Work opportunity with additional expense allowance

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The job opportunity with additional expense allowance (AGH-MAE) is a labor market policy measure in Germany. With a work opportunity (AGH) a labor market tool, the unemployed is generally intended to assist in the incorporation into the labor market, respectively. Job opportunities in this sense are additional jobs that are offered away from the existing job market and with the help of public money.

It offers recipients of unemployment benefit II employment that they can use to maintain or regain their employability ( Section 16d SGB ​​II). Such activities (additional jobs) must not displace existing jobs.

The aim of the additional jobs is to introduce the long-term unemployed to the primary labor market . Whether this goal can be achieved is a matter of dispute. So-called MAE workers are not considered unemployed within the meaning of SGB ​​III and are therefore not shown in the unemployment statistics. Since 2007, additional jobs have not been included in the statistics of the average development of gross wages and salaries, on which the increase in pensions is based. They no longer have a slowing effect on pension increases.

In addition to unemployment benefit II , an additional expense allowance (MAE) is paid. It is intended to reimburse the Alg-II recipient for the additional expenses incurred by performing the additional job because they are not included in the standard benefit. The additional work is compensated with recourse to the longstanding administrative practice under § 19 BSHG (former social welfare) with at least 1.00 euros per hour. Such a one-euro job does not result in a regular employment relationship, even if the use of the work was illegal. Therefore, the compensation does not constitute remuneration represents.

In addition to the second book , the twelfth book of the Social Code provides for voluntary additional income opportunities for people with disabilities within the framework of integration assistance , which can be designed as a one-euro job. The Asylum Seekers Benefits Act regulates so-called refugee integration measures against additional expense allowance in § 5a AsylblG.

So-called one-euro job

The Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs considers the term one-euro job to be misleading. On the one hand, the compensation does not represent wages, but is only intended to compensate for additional costs. On the other hand, ALG II recipients who take on an additional job would get far more than one euro. Because they received the additional expense allowance in addition to the basic security benefits. Additional jobs are no substitute for paid work and unemployment benefit II does not cease to exist, instead you receive at least one additional euro per hour worked.


Community extra work

Additional jobs are the continuation of the "non-profit additional work" that has existed since the 1920s.

According to the ordinance on the duty of care of February 1, 1924, those able to work who wanted to receive welfare support from the federal states and municipalities as providers of welfare had to do charitable work. In appropriate cases, support could either be granted by instructing appropriate work of a non-profit nature or made dependent on the performance of such work.

Even unemployed people who wanted to receive the so-called crisis support from the Reichsanstalt für Arbeitsvermittlung und Arbeitslosenversicherung, founded in 1927 as the institution of unemployment insurance , which, like the later unemployment benefit , was not an insurance but a welfare benefit , had to, if there was an opportunity, an additional, provide non-profit and reasonable temporary work . In addition to the welfare benefits, they received additional expense allowance from the provider of the work.

Additional and non-profit community work that was expressly not regarded as an employment relationship and for which the unemployed only received additional expense allowance were, insofar as there was an opportunity, a prerequisite for receiving unemployment benefits in the Federal Republic until the creation of the Employment Promotion Act 1969.

In the Federal Social Welfare Act , which came into force on June 1, 1962, the term “job opportunities” was introduced to express a paradigm shift. The non-profit work was not a prerequisite for social assistance , but was intended to help the person seeking help integrate into working life. Nevertheless, the refusal could be sanctioned once the claim was no longer applicable.

Before the Hartz IV reform until the end of 2004, the job opportunities were only offered to a small extent by the social welfare offices and were therefore hardly known to the public. In particular, the duration of the job creation measures (ABM) was much shorter than it is today. It usually only lasted a few weeks. Similar to the additional jobs known today, the non-profit status (today public interest) and additionality of the work were formally a legal requirement for the creation of such a position without any wages.

Job opportunities after the Hartz IV reform

Since the introduction of unemployment benefit II , additional jobs have become more important. Both the number of forces deployed and the length of the deployments increased.


