Rassegna stampa

Rassegna stampa
08/10/2010 : Notizie di oggi
Cinco Dìas
●
●
●
●
Corriere Alto
Adige
●
Espresso, L'
●
gomarche.it
●
Guardian, The
●
●
●
●
●
HelpConsumatori
●
La sucesión de Corbacho retrasa la reforma de
las pensiones
Los '100 economistas' piden elevar la edad
mínima de jubilación de 61 a 63 años
Pensiones públicas sostenibles y equitativas
Una propuesta de reforma del sistema de
pensiones
Previdenza complementare PensPlan «on tour»
funziona Migliaia di adesioni in provincia
I pasdaran della pensione
Porto Recanati: controlli sul lavoro, un arresto
per violazioni ritenute previdenziali
Frozen pay now a pension cut
John Hutton refuses to give a green light to
slash and burn on pensions
Public sector pensions: Protecting the public
good
The government isn't foolish: there's a plan B in
the offing
Union anger at 'pay more, retire later' pensions
plan for public workers
PREVIDENZA. Inps: on line posizione dei
lavoratori iscritti alla Gestione separata
Herald Scotland
Online
Independent,
The
●
●
●
●
●
●
Italia Oggi
●
●
●
New York Times
Tesco chief warns of great error' in pension
closures
'End final salary pensions in the public sector'
David Prosser: The Swedish model that might
save our pensions system
The real pensions divide
Unions warn of anger over pension changes
Unions warn of strikes over public-sector
pension reform
Contributi in più casse? La pensione si allontana
F24 senza frontiere
Pensioni, l'Inps ha un cuore hi-tech
●
Editorial: New York's Pension Scandal
Hevesi Pleads Guilty in Pension Case
Piccolo di
Trieste, Il
●
pensioni misere
Sole 24 Ore, Il
●
Pensioni, dall'Eliseo riforma più morbida
●
Do you want your PRESSToday ?
La soluzione per le tue rassegne stampa on-line: www.presstoday.com
Rassegna stampa
Cinco Dìas
"La sucesión de Corbacho retrasa la reforma de las pensiones"
Indietro
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
Federico Castaño - Madrid - 08/10/2010
La lentitud con la que los grupos parlamentarios afrontan el debate de la reforma de las pensiones en
la comisión parlamentaria del Pacto de Toledo obedece, en parte, al paréntesis abierto en el
Ministerio de Trabajo como consecuencia del próximo abandono de la cartera por parte del actual
titular del departamento, Celestino Corbacho. En un principio, se prevé que su relevo sea resuelto la
semana que viene y será a su sucesor a quien competa conducir el proceso de esta reforma que el
Gobierno quiere sacar adelante con el máximo consenso.
Entre los grupos parlamentarios que forman parte de la comisión del Pacto de Toledo y que volvieron
a reunirse ayer en el Congreso crece la sospecha de que la reforma ha sido previamente abordada por
el Gobierno, desde la Secretaría de Estado de la Seguridad Social que dirige Octavio Granado, con el
PP. Si bien el principal partido de la oposición ha vinculado cualquier tipo de acuerdo a la renuncia
del Ejecutivo a congelar las pensiones el año que viene, el diálogo sobre los aspectos más sensibles
de la reforma se encuentra muy avanzado y se retomará de manera formal una vez sea nombrado el
nuevo titular de Trabajo.
No obstante, la dirección del PSOE teme que el PP se conduzca en este asunto con una estrategia
parecida a la de la reforma laboral: apoyaría sus capítulos principales, pero dejaría que fuera el
Gobierno el que asumiera el mayor desgaste político. Según fuentes socialistas, en la misma dinámica
están jugando ya los nacionalistas vascos y catalanes.
IU es la fuerza política que con más claridad ha dado a conocer sus posiciones, con un firme rechazo
al aumento de la edad de jubilación y del periodo de cálculo.
Rassegna stampa
Cinco Dìas
"Los '100 economistas' piden elevar la edad mínima de jubilación
de 61 a 63 años"
Indietro
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
Raquel Pascual - Madrid - 08/10/2010
Ya levantaron ampollas con su propuesta de reforma laboral con un contrato fijo único con
indemnización progresiva. Ahora, el grupo de los 100 economistas, adscritos a Fedea, presentó ayer
sus iniciativas para reformar las pensiones. Los cambios que reclaman persiguen fundamentalmente
que el sistema "sea más justo porque ahora la pensión no se determina de forma equitativa en función
todas las cotizaciones aportadas". Y, en segundo lugar, hacer que su financiación sea sostenible,
porque ahora hay cuatro activos por cada jubilado y en 2050 este ratio será de 1,65 (115 trabajadores
por cada 100 jubilados). Esto elevará el gasto en pensiones del actual 8% del PIB a más del 15% en
cuarenta años. Con esta reforma se ahorraría entre 4 y 5 puntos del PIB en 40 años.
Ante este panorama, estos economistas sugieren tres grandes cambios, todos ellos urgentes en su
puesta en marcha pero siempre graduales en su aplicación. Calculan que debería tardar entre 10 y 20
años en implantarse.
El primero de dichos cambios consiste en cambiar la fórmula que se usa ahora para calcular la cuantía
de la pensión. En la actualidad ésta depende de la base reguladora (cotizaciones aportadas) de los 15
años previos a la jubilación; y del porcentaje de dicha base a percibir por cada año cotizado, que
ahora es de un 3% entre los 15 y 25 años cotizados, y de un 2% en adelante.
Pues bien, los 100 economistas plantean que para que sea más justa la pensión, se amplíen los 15
años que toman ahora en cuenta a "la historia completa de cotización". Esto es, a todo lo aportado
desde que se empezó a cotizar. Y piden que todos los años cotizados pesen lo mismo. Para ello,
sugieren que se perciba cada año el 2,5% de la base reguladora. Así se dejaría de penalizar a las
carreras más largas de cotización de personas poco cualificadas y que en los últimos años de su vida
laboral son expulsados del mercado.
40 años para el 100% de la pensión
El segundo de estos cambios coincide con el Gobierno en la necesidad de ampliar las edades de
jubilación. En concreto proponen subir, siempre de forma paulatina, la edad legal de los 65 a los 67
años. Y el límite mínimo en el que se puede acceder a la jubilación de los actuales 61 años a 63. Si
bien estos profesionales puntualizan que esta medida "se debe implementar con el establecimiento de
una jubilación flexible, que no penalice a trabajadores que se hayan incorporado muy pronto al
mercado, ni a aquellos con trabajos penosos". Respecto a la propuesta del Gobierno, calculan que si
sólo aumenta la edad de jubilación, el inