The Chairman of the constitutional Committee of the Federation Council Andrey Klishas proposes to require employers to insure employees in the event of our bankruptcy. The adoption of the law will increase the employers to the social insurance Fund. asked businessmen about the consequences of the adoption of this bill.
Svetlana Starikova, Director of organisational development and talent management LLC “brewing company “Baltika”
“In the current situation, increasing tensions on the labour market and unemployment, the desire to protect workers who are directly influenced by the stability/instability of their employers is commendable. However, in such cases it is necessary to make accurate economic calculations — whether or not it will bring funds that can cover the cost of compensation to employees of the bankrupt enterprises? For large transparent businesses, such as Baltika, which make all required deductions, this will result in additional load. This would entail not just costs, but will reduce the opportunity for a pay increase to its employees will affect the “purchasing” ability of the employer on the labor market of candidates, where, despite the crisis, continues the war for talent and for skilled employees. Companies that are in the “grey zone”, respectively, and at risk of bankruptcy as unstable businesses will continue to go through the available schemes from the additional load and to compensate for its own bankruptcy employees is unlikely. A paradox, a stable business is hardly “useful” such an option, as payment in bankruptcy, but, in fact, this stable business will be forced to pay for those who really is at risk of bankruptcy”.
Natalia Rights, project Manager HeadHunter “data Bank salaries”
“For business it will be an additional workload, and I am afraid that it does not become a factor in the departure of the companies in the “gray zone” from the point of view of wages. Bankruptcy still not happen suddenly. Maybe it would be right to pay this tax depending on the financial condition of companies that have already been observed for some distinct time period specified by the regulator. As, for example, the Central Bank monitors the indicators of the banks. Otherwise it turns out that prosperous industries and companies that have managed properly to optimize their costs during the crisis, have to pay for a dysfunctional company”.
Ilya Moroz, General Director of trading company “solid commodities”
“I have a negative attitude to the initiative of the senators, because this is another increase in the tax burden on businesses that promised not to raise. And as a result, first raised the excise duties, resulting in the oil refining industry has become more difficult to work, and now propose a new exemption. On the one hand, the tax is not very big, but we did not agree. It is still unclear why the tax must pay including reliable companies that bankruptcy does not threaten? The parliamentarians are only initiatives, able to strangle entrepreneurship. Workers are also not happy — they simply will get your hands a little less than the size of the tax. While this conventional two pennies a month, but our fiscal agents unleash, to raise the payment a bit later they were not working. Turn the finger bite your elbow”.
Sergey Orlovsky, founder and CEO-game developer Nival
“When the authorities impose additional minor fees, which do not generate significant income, it seriously affects the investment climate and provides no benefits to the state. In Russia, recent initiatives such as the introduction of the system “Platon”, and annoying the business community, and bring significant money. One fact of imposing additional tax worsens the investment climate so that in ten years will not be able to compensate for these losses, since the business community always sensitive to the changes in the law”.
Oleg Maslennikov, founder of Express Laundry laundries
“This is another kick those who work openly. This is an additional burden on the accounting Department: we need another bill to spend, to build the Fund to a Bank to spend. It would be more effective if one collection would include increased interest rate. Everyone in business needs to simplify, not complicate. For us, this payment is feasible because of the staff a little — we do Laundry self-service and there are only three people. But I can imagine call centers or large companies whose staff is much more. This will be much harder. In addition, the state is not the most effective governance structure, and the cost of administration of this tax will eat the entire tax. The idea, of course, good — for protection of staff, who will resign from bankrupt companies, but it would be better to organize differently.”
With the participation of Alexandra Galaktionova, Valerie Iacovou