The target group of the additional jobs according to Section 16d (up to December 31, 2008 Section 16 (3) SGB II) are unemployed people who receive Alg II and cannot find a job on the general labor market. The promotion of additional jobs is subordinate to the compulsory placement service and the discretionary services for integration, which are aimed at direct integration into the general labor market.

The additional jobs are intended to re-accustom the unemployed (under “softer circumstances”) to the rhythm of the working day and the expectations of the labor market to a certain level of work discipline, thus restoring the integrity of the workforce for employers . This is intended to make the people concerned more attractive again for employment on the primary labor market. As such, these additional jobs are therefore primarily intended to integrate long-term unemployed people who, otherwise, in all probability would not take up regular employment again in the foreseeable future.


The additional jobs with additional expense allowance must be additional, be in the public interest and be competition-neutral.


An activity carried out in additional jobs is additional if it would not be carried out without the support, not carried out to the same extent or only carried out at a later point in time. Existing jobs must not be displaced. Work that is to be carried out on the basis of a legal obligation or that is usually carried out by legal entities under public law is only eligible for funding if it is likely to be carried out after two years without funding. The time of implementation is decisive for the additionality. Work to deal with natural disasters and other extraordinary events is exempt from the requirement of additionality.

In the public interest

Work is in the public interest if its result serves the general public and the work is not carried out in the commercial sector. The additional jobs must not be aimed at making a profit. The tax law recognition of the non-profit status of a legal person that offers additional jobs does not justify the assumption from the outset that the work carried out by it is in the public interest. The work does not necessarily have to be non-profit.

Competitive neutral

Work is competition-neutral if it does not have a negative impact on the economy as a result of the subsidy and if employment on the general labor market is neither suppressed nor prevented from developing. The additional jobs are thus characterized by their neutrality towards functionality and development potential of the general labor market. The existence and development of unsubsidized jobs must not be endangered. The additional jobs must not distort competition.

Working time and duration

Usually it is part-time work of 20 to a maximum of 30 hours per week. The amount of up to 30 hours per week was confirmed as lawful by the judgment of the Federal Social Court on December 17, 2008. There is no lower limit for the weekly duration of an additional job, but it is usually at least fifteen hours per week, as otherwise unemployment will not end.

Since additional jobs with their aim of introducing the general labor market do not provide for permanent participation, the individual assignment is usually limited to 3 to 12 months. An extension or repeated participation is possible if this is necessary, however, according to Section 16d (6) SGB II, benefit recipients may not be assigned to work opportunities for more than 36 months within five years (amendment as of August 1, 2016 - Law Simplification Act).


According to Section 16d, Paragraph 7, Clause 2 of SGB II, the provisions of occupational health and safety also apply to work opportunities with additional expense allowance , although there is no legal employment relationship. The person carrying out the measures is responsible for occupational health and safety and must therefore take precautions to prevent accidents at work and work-related health hazards and ensure that work is organized in a humane manner. If necessary, the person carrying out the measures must, for example, provide safety shoes or weatherproof clothing at his own expense. The rights of the works council must be observed.

Participants in the measure must observe the instructions on occupational safety and may only use equipment, machines and personal protective equipment as intended ( Section 15 ). Do they make defects such. If, for example, they become attached to machines and devices that may have an impact on safety and health, they must immediately report this to the person responsible at the place of use ( Section 16 ).

Scope of the additional expense allowance

The amount of the additional expense allowance according to § 16d is neither stipulated by law nor according to relevant case law at 1 € per hour worked. However, it is often granted in this amount, which is why these additional jobs were given the designation "one euro job". In individual cases, the compensation can also be higher. For example, compensation of up to € 2.50 has become known for hard working conditions or Sunday work. The compensation does not legally count as wages, but is a substitute for the expenses incurred through an AGH-MAE (e.g. expenses for the way to work). Thus, no payments are made during an illness, as no such expenses arise for this period.

