Munici­pa­li­ties will take over TE offices’ tasks

There will be 45 emplo­y­ment areas which will, for the large part, serve several munici­pa­li­ties. Only the local autho­ri­ties of Lahti, Kouvola, Helsinki and Vantaa will organise this service themselves.

From the point of view of public admini­stra­tion, this is a major change. For the unemployed job-seeker, the reform should not bring any change to vital services.

However, the once familiar TE offices are set to disap­pear. Those seeking work must check the new contact infor­ma­tion regar­ding emplo­y­ment services. This should be on your munici­pa­li­ty’s web page. If you have an existing contact person at the TE office you can expect a change in who is dealing with your case.

Those seeking work must check the new contact infor­ma­tion regar­ding emplo­y­ment services.

The basic idea of this admini­stra­tive reform is to produce emplo­y­ment services that are better suited to people in a particular locality. As the munici­pa­li­ties know their own area, compa­nies and situa­tion, they should be able to respond faster and address the local need for employees.

The munici­pa­li­ties have been pursuing reform of this nature for a long time. They already pay a part of unemplo­y­ment costs but have been unable to influence the emplo­y­ment services.

One of the problems in dealing with unemplo­y­ment has been the silo-like struc­tures, says Erja Lindberg, Develop­ment Manager at the Associa­tion of Finnish Cities and Munici­pa­li­ties, in her inter­view for this magazine. There is a lot of compe­tence and actors, but no one takes care of the whole. For this reason, people have been falling in between services.

– In the munici­pa­li­ties, this is like assembling a jigsaw puzzle to get the appropriate services in each case. For this reason, there is no one right model that would fit everyw­here. Actors, jobs, and the unemployed vary in every area. Local strengths and develop­ments must be taken into account, she adds.

Financial carrot for municipalities

However, the amount to be paid for integra­tion training will be based on the number of people with mother tongues other than the national languages.

As the payment of unemplo­y­ment benefits is to be trans­ferred to the munici­pa­li­ties, the latter will receive compen­sa­tion from the state.

As a carrot, state support will not be earmarked. It may be used for costs other than emplo­y­ment services, also. Once munici­pa­li­ties succeed in making a real reduc­tion in unemplo­y­ment, they will be free to use surplus money for other costs.

Also, the longer a person remains unemployed the bigger the share of the benefit burden on the munici­pa­lity. This should spur on munici­pa­li­ties to invest in emplo­y­ment services. It would both reduce unemplo­y­ment and lower the benefit costs a munici­pa­lity has to pay out.

Of course, there is a danger that munici­pa­li­ties will channel part of the new emplo­y­ment service money elsew­here. The ministry of emplo­y­ment will follow develop­ments, but munici­pa­li­ties get to decide.