The Court of Auditors recommended Thursday to "reconsider" the allocation of the 1,000 additional advisers of Pôle emploi to take into account the coming influx of job seekers. This injunction appears in a global report which also scratches the human resources policy of the public operator vis-à-vis its executives.
"Very high level of absenteeism"
In this report made public on Thursday, and entitled "the management of Pôle Emploi, ten years after its creation", the Court of Auditors combs the public operator between 2012 and 2019. The recent increase in staff, up to 1,000 jobs, on fixed-term contracts over three years, announced in the summer of 2019 at the same time as the unemployment insurance reform, "should be re-examined as part of the analysis of the means to be implemented to deal with the increase in the number of job seekers brought about by the Covid-19 epidemic. "
Unédic, which manages the unemployment insurance scheme, anticipates the destruction of 900,000 jobs at the end of 2020 compared to the 4th quarter of 2019, which would lead to compensation for 630,000 additional job seekers. "This analysis should take into account all of Pôle emploi's resources, including the potential for untapped working time", continues the Court, which in its report observes a working time that is "2.5% shorter than the duration annual legal "and" a very high level of absenteeism "at the operator. The additional staff were directed to the services dedicated to companies, intended to make the link between these and Pôle emploi. Pôle emploi employs around 50,000 people.
"Not acceptable" practices
With regard to human resources, the Court of Auditors pin down the operator's policy towards its managers: mobility bonus with an "excessive" amount, "very rapid increases", systematic company cars, conventional ruptures " very favorable at the end of their careers. "
"The management of executives remains marked by practices inherited from the particular circumstances of the merger (between ANPE and Assédic, in 2008, editor's note), which are not acceptable eleven years later, in the context of savings imposed on the whole in the public sector for several years, "said the Court.