There are no statutory upper earnings limits for additional jobs. As a rule, the weekly working time is no more than 30 hours, so that if you pay € 1.50 per hour, no more than € 200 per month will be achieved. The total remuneration per month varies between 80 and 190 euros, depending on the scope of employment. It is paid in addition to the subsistence benefits without being offset against them.

A lower limit for the additional expense allowance is also not stipulated by law, but results from case law. After deducting all costs incurred in performing an additional job, a certain residual amount must remain in order to offer a financial incentive for the activity. The Federal Social Court has left open the question of whether the additional expense allowance must contain any incentive or compensation for the activity as such. The amount of the necessary amount has not yet been determined by the judge. However, an amount of € 0.78 after deducting all costs was considered sufficient in one individual case.

Asylum seekers who, in accordance with Section 5 AsylbLG, take up work opportunities in reception facilities in accordance with Section 44 AsylVfG , only receive an expense allowance of 80 cents, unless higher expenses can be proven in individual cases.

The additional expense allowance is non-attachable according to § 850a ZPO .

The Federal Social Court ruled in 2008 that there is no entitlement to reimbursement of additional travel costs if the participant in the measure can finance them from the additional expense allowance.


Allocation bases

An additional job is usually assigned to the unemployed person on the basis of an integration agreement between him and the service provider. The integration contract is a public law contract. If the content of an additional job has not been specified in an integration agreement, the necessary stipulations are made by the provider of the basic security by means of an administrative act (assignment notification). Even if an integration agreement is not concluded, the allocation is made through an administrative act. An administrative act can be contested by objection and legal action .

In addition to the requirements mentioned, the following four criteria are required for the assignment of an additional job to be legal:

  • Subordination
The assignment to an additional job is subordinate to the placement in the primary labor market and to other funding instruments.
The additional job must be necessary, suitable and proportionate in the narrower sense in order to integrate the Alg-II recipients into the primary labor market.
In addition to reasonableness, this includes considerations of the scope and duration as well as the amount of the additional expense allowance.
The allocation must be precisely defined: scope, duration and type of activity, the distribution of working hours during the week and the amount of the additional expense allowance.
The regulations on occupational health and safety must be observed.
  • Reasonableness
According to Section 10 (1) SGB II, any legal, non- immoral work that the person concerned is physically, mentally and emotionally capable of is considered to be reasonable . A job that requires previous professional knowledge that the benefit recipient does not have at all, for example in the case of caring for children and senior citizens, is unreasonable.

No claim to allocation

An employable beneficiary has no legal entitlement to an additional job, unless the assignment was guaranteed in the integration agreement. He can apply to participate, but the decision on funding is at the discretion of the authority. Taking up work on the general labor market is a priority in any case (even while participating in an AGH-MAE). Assignment to an additional job is out of the question for people who are not able to work and who are not eligible for benefits.


As a rule, the basic security provider does not carry out additional jobs itself, but instead commissions third parties such as municipal employment companies, non-profit organizations or private educational institutions. For example, simple helper work in kindergarten , in gardening and landscaping , in city information or city ​​cleaning , in geriatric care and nursing or as a shopping assistant for the elderly is possible. As a rule, the additional jobs are not located in for-profit private companies.

Sanctions for refusal

Anyone who does not take up or continue an assigned additional job for no good reason or who prevents their initiation through their behavior will be sanctioned in accordance with Section 31 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 No. 2, Section 31a SGB ​​II, i.e. the payment of unemployment benefit II is in reduced by at least 30%. The prerequisite is that the beneficiary was promptly, specifically and in relation to the additional job was instructed in writing about the legal consequences of a violation or was aware of the legal consequences. He must also be heard before the sanction is issued. However, the additional job must not be used as a “means of discipline ”, but must serve integration into the labor market and is subordinate to other integration measures on the primary labor market. The AGH-MAE must be specified with regard to the employer, type, location and scope of the assignment before starting.

