Enlarge image
Red lights in front of the Federal Employment Agency in Oberhausen
Photo: Fabian Strauch / dpa
There is a magic inherent in every beginning, which even the longtime observer of the Berlin stage cannot (and will not) avoid.
After sixteen years of Angela Merkel the traffic light is new, it is different and, yes, that in itself is worth something.
The CDU / CSU call the whole thing "left-yellow" in a first gross surcharge, the FDP first and foremost reacting heavily touched to the point of condescending. But one thing is true: the SPD is the silent winner of the coalition negotiations, after all, after well over a decade, it ends a self-tormenting exorcism. It cancels the nature and work of Hartz IV, and the FDP is watching. There is no magic in this part of the beginning, but the lukewarm stagnation fever of the turn of the millennium, I'm sorry.
On just 101 of the more than 6000 lines of the coalition agreement, the once embarrassedly mentioned "Hartz IV" in brackets is put to an end, vivat the citizens' money!
Not everything is bad about it: If students from Hartz IV households earn pocket money, it is no longer offset,
fair enough
.
The de minimis limit for irregular income is increased, also okay.
more on the subject
New citizens' money: Hartz IV wants to abolish the traffic light - or not? By Florian Diekmann
The rest, on the other hand, is grossly clear-cut, "promoting and demanding" becomes
only
promoting
.
Scroll backwards into the early noughties, scroll backwards
to
Agenda 2010. You have to come to that first.
During the first two years of the citizen's benefit receipt, i.e. the first two years of the defined »long-term unemployment«, the recipient's existing assets are no longer determined or taken into account. It is also no longer determined whether the apartment, for which the rent, heating and hot water is paid for by the office, is appropriately large - and not too large. The general public pays in any case.
The duty to cooperate (commonly: I'll come to the consultation appointment on time or I'll have a problem) will be "reorganized" next year.
Alone: To rearrange something in the triangle of appointment-mandatory-appearance, can only be wanted by those who consider this bourgeois minimal virtue to be lazy.
In addition, a “one-year moratorium” or a “six-month period of trust” applies to significant parts of the sanctions that have hitherto been regularly imposed, i.e. reductions in benefits.
The SPD party newspaper »Vorwärts« concludes: »No sanctions in the first six months« from ex-Hartz IV. That's right.
In total, the duties are reduced and the sanctions limited - the office's hands are tied.
Word will get around.
more on the subject
Data analysis on the coalition agreement: 177 pages, 52,000 words - but "little talk" by Helen Bielawa, Sophie Garbe and Achim Tack
Analysis of the coalition agreement: who had to give in and where - and what's next
Since this operation is really on the left, it has a superstructure that is offered in a crystal clear sentence: »The mediation priority in SGB II will be abolished Return to a regular employment relationship.
Preparing for a job on the job market counts more than the job itself. "Placement in training and work has priority over benefits for reimbursement of wages in the event of unemployment," is the law so far.
It was the core of Hartz IV. And bye.
Check your privileges
: I've never been involuntarily unemployed, and I've never had to live on Hartz IV. This is very lucky and I am aware of it. Nevertheless, I would like to remind you that the rules followed a ratio. Hartz IV was conditioned solidarity and the set of rules was part of a deliberate pressure exerted by the taxpayer community on those whom they temporarily support when they become unemployed. In accordance with this logic, the general public, with their financial help, acquired a non-negotiable right to the fact that the beneficiary would take on a lot in return to get back to work. The left never wanted to accept that this (Hartz IV) relationship between the general public and the unemployed has a gradient, although prolonged unemployment can theoretically affect anyone. Every rule, every requirement,the state and taxpayers did was in their logic “from above”, degrading or simply harassment. Only without a gradient can it be fair, because only without a gradient is it equal. This thinking has now prevailed across the board. Nevertheless, I allow myself to continue to regard the old set of rules as pragmatic realism in dealing with people and the new non-rules as a mistake that will take revenge.who will take revenge.who will take revenge.
more on the subject
Traffic light in front of coalition: Maybe they are really seriousA comment by Stefan Kuzmany
The whole thing happens at a time when skilled workers are in great demand, but also women and men for simpler work.
We are looking for waiters, hairdressers, truck drivers, plumbers and trainees in almost all trades.
At the same time, we have more than 2.6 million registered unemployed, more than a million of them for more than a year, be they recently immigrants or those who were born here.
Why is it that there are manifestly too few of these people who can be mobilized for the vacancies in simple work?
Too much or too little (gentle) pressure?
The traffic light coalition thinks there was too much pressure, otherwise it would not act as it does.
So Hartz becomes heart.
Nothing against cordial, but not infrequently nice is the little sister of stupid.
