Two regimes coexist: complete suspension of activity for a maximum of four consecutive weeks; and the partial reduction of working hours for a maximum of one year (up to two days per week) or three months (more than two days per week). “A waiting period of only one week is required between two consecutive periods, which allows almost continuous use of the device in practice. note the authors.
One in three workers during Covid
Originally, the system was designed for workers, who are more vulnerable to work interruptions (we are not talking here about temporary unemployment linked to bad weather). It was gradually extended to employees after the economic crisis of 2008. The financing of the system is mainly based on the federal state, via Social Security, which pays the allowance corresponding to hours not worked (60% of capped gross salary). Employers generally add a supplement (minimum 5.20 euros per day). Despite this, workers sometimes experience a significant reduction in their income. Under certain conditions, employers are also subject to a liability contribution, which is paid to Social Security and the amount of which depends on their past use of temporary unemployment, in order to encourage responsible use of the system.
According to the study, “Belgium has one of the oldest and most generous temporary unemployment systems in Europe.”. During the great recession in 2009, 5% of employees were placed on temporary unemployment. And during the Covid crisis in 2020, almost one in three workers were affected. But unlike most other countries, recourse to temporary unemployment remains very high in Belgium, even outside periods of crisis.
A brake on economic growth
In some sectors, such as manufacturing, temporary unemployment protected employment during the 2008 recession. It functioned as a short-term shock absorber, stabilizing jobs and helping businesses overcome liquidity constraints. But in other less affected sectors, no positive effect on employment was observed, suggesting the presence “of windfall effects” : “certain companies have benefited from the system without their jobs being really threatened”. This mobilized public resources without additional employment benefits. This also carries a risk of slowing down the reallocation of labor towards companies that need it and, consequently, of slowing down economic growth.
The system mobilized public resources without additional benefits for employment.
The authors of the study therefore recommend limiting excessive use of the device. In particular, they propose, in addition to the maximum number of days during which an employee can be placed on temporary unemployment consecutively, to establish a minimum period between two periods, in order to avoid prolonged and systematic use of the system.
Strengthening the financial responsibility of companies constitutes an essential additional lever. This involves a contribution applicable to a lower threshold (the number of days of temporary unemployment from which it applies).
The first days of 2026 will be tough for those excluded from unemployment: a third should “fall” into the CPAS
And the well-being of workers?
In addition to this economic component, the study also includes a psychological component. It shows that temporary unemployment is often seen as a preferable alternative to dismissal, but that it can generate stress, uncertainty and loss of direction. Some workers see it as a respite but others worry about their professional or financial future. This is why the study also recommends improving internal communication to reduce felt insecurity and encouraging useful activities during non-working periods (training, etc.) to maintain commitment and organizational connection.
Study available on