Legal protection

The assignment of an additional job is illegal if the work carried out in the additional job is unreasonable for the beneficiary or if it is not additional, is not in the public interest or is not competition-neutral. The violation of statutory occupational health and safety regulations or criminal law also lead to illegality.

If the allocation is made unilaterally through an administrative act (notification), the  person entitled to benefits can raise an objection according to § 78 ff SGG and thereby have the legality and appropriateness of the administrative act checked by the authority. If the authority rejects the objection, the decision can be appealed to the social court. Objections and lawsuits have no suspensive effect according to § 39 No. 1 SGB II , the decision is immediately enforceable. However, according to Section 86a (3) SGG, the appellant or the plaintiff can apply to suspend the immediate execution of the administrative act in whole or in part.

If, on the other hand, the allocation was made directly in the integration agreement according to Section 15 of the Second Book of the Social Code, the allocation cannot be contested directly, since in this case it is not an administrative act but is based on a public law contract. The additional job must be started even if the employment is not additional or if it is illegal for other reasons. However, an amendment to the contract, a termination or a complaint to the competent authority can be considered, or if there is a reason for contestation, the integration agreement can be contested in court by way of temporary legal protection.

If the integration agreement according to § 58 SGB ​​X is void, for example because the additional job requires the commission of an unlawful act that results in a criminal offense or a fine, the assignment does not have to be followed.

If the beneficiary refuses to take up or continue the additional job for no good reason, although he is obliged to do so, the authority must reduce unemployment benefit II or withdraw it entirely. The beneficiary must have an important reason in accordance with Section 31 (1) sentence 1 no. V. m. Paragraph 1 sentence 2 SGB II explain and prove. If the activity is unreasonable for the beneficiary according to the reasonableness rules of Section 10 SGB ​​II or for other reasons, termination or refusal may not be sanctioned according to Section 31 (1) sentence 1 No. 2 SGB II. Decisions by the authority on a sanction can be challenged through objection and legal action.

In the event of legal disputes between the beneficiary and the person responsible for the measure, legal recourse to the social courts is open.

Compensation for additional jobs that are not additional

If the additionality feature is missing in an additional job, the participant can demand compensation for the unlawful work from the provider of the basic security based on a public law reimbursement claim. The value compensation is to be determined every working day according to which wages would have had to be paid for the work if the work had been done in a regular employment relationship. The benefits for securing current livelihoods are to be deducted from this.

Number and structure of the additional jobs created

According to an audit report by the Federal Audit Office, around 604,000 Alg-II recipients were assigned an additional job in 2005. The planned duration of participation averaged 5.7 months. The federal government spent around 1.1 billion euros on this. In almost a quarter of the measures examined, the eligibility requirements were not met because the activities to be carried out were not in the public interest, were not additional or were not competition-neutral. In almost another 50% of the cases examined, the basic security agencies had no reliable knowledge of the content of the measures, so that there were doubts about the eligibility for funding. Despite early criticism of these grievances, there has been no significant change until 2008.

Over half of the additional jobs are offered in the new federal states. Long-term unemployment is particularly high there. After a sharp increase until around October 2005, the number of people in additional jobs has remained largely stable since then. B. in May 2006 290,000 (in the previous year, five months after the introduction of such jobs, it was 179,000). On average in 2007, there were also around 300,000 additional jobs at the same time, which means that out of 100 long-term unemployed, an average of twelve were in such employment. While the vast majority of the deployed workers in the west have not completed vocational training (62% of the deployed women and even 76% of the deployed men), this is exactly the opposite in the east (22% / 40%). However, formally highly qualified workers are rarely employed (2% have a university degree). The vast majority of those deployed (69% of women and 78% of men) had been unemployed for more than two years at the time they took up the additional job.

Additional jobs are used to varying degrees by the optional municipalities. Some have a reputation for using additional jobs in their own communal area even more than working groups , while others almost completely forego the use of additional jobs as a means of integration.


Criticism and negative effects

Worsening of the regular job offer

The avoidance of displacement effects has apparently failed to a large extent, at least in some industries - on the contrary: The Federal Employment Agency, for example, recorded a decline in job vacancies in the care sector , which is also confirmed by a study by the Institute for Employment Research (IAB) . The research results of this institute of the Federal Employment Agency showed that in the course of employing additional jobbers, regular employment would be displaced to a not insignificant extent and the existing competition would be influenced. According to the study, staff savings in regular employment were the result in four percent of the facilities that offer so-called one-euro jobs; based on further evidence, it was concluded that the actual proportion of companies in which regular jobs would be replaced directly were at would be more than 4%.

In May 2009 the DGB published its own evaluation of the IAB survey results. In the survey, 45% of the MAE employees surveyed stated that they do the same work as their regular colleagues. 64% of the respondents would have rated the additional jobs as not having improved their prospects on the labor market. One in four respondents stated that they had to have completed training in order to work in a one-euro job. These figures have been interpreted as a strong indication that one-euro jobs are destroying jobs.

The Federal Audit Office came to a similar conclusion in a report from April 2008. In two thirds of the examined job opportunities at least one eligibility requirement was not met, in eight out of ten cases the activity was not additional. Half of the measures examined were not in the public interest. After all, no measurable progress in integration can be seen in three out of four additional jobs, and the measures are therefore largely ineffective - at high costs.

Skilled trades president Otto Kentzler has sharply criticized the strong increase in additional jobs in Germany: “All dams are breaking with one-euro jobs”. Their number rose to well over 200,000 in 2005, and the federal government was aiming for 600,000, according to Kentzler. The municipalities often deploy the unemployed where they would have hired craft firms until recently. As a result, people in additional jobs displaced the regular employees, who then ended up unemployed.

Artificial low wage sector

In the opinion of critics, additional jobs would also attack the employment and pay conditions of all employees. The quality of the facilities would suffer as a result. The remaining employees are increasingly afraid of losing their jobs. By doing extra work, they prevent new hires and damage their family and social relationships. They forego recovery time in the event of illness, thus damaging their health and burdening the health system in the long term. This creates a fear-driven hopelessness for society as a whole, which has a damaging effect on the economy (energy, creativity, willingness to perform, purchasing power) and disrupts the social structure (separation of population groups).

Public and private employers could further withdraw from their responsibility to create regular jobs. This would be achieved, among other things, by forcing a deliberately generated under-financing of public budgets: with reference to the empty coffers, an overall social acceptance of having necessary work done by MAE staff would be promoted.

Statistical bias

Additional jobs contribute to the "fining" of the unemployment statistics. Since additional jobs are measures to actively promote employment, MAE workers are participants in the measures. According to Section 16 (2) SGB III, they are not considered unemployed, although they receive unemployment benefit II and are not in employment that is subject to insurance. The participants in an AGH-MEA are considered jobseekers and are shown as such in the current labor market statistics.

Distortion of competition

Another problem is that institutions that illegally use additional jobs to save regular staff gain business advantages over competitors who behave in compliance with the regulations. The advantage results from the saved personnel costs at the expense of the general public (financing of additional jobs from tax revenues).

The distortion of competition is exacerbated by the fact that institutions that use additional jobs receive flat-rate fees for these measures, although they often incur no or significantly lower expenses as a result of the assignment. In an audit report from April 2008, the Federal Audit Office spoke of a pure deadweight effect from public grants.


Hartz IV opponents criticize the fact that the additional jobs push people to take up work under poor, precarious conditions (pay sometimes does not cover needs, poor working conditions). They take on such work in order not to end up in a job opportunity in the long run.

working conditions

Since the additional jobs are not employment relationships, there is neither an employment contract nor collectively agreed pay, no entitlement to continued wages in the event of illness or vacation, no right to strike and no protection against dismissal. The legal regulation of § 16d on which an additional job is based does not establish an employment relationship within the meaning of labor law . Critics also consider this to be constitutionally questionable, as "it puts many hundreds of thousands of people in a state of lawlessness or legal uncertainty".

