.jpg)
Things are simple in Estonia when it comes to ideology: you qualify for aid only if you've made a down payment. The rest of Europe has a very different understanding of social insurance and wouldn't think of knocking over someone who can barely stand as it is, writes MEP Jana Toom on News.ERR.
In Brussels and Strasbourg, no matter which European Parliament social event you attend, everyone, from union heads, human rights activists to politicians, is talking about social dialogue between employees and employers. Governments act as mediators in this dialogue and should talk to people, especially vulnerable groups and union representatives. Every time, I am reminded of how things work in Estonia. We are not in the habit of talking. Instead, we tend to stick to our guns and force our opinion on others.
I was angered by the unemployment insurance reform. It is being presented as a triumph of fairness, while nothing could be further from the truth. The whole saga is a good example of how the coalition functions, what it's doing and how it hides its true intentions.
State shedding expenses
Formally, the following is happening. The unemployment insurance benefit will be abolished and replaced with two types of benefits. I will not go into detail, suffice to say that over 8,000 people who were not working or could not work will be thrown out of the system. People who were taking care of sick relatives or children, studying, serving in the military or sitting in prison.
These people will no longer qualify for unemployment benefits. Their only option will be to turn to their local government and apply for the subsistence benefit. On the other hand, 8,000 other people who had been cut off from benefits will now qualify. The time one needs to have spent working to qualify for the benefit is what's changing.
While it seems like the system is expanding to bring benefits to more people, the true aim of the reform is different. It is a story of getting rid of expenses. The Unemployment Insurance Fund has three sources of income: unemployment insurance premiums paid by employers and employees, the state budget and European subsidies, used to fund services. The state budget funding will be axed, saving the central government tens of millions annually and shouldering others with the responsibility. Who will pick up the tab?
First, the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The number of people seeking benefits will remain largely the same, and the fund has been told it will need to come up with the missing resources, with cutting existing services the only realistic way of achieving this.
Secondly, local governments, which will become the last hope for those who lose access to unemployment benefits.
Thirdly, the latter's loved ones, who will have to pay the way for those neglected by the state. Whereas local governments will be allocated just €1.5 million extra, in a situation where their central counterpart stands to save 20-30 times more.
The decision has another price. Unemployment Insurance Fund reserves, used to pay out benefits, will be exhausted in just a few years. The only alternative will be to raise taxes, which will be done, and people will be even worse off than before.
Everything else is PR smoke and mirrors. We have mountains of it, in everything from taxes to the Just Transition in Ida-Viru County, from healthcare to the education reform. We are told one thing, while something else entirely gets done. No one on Toompea Hill has any intention of solving people's problems. They don't see people, they just see numbers: how to leave the people to their own devices and keep them from bothering us.
But there is also an ideology. And it is a simple one: you have the right to help, support and social insurance only if you've made a down payment. But if you have nothing, you will be left out in the cold of absolute poverty.
That is not Europe's story. Europe has a very different understanding of social insurance. The system gives something to people who are struggling and unable to contribute to it. In old Europe, no one would think of knocking over those who can barely stand as it is. Yet, that is all our coalition seems to be doing. Whereas we're sawing off the very branch our economy rests on, but even that does not seem to stop us.
Of course, any sort of dialogue with the powers that be is out of the question, as it would be deemed nothing but an obstacle. Are the authorities at least talking to miners in Northeast Estonia or their unions? How is it possible to even bring oneself to produce explanations where tens of thousands have lost or are about to lose their jobs (in the oil shale sector – ed.), while there are plans to use European subsidies to create just 1,500 jobs? That we don't have €50 million in enterprise support, while we'll spend €30 million on just four hotels, which will obviously not be profitable and only employ a very limited number of people.
How is it even possible that the second largest support sum (Just Transition Fund projects in Ida-Viru County – ed.) of €13 million was spent on building a nearly 100-room spa hotel on the shore of Lake Peipus? Does anyone honestly think these rooms will provide jobs for even just a few former miners?
Not to mention spending European funds on an axe-throwing center, renovating a kindergarten and music school, dance marathon, sauna festival, a firing range for hunters, art gallery, local regatta and every other thing, which should be funded by the state and local governments instead.
Pressure needs to be put on authorities
Why are such things happening? Because there is no habit of considering people's needs in Estonia. It's even more painful when social dialogue kind of is happening, but people just give up. I was baffled by the statement of Reemo Voltri, head of the Estonian Education Personnel Union: "Considering the poor state of public finances, teachers need to show solidarity with society and will not go on strike over the decision to cancel their pay rise for next year."
Look, the teaches are willing to sacrifice themselves. But the ruling parties, as we have been told, were not willing to cut the vacation time of officials from 35 days to 28. As put by the Social Democrats' leader Lauri Läänemets: "Not everything can be boiled down to money when discussing these things." Therefore, it's possible in one place and impossible in the other. Charming, isn't it?
I can see the unions fighting for their rights in Belgium. If their demands are not heeded, a strike immediately follows. They would achieve nothing without putting pressure on the state. If the powers that be are acting with impunity, pushing through antisocial ideology, it is possible to put pressure on them. And it must be done.
Photo: Svetlana Aleksejeva