Perhaps compulsory unemployment insurance

Compulsory unemployment insurance as a form of social protection, successfully operating in the United States and in Britain, provides for payment of insured (employees and workers) compensation upon the occurrence of insured events, like job loss, layoff or insolvency of the employer. The controversy on the need for such insurance in Russia is not the first year, but now some experts are inclined to link this project with the entry of the Russian Federation into the World Trade Organization (WTO).

For the first time on the need for insurance against unemployment in our country, talking to the crisis in 2008, when the massive reduction of employees of various companies, which led to defaults on bank loans. The initiator of the proposal, aimed at the beginning of 2009 in the Federation Council and State Duma, has leadership of the Kemerovo region.

Somewhat later, a similar proposal was made chairman of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia Mikhail Shmakov, and this proposal was supported and approved were present at the time as prime minister, Vladimir Putin, who openly called compulsory insurance against unemployment "absolutely market measure." However, the prime minister once said, and the practical impossibility of such an additional burden on the economy in crisis.

Failure at the state level to implement the idea to the full restoration of macroeconomic stability and the emergence of strong demand for this product has not stopped its development at the level of private insurance - though not as mandatory but as a voluntary (or, more true, as a quasi-voluntary) product. As a result - today the lion's share of this type of insurance (according to available data - 90%) are contracts that are concluded as a support for the design of consumer credit, protecting, thus, not so much the interests of policyholders, as the interests of the banks.

This product, in particular, offers an insurance company "Alfa Insurance": when you make a loan to "Alfa-Bank" offers to the client as possible unemployment insurance, which provides for a three-month (according to the company, it is time for such a borrower can find a new source of revenue) for payment of the loan job loss (the monthly cost of insurance services - 0.23% of the loan). Management believes that the insurance company, there is always the threat of unemployment, and wisely positioned the product will be in demand not only in times of crisis, but with the full stability of the economy.

However, again the actual topic of compulsory insurance against work was precisely in anticipation of economic change: as you know, 16 December 2011 in Geneva, signed a protocol on Russia's accession to the WTO, which must be ratified before the end of July this year. It is associated with the event concerns the public: if you focus on the experience of neighboring Ukraine, opening the national market for foreigners with no guarantee that domestic industries will be able to successfully "break" in the foreign markets, could lead to a surge in unemployment, which may last up to three years .

However, regarding the introduction of compulsory unemployment insurance experts from the insurance market are set quite skeptical in the Russian insurance against involuntary unemployment is certainly unprofitable, and the employers' legal nihilism is unlikely to fine-tune the mechanism of such insurance - just remember that the dismissal of workers are often being forced to write a statement about the care of their own volition. Prove the existence of an insurance case by the citizens will be extremely difficult.

On the other hand, it is impossible to insure all cases of loss of employment, because under this article will get, for example, people are constantly changing their place of work because of incompetence, and in anticipation of an unemployed insurance benefits will be required to register with the unemployment and refuse to display any -or initiatives (for example, to access business).

Finally, in our country there is simply no bankruptcy of natural persons, which means that there is no mechanism for assessing the possibility of citizens to meet the demands of their creditors.

There are, of course, the experience of the U.S. and Britain, where the payment of insurance premiums for this type of insurance is divided between workers and employers, which is enshrined in law (employers deduct money for this type of insurance in the amount of 0,23-1% of payroll ), but we were before, perhaps, so far away.