Doubts about improving employability

According to a study by the Institute for Employment Research, it is doubted that additional jobs are generally conducive to the faster placement of the long-term unemployed in regular employment. On average, workers assigned to such additional jobs were even placed into work later than other long-term unemployed. It is referred to as a lock-in effect which runs counter to the original goals of these activities. Even according to an audit report by the Federal Audit Office from the beginning of 2008, three out of four unemployed people employed in additional jobs did not benefit from their overall integration.

Ways of reasoning that advocate additional jobs

Practical proof of suitability and control

Additional jobs can improve job seekers' chances of being hired at a later date, as the person concerned can also recommend himself / herself for a position that becomes vacant due to the work performance shown. A mandatory prerequisite for this is the prevention of the possibility of having necessary activities carried out by AGH employees . This advantage only takes effect if the assigning body can appropriately control the additionality of the positions created.

Practical qualification

Practical knowledge can be acquired through the additional jobs, which then improve the employability in a regular job.

Active participation in society

Many ALG II recipients feel they are not needed and worthless. These measures - according to the theory - make it easier for people to reintegrate into society and to follow a regular daily routine. New social contacts can be made. If the legal requirements are actually observed, they carry out additional work that is useful (= non-profit) for society as a whole, for example additional care for the elderly (reading aloud, discussions, society). In fact, many additional jobs are not in municipal use, but are used in specially created projects in which only the project managers themselves are not one-euro jobbers. This tends to aggravate social exclusion because the only social contacts continue to take place with other unemployed people. Another problem with the above-mentioned view is that it assumes that only a person who is in a dependent employment relationship is a whole, complete person who participates in society. In contrast, a large number of those able to work do, for example, bring up children or care for their relatives, and dependent employment now only accounts for around two thirds of all employed persons, and the number of freelancers is constantly increasing. It will not be possible to deny these people participation in society.

Additional jobs for those who are difficult to place

Anyone who cannot be placed on the regular labor market in the long term can get a job. By regularly requesting the person concerned, a negative change in the daily rhythm can be prevented. For example, jobs are created for people that are considered to have no chance in the regular job search due to health restrictions or large gaps in the CV. After the end of employment, the unemployed can receive a written certificate of their work performance.

Credit-free additional income

If the additional expense of an ALG II recipient is lower than the additional expense allowance, a motivating income can arise. This compensation according to Section 16d SGB ​​II offers the recipient of unemployment benefit II, so to speak, an opportunity to earn additional income free of charge. For this reason, needy people who can hardly be placed are assigned an additional job at their own request. The additional expense allowance remains deductible even in the case of additional ancillary income (exemption for example 160 euros for a 400-euro job). This means that the beneficiary even has two other sources of income in addition to the basic security, which means a significant net income compared to regular employment in the low-wage sector that is subject to social insurance.


