The poster is on here asking for advice having paid into this insurance system for 15 years. The tone of "RAV is not a personal babysitter" is unnecessary - this person's husband earns less than 4k per year and they have a baby to look after, it is already a difficult situation.

I don't understand where the compassion is nowadays. Bringing up a child is an exhausting process and for someone who has worked diligently throughout this long period there should be applause and an appetite to help, not cynical remarks about babysitting.

The amount of people who feel the need to just come on here and be judgmental is something I could never understand....OP asked a question, if you can help great, if not who asked you for your opinion? Is it so hard to just be kind?

Wow great post, I couldn't have put it any better myself. Having read through the thread so far, and as a dad with twins, I couldn't agree more. The person has paid into the system for 15 years, what's the point in having any system if you can't use it the one time you need it. I would think the OP is looking for ideas and support rather than righteous condemnation!

OP sorry I'm not too familiar with RAV system but I hope you get some useful advice. My partners employer said that after the maternity leave she had to come back to work 100%, she couldn't do that and offered 40%. The rav recommended we record the exchange of letters between my partner and her boss and this could be used as evidence of entitlement to support. Like other posters have mentioned it might count against your friend that she resigned her post but I think she should try and explain fully to the rav her circumstances. Hopefully they will understand her situation.

Not quite what your looking for - but once your friend is on her feet (mother wise) if its more financially beneficial for her to be a stay at home mum or its what she wants to do - she could consider becoming a tagesmutter and caring for another child in parallel. Will help bring income in if they are struggling.

Or she could consider - after a while - going back to work and have her husband mind the baby? That is if that is financially worthwile for them to do.

Wait, wait, wait.

There are social services who can obviously help with financial situation.

I am not being judgemental, I stand by my comment. RAV is not a babysitter.

Sorry if it came out that way, but there is a difference between social services and RAV. It's just a matter of knowing where to look for help.

If you are eligible, able and available to work, RAV is the place to go.

If not, social services will help.

I don't think anyone is asking RAV to look after their kids while they go to work, which is why it is unnecessary. They are asking for advice on how the unemployment system can help them during this difficult period. If its still unclear, look to the responses around positive advice such as using social services that you yourself have suggested.

So, to offer some more compassionate advice for someone in a difficult situation, poster, the RAV isn't that clued up. Tell them you are available for work, don't mention the baby, fill in 10 applications a month for jobs you patently won't get and in the unlikely event you need to go to an interview make a complete hash of it.

Stick local, because RAV may want to have their moment in the sun and ask you down for a short term discussion job hunting at their offices in which case use one of the ready-made babysitting services that enables you to get babysitters quickly for short periods if you need cover on this.

The chances of you actually being called up by RAV and asked to start a job in 24 hours are about the same as you being hit by an out of control Russian rocket re-landing on earth.

As time goes by and flexibility allows switch to more meaningful work searching and childcare can come in formally.

And as was mentioned. you can ask for financial assistance as your on one salary if its just your husband.

Most of the worlds overpopulation is in areas without access to good healthcare or education or opportunities. Many wealthy countries have declining birth rates so yes, we need to have more kids and give them good education and opportunities so that our economies continue to strengthen and the new generations of scientists and engineers etc are ready to solve problems.

This is most definitely not the case. I know several people who were or are on RAV for many months and if you do want to stay on it then all you have to do is send in evidence of the minimum amount of job applications each month and then do a half-hearted interview if you are ever asked. You just need to meet the minimum monthly requirements to get paid.

The main problem here, as I see it, is the fact that the so-called maternity leave is way too short.



But, a longer maternity leave does not always solve negative demographic trends. It didn't back home, despite being 2 years long with a financial allowance of 80% of the last salary.



Probably the husband doesn't want this arragenment? The system does force you to make some choices as a family, sooner or later. But we found this system here and as far as I noticed most Swiss fully support it. You somehow have to work with it not against it.

The world has drastically changed in the past 30 years - declining birth rates are a good thing and the best thing we can do to save the planet. I'm sure great scientists will still be born without people finding the need to have 3-6 children each. Hopefully those future scientists and great people will help the more disadvantaged on this earth receive education and adequate access to birth control.

Anyway ... I already gave my controversial opinion and do not want to derail this thread any further.

I really don't think you really know what you are talking about with regards to the concerning decline in birth and fertility rates, you just gave a silly knee-jerk response to a topic that triggered an emotional reaction in you.

This might get support from the RAV but they will see a final contract of 40%, it seems. It really depends if they believe she's really "available" and to what extent.

She has been paying the insurance for 15 years so will be entitled to something as long as they believe she will go to work and will apply for and attend interviews for jobs.

Is she fluent in German? This will help.

I wouldn't put it exactly in these words though...let's be kinder.

In Europe this is a huge problem, perhaps in other places govs don't talk about it as much as here. I bet in Japan they do too.

Quite right! Only rich people should have children and those on low pay forcibly sterilised. Why can't these people wait until they are financially secure to have children - for example in their forties?

I don't think it was the best move to quite a job for this reason but you can find more information regarding financial support here.

And back in the real world, we need as many young people as possible in Switzerland to continue contributing to our social welfare, pensions, taxes etc... if we are to continue enjoying our current standard of living.

The trouble with world theories is that they very rarely equate to practical solutions.

What you are saying is that we need overpopulation to keep an overpopulated and destructive system alive. The same logic as in a pyramid scheme.

Yes and No.

I work with RAV. Depending on the line of work you are in, you might be called in within 24 hours (think health workers, or cashiers, for example).

Also, OP friend might be enrolled in mandatory training.

When you said that nobody is asking RAV to look after their children, I am afraid I have seen lots of situations where the mother could not find last minute child care, or she wouldn't be available to work certain shifts/hours, ultimately resulting in losing RAV benefits.

So then follow the logic. Option 1: tell rav you aren’t available for work because of childcare requirements. Result: no income.

Option 2: say you are available for work. Result: you may be fine for the full period. If they do rumble you, you lose rav income. Outcome: you get income unless you are caught out.

The RAV, who or rather Swiss society, should help parents more and not have an unflinchingly logical-only decision making process.

And that's the trick. Childcare is quite expensive here. Parents don't want to sign a contract for childcare without having a job. RAV doesn't want to pay unless the childcare is already arranged.

I can see where you're coming from but I am not sure it would be that easy. OP's friend doesn't want to work 100%. RAV might say she should, or might calculate benefits based on the 40% not the 100%.

A former neighbor lost her 100% job and decided 50% would be better for her health long-term. RAV only paid benefits based on the 50% rate because she wasn't available to work 100%. She applied for a desk job but was instead offered a job as a cleaning lady at the same business. The company notified RAV of the job offer. She was basically forced to take the cleaning job because otherwise that would be refusal of a job and RAV wouldn't pay anything.

Since you work with RAV, can you say whether my neighbor's situation was "normal"? Would OP's friend only receive benefits based on 60% availability even though she'd paid in at 100%?