PCP
Reform guidelines are not already new entitlements
The guidelines of 11 February 2026 concern retention, reintegration and improved training access. The FSIO describes a reform to be developed; announced measures are not all already available.
The starting point is the actual job: how can work continue after ill health, and how can return become possible? Qualifications, surroundings and changing capacities require different responses. The label “integration” does not describe them.
A job is more than its task list
Identically named jobs differ in pace, interruptions and autonomy. A task possible in quiet may be difficult with noise and simultaneous demands. Split shifts add journeys.
Adjustment therefore examines organisation with the person concerned. Equipment can help without correcting an incompatible pace. The PCP supports time and expertise to test options, without unnecessarily disclosing medical information to an entire team.
Retention and return differ
Early changes preserve skills and relationships. After a long interruption, contacts, routines and the post may have disappeared. Prevention and reintegration require distinct approaches.
The PCP favours early dialogue and technical assistance for small employers too. The aim is sustainable work, not keeping someone in harmful conditions. Another occupation or employer may sometimes fit better.
Qualifications beyond one employer
Rehabilitation can build skills. Learning only one firm’s procedures offers less security than a portable qualification. The ability to change jobs reduces dependence.
The PCP supports time, accessible learning sites, equipment and income continuity. Low-qualified people should not be directed only to similar jobs they can no longer perform. Costs need assessment alongside duration and prospects, without guaranteed outcomes.
Security during a trial
A return or gradual increase involves uncertainty. Pay, benefits and changing circumstances must be intelligible. The law determines amounts; a general article cannot provide a universal individual calculation.
The PCP favours transitions without abrupt loss precisely because someone attempted work. Protection permits less anxious trials. Clear decisions and a continuous contact are needed, rather than disconnected answers.
Assess duration and quality
Entry is one stage. Continuity, workable hours, conditions and health show stability. A very short contract does not provide lasting security. Leaving may indicate a poor fit rather than unwillingness.
The PCP supports monitoring without reducing people to indicators. Their own assessment matters. Aggregate findings help judge instruments; personal medical and financial histories remain protected.
Dignity does not depend on output
Disability insurance also includes cash and support where work is impossible or limited. Wider access must not remove security from those unable to work. Possibilities are not commands.
For the PCP, participation includes daily life, education, relationships and choices. Employment matters but does not measure a person’s entire value. Resources and services must enable participation without it.
Make adjustments possible in small firms too
Small employers may need technical advice, replacement arrangements and information on support. Shared expertise can enable trials without recreating a specialist service in every business.
Assistance must not indefinitely replace ordinary jobs with subsidised ones. Objectives, terms and duration need examination alongside the person’s pathway. Employers retain their duties; insurers and authorities retain separate decisions.
The PCP supports useful sustainable jobs with pay and rights. Access is not a favour exchanged for silence. People need to raise problems, discuss adjustments and plan beyond a first placement. That distinguishes inclusion from temporary assignment.