Web links

Individual evidence

  1. Joachim Jahnke: On the interpretation of the unemployment statistics. , August 2, 2006.
  2. Amendment of Section 68 (2) SGB VI through the law amending the Company Pension Act and other laws of December 2, 2006 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 2742, 2743 )
  3. Albrecht Brühl : Help for work according to the BSHG - Reform Act (Part 1) ( Memento of October 9, 2006 in the Internet Archive ), so info. 2/97 page 64), (Part 2) ( Memento from October 9, 2006 in the Internet Archive ), so info. 3/97 Page 117: “The appropriate compensation for the additional expenses serves to compensate for the increased expenses (BVerwG judgment of October 13, 1983 - 5 C 67/82 -, BVerwGE 69, 91; OVG Münster decision of October 25, 1982 - 8 B 1586/82 -, FEVS 32, 28, 33 f., Burdenski aa 0. P. 90 ff., Knopp / Fichtner, § 19 marginal number 7.) For nutrition, clothes cleaning and laundry wear as well as personal needs such as luxury foods (according to § 1 RSVO ) and does not represent a "work bonus " or even a "wage" [...]. "
  4. Ernst Lohoff and Martin Massip : Help for forced labor - From the annals of the Federal German social administration. ( Memento from May 7, 2008 in the Internet Archive ), critical contribution to § 19 BSHG.
  5. Federal Labor Court, order of November 8, 2006, 5 AZB 36/06, paragraph 23; Labor Court Weiden in the Upper Palatinate , Az .: 2 Ca 480/05, judgment of September 29, 2005.
  6. The additional income in all its facets: What is the additional income? / Legal basis BAG inclusion companies , accessed on October 12, 2017
  7. German Association for Public and Private Welfare : Working aid of the German Association on the possibility of additional income in the area of ​​SGB XII, supplement to the recommendations for self-determined participation in working life of March 18, 2009
  8. BMAS: Additional jobs ( memento of August 25, 2008 on WebCite ), as of August 25, 2008.
  9. BMAS Infographic: Additional job: more than 1 Euro ( memento from August 25, 2008 on WebCite ), seen on August 25, 2008.
  10. Wolfgang Ayaß : Compulsory work and care work. On the history of “help with work” outside of institutions , in: Frankfurter Arbeitslosenzentrum (Ed.): Arbeitsdienst - socially acceptable again? Compulsion to work in history and the welfare state . Frankfurt am Main 1998, pp. 56-79.
  11. § 19 of the ordinance on the duty of care of February 13, 1924, RGBl. I, pp. 100, 104.
  12. § 91 of the law on job placement and unemployment insurance of July 16, 1927 (AVAVG) RGBl. I pp. 187, 197, 198
  13. § 153 AVAVG in conjunction with § 140 in the new version of April 3, 1957 ( Federal Law Gazette I, p. 321, 348 ) previously § 141i of the law amending and supplementing the AVAVG of December 23, 1956 ( BGBl. I p. 1018, 1041 )
  14. Section 19 of the Federal Social Welfare Act of June 30, 1961 ( Federal Law Gazette I, p. 815, 818 ), Section 19 (2) sentence 1 BSHG (no longer in force)
  15. § 25 BSHG
  16. ^ Helga Spindler: "One-Euro-Jobs" and labor market reform. In: Forum social. (Journal of the DBSH, German Professional Association for Social Work) 2005, Issue 2, pp. 11–13 and Issue 3, pp. 13–15. ( Memento from February 12, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
  17. At that time it was stipulated in the law "of temporary duration" § 19 Paragraph 1 Clause 2 BSHG , in today's § 16d no longer exist as a regulation.
  18. Section 19 (2) sentence 1 BSHG.
  19. as described e.g. B. in the judgment of the LSG NRW of September 24, 2007 - L 20 B 169/07 AS ER
  20. see e.g. B. Judgment of the LSG Berlin-Brandenburg of September 28, 2006 - L 14 B 518/06 AS ER
  21. a b Bundestag printed paper 17/6277, p. 115.
  22. ^ Gregor Kochan, Diakonisches Werk Braunschweig bei Tacheles: Work opportunities against additional expense allowance . ( Memento of October 6, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Retrieved August 25, 2008.
  23. Bundestag printed matter 17/6277, page 116
  24. ^ Judgment of the BSG of December 16, 2008 (B 4 AS 60/07 R)
  25. see judgment of the Hessian LSG of April 28, 2008 - L 9 AS 1/07
  26. as stated in the judgment of the LSG Bayern of September 19, 2007 - L 2 U 80/07
  27. ^ Legality of this handling confirmed in the judgment of the SG Braunschweig of June 28, 2007
  28. BSG judgment of November 13, 2008, B 14 AS 66/07 R - according to the appointment report No. 55/08
  29. ^ Judgment of the Hessian LSG of April 28, 2008 - L 9 AS 1/07
  30. ^ LG Dresden, June 17, 2008, AZ 3 T 233/08
  31. Judgment of November 13, 2008, Az. B 14 AS 66/07 R , Federal Social Court.
  32. ^ Federal Labor Court, ruling of November 8, 2006, 5 AZB 36/06, margin number 20, with further references.
  33. ^ Federal Social Court, judgment of April 13, 2011, B 14 AS 101/10 R
  34. Berlin campaign against HARTZ IV, page no longer available , search in web archives: press conference of February 15, 2006 , p. 3, viewed August 25, 2008.@1@ 2Template: Toter Link /
  35. Information sheet from the employment agency GA-SGB-2-NR-21-2009-07-14-Annex (PDF; 306 kB) ( Memento from January 18, 2012 in the Internet Archive )
  36. LSG Rhineland-Palatinate, April 28, 2015, AZ L 3 AS 99/15 B ER
  37. ^ Judgment of the SG Bayreuth - S 4 AS 145/05 ER and judgment of the SG Berlin - S 37 AS 4801/05 ER
  38. ^ Judgment of the SG Düsseldorf of March 24, 2006 - S 23 AS 306/05.
  39. Judgment of the VG Bremen from June 22, 2007 - S3 V 1575/07
  40. ^ Judgment of the SG Berlin of June 27, 2005 - S 37 AS 4507/05 ER.
  41. ^ Judgment of the SG Hamburg of February 13, 2007 - S 31 AS 239/07 ER.
  42. ^ Judgment of the LSG Bavaria of April 13, 2007 - L 7 AS 344/06 and judgment of the LSG North Rhine-Westphalia of January 23, 2007 - L 1 B 54/06 AS ER.
  43. ^ Judgment of the SG Hamburg of February 21, 2007 - S 53 AS 532/07 ER and judgment of the SG Leipzig of February 19, 2007 - S 19 AS 392/06.
  44. ^ Judgment of the LSG Baden-Württemberg of July 19, 2007 - L 7 AS 689/07.
  45. ^ Federal Labor Court, ruling of November 8, 2006, 5 AZB 36/06.
  46. Federal Social Court, judgment of April 13, 2011, B 14 AS 98/10 R (online)
  47. page 4 and page 16 f. in: Bundesrechnungshof: Essential results of the examinations in the legal sphere of the second book of the social security code. Gz .: VI 6 / VI 2 - 2006–1219 Bonn, May 19, 2006 (PDF file; 229 kB) ( Memento of February 20, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
  48. see: Audit report of the Federal Audit Office of April 29, 2008 ( Memento of March 20, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 1.5 MB), pages 17ff
  49. ^ German Bundestag from May 19, 2008: ( Memento from February 13, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  50. a b IAB research report (PDF; 384 kB)
  51. Example: City of Schweinfurt, only approx. 10% of the number of comparable working groups
  52. IAB Research Report No. 2/2007: Social Work Opportunities Use and Effectiveness from an Operational and Labor Market Policy Perspective, Research Report, p. 36 f (PDF; 384 kB)
  53. ^ IAB research report p. 38
  54. German Trade Union Confederation Federal Executive Board: Practice and new developments in 1-euro jobs, Arbeitsmarkt aktuell 04/2009, May 2009, link to publication here ( Memento from November 21, 2016 in the Internet Archive )
  55. Report of the Federal Audit Office of April 29, 2008 on the implementation of basic security for job seekers according to the second book of the Social Security Code, p. 17 f (PDF; 1.5 MB) ( Memento of March 20, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  56. The Free Competition, Die Zeit, May 31, 2006
  57. ^ Concept of unemployment in statistics under SGB II and SGB III
  58. ( Memento from March 20, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  59. Literature on this: Guy Standing (2011). The Precariat - The new Dangerous Class. Bloomsbury - not published in German
  60. Quotation from: Günther Stahlmann: One-euro jobs from a legal point of view .
  61. Audit report of the Federal Audit Office of April 29, 2008 on § 16 SGB II, p. 18
  62. a b Additional jobs - ( Memento from November 21, 2008 in the Internet Archive )