allow ONEm/RVA to step up its checks on personal declarations by means of home visits made under conditions that increasingly give rise to protests from associations such as the Human Rights League (Ligue des droits de l'homme) and from members of parliament;

3. the abolition of the type of home visits nentioned in the previous point. ONEm/RVA inspectors should apply a code of professional conduct and be more concerned with employment than with surveillance of unemployed people;

4. access to medical care for all, and in particular for people living on benefits; and

5. a strong social security system and, as the trade unions are demanding, rejection of policies intended to subject social security to the authority of community governments, Flemish and Walloon alike, as proposed by the governing and opposition Flemish parties.

As the government had announced in August that it had a margin of a few billion BEF for 1999's budget, the relevant pressure groups wanted to state their priorities, but there are many to choose from. Moreover, the intersectoral negotiations on the next national collective agreement were due to start at the end of September, with the social partners having only one month for discussions before the government acts.

There is little chance that the government will choose to make a real improvement in social benefits, as it is under great pressure to continue the policy of reducing labour costs.