policy of inclusion efficien

The income of active solidarity would, according to the government, the cornerstone of a policy of inclusion efficient. Its usefulness is such that there is no need to conduct further testing on its establishment or even deeper reflection on the employability. The High Commissioner for active Solidarités, Martin Hirsch, as well as provides our country abandons the RMI and other social safety nets for the benefit of the RSA at the end of the year.

This idea has sprouted into two distinct grounds. It is primarily the result of a reflection on the situation of the working poor. But it has flourished especially in the electoral discourse of Nicolas Sarkozy when he was fashionable to stigmatize those who did not belong to "the France that gets up early."

The RSA is based activation policies of the expenses of unemployment in some countries, including Britain Blair years. It is a practical response to the criticism of economists about the "low wage trap": it seems to be low-paying and incentive for the individual to RMI, to sign an employment contract low paid, especially when it can also enjoy other benefits such as the CMU, aid in the canteen ...

It should still qualify this analysis that man did that through Homo économicus solely driven by monetary calculations in the short term.

We should not, either, failing to consider the effects windfall for companies that will inevitably the RSA or the weight it will put on low wages.

But above all, the RIAA is both a utopia and a nice concept dangerous and demagogic, as all men and women are not able to work according to a standard commonly defined and almost universal (conditions, working hours, level Responsibility ...). That vision holds the image crude reassuring but also the social error.

The Socialists who introduced the RMI, there are more than twenty years, should now not be afraid to defend that idea which they are proud. But they must also do not hesitate to make criticism and suggest ways to improve it

The RMI was established in late 1980 to allow the inclusion of those most disadvantaged groups, the "new poor" from the first generation affected by the LTU. It was also to ensure income for those whose resources were virtually non-existent ... The measure marked a break in the political approach to the issue of poverty approaches to ending welfare and charity. The protection by the company became a law. It redonnait dignity to those benefiting from it.

Admittedly, the integration component, which must be seen as a supplement and not as a counterpart, was long neglected by the government. But the necessary improvement of integration policies can in no way be based on a false premise that too uniformity in employment.

If certain people are excluded from the professional sphere for reasons soluble cyclical in the short or medium term (failure of initial or continuing training, accidents of life, territorial exclusion), while others are structural causes for more sustainable (handicaps, disabling illnesses, family and social situations totally demanding). The first need for the implementation of an active policy of employment and targeted the latter for the protection of society and, perhaps, also for the promotion of activities. In all cases, it is necessary to consider the establishment of specific pathways.

The RIAA, denying this fundamental difference, may not be the useful tool for a policy of effective solidarity with the excluded.

In a time when all those who can not blend in the mold of the employee "modeled" are denounced as paragons of laziness, we should not be afraid to say that women and men live personal situations that place them in an inability to work fully. We owe these people an income that enables them to live with dignity.

A political response, and progressive civilization, to the exclusion may not be stigma - barbaric approach - but, quite the contrary, the protection.