Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search
Journal : Awang Long Law Review

JOB LOSS INSURANCE PROGRAM APPLICABLE IN INDONESIA BASED ON GOVERNMENT REGULATION AND ITS COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES Suparto Suparto
Awang Long Law Review Vol 5 No 2 (2023): Awang Long Law Review
Publisher : Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Hukum Awang Long

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56301/awl.v5i2.768

Abstract

One of the regulations in the field of employment issued by the Government of Indonesia is Government Regulation No. 37 of 2021 concerning the Implementation of the Job Loss Insurance Program. This regulation is very important in the midst of rampant layoffs by companies as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to determine the implementation of a job loss insurance program for employees affected by termination of employment. The research method uses a normative juridical approach with secondary data. Based on the research results obtained that Comparison job loss insurance program in Indonesia with other countries lies in the coverage, requirements and premium contributions. Job loss guarantee or unemployment insurance in Indonesia and other countries have the same goal, which is to financially support individuals who do not have jobs as long as the individual is looking for work. This policy has been carried out since 1935 and 1940 by the United States and Canada against the background of the Great Depression around 1930, then Thailand began to implement an unemployment insurance scheme in 2004. In 2016, there were 73 (seventy-three) countries that had implemented the unemployment insurance scheme. Each country creates an unemployment insurance policy with a different model but the goal remains the same, which is to achieve adequate protection against the risk of job loss by expanding coverage to ensure workers affected by layoffs receive compensation. Based on a comparison with several other countries, it was found that the job loss insurance scheme was effective in overcoming the number of unemployed, especially during an economic recession and was able to protect workers who were laid off by maintaining their level of welfare.
POSITION OF CIRCULAR LETTER OF THE SUPREME COURT AS A FOLLOW-UP FROM THE DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT NUMBER 37/PUU-IX/2011 Suparto; Zulkifli
Awang Long Law Review Vol. 5 No. 1 (2022): Awang Long Law Review
Publisher : Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Hukum Awang Long

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (395.071 KB) | DOI: 10.56301/awl.v5i1.554

Abstract

Judicial review of Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower is carried out to the Constitutional Court (MK), one of the reasons is the implementation of Article 155 paragraph (2) has the potential to create legal uncertainty, because there are multiple interpretations related to the term "not yet determined". Constitutional Court Decision No. 37/PUU-IX/2011 granted the petitioners' request, and stated that the phrase "not yet determined" is interpreted as "not yet legally binding" as a result, the wages for the process during the suspension period must be paid until the decision is final and binding. As a follow-up to the Constitutional Court's decision, the Supreme Court (MA) issued a Supreme Court Circular (SEMA) Number 3 of 2015 and one of its contents is that employers pay processing fees for 6 (six) months. This has caused controversy because the content is different from the Constitutional Court's decision. Based on the research, the results show that the Supreme Court does have the authority to issue SEMA but it should only be for the internal judiciary and its contents are not regulatory. If it is regulatory, it should be in the form of PERMA. SEMA is not included in the scope of the Legislation as regulated in Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning the Establishment of Legislation. Regarding the norm of processing wages after the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 37/PUU-IX/2011, the Supreme Court should not need to issue SEMA Number 3 of 2015 regarding processing wages paid for 6 (six) months. The Supreme Court may also not reinterpret the process wages contained in Article 155 paragraph (2) of Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower which has been decided by the Court until it has permanent legal force. Because the position of the Constitutional Court's decision is equal to the law.