I think some posters are mixing up Sozialhilfe and ALV/RAV.
With Sozialhilfe, I can understand the argument that you may be expected to take almost any reasonable work to reduce dependency on public support.
But ALV/RAV is different. It is unemployment insurance. Its purpose is not simply to force someone into any job as quickly as possible, regardless of fit. It is meant to provide temporary income replacement when someone loses employment, so they can continue to meet financial commitments — mortgage, rent, family obligations, etc. — while searching for suitable work.
That is why the system has rules around what counts as suitable employment. I may have the exact number wrong, but my understanding is that at some point you are expected to accept work at around 70% of your previous salary. Personally, I would be happy to do that:)
But asking a formerly high-paid executive or senior specialist to flip burgers is not an optimal use of labour. It does not meaningfully preserve financial commitments, and it is not where that person is likely to add most value to society. If people want ALV/RAV to function like Sozialhilfe, fine — but then do not call it insurance. In that case, let people cancel that insurance altogether and keep more of their income to plan individually.
I also disagree strongly with the idea that people who lose their jobs are necessarily low value-add. That is a very naive view of how companies work.
Some examples:
-
A new CEO comes in and wants to work with people he already knows, likes, or trusts. Highly competent executives with strong quantified performance records are removed. This happens all the time.
-
Engineers are fired because a company changes direction and kills a project. Other engineers, sometimes less competent ones, stay simply because they happen to be working on a project that is not being killed, so keeping them is less disruptive in the short term.
-
People perform necessary work competently — work that can seriously damage a company if done badly — and then management decides the same work can be done cheaper in another country. Again, this happens constantly.
Two more recent examples I have seen close to me:
-
A friend was recruited from a blue-chip multinational after a 20-year career of steady progression. He performed well, was promoted after one year, and was then relocated with his family to Switzerland. Six months later, he was fired because he had started highlighting a painful issue that needed fixing but was embarrassing for a more senior executive. Firing him was a way for ‘the system’ to bury it. Because he had only been in Switzerland for six months, he had no RAV entitlement.
-
An accomplished sales leader relocated to Switzerland to help a mid-sized company accelerate growth. After six months, investors decided for reasons unrelated to his performance that they needed to prioritize a faster exit and shift focus from revenue growth to profitability. The CEO terminated the sales leader because otherwise the CEO himself might have been at risk. Again, the sales leader fell just short of RAV eligibility.
So no, it is not only “low value-add” people who get fired while good people stay. Especially at senior levels, job loss is often about politics, timing, restructuring, cost allocation, investor pressure, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There are also plenty of people who survive for years precisely because they never rock the boat, never challenge weak decisions, and never put themselves in politically exposed positions.
So yes, people should follow the ALV/RAV rules. But the broader idea that being unemployed is evidence of low value, or that ALV should force everyone into any available job regardless of suitability, misunderstands both the labour market and the purpose of unemployment insurance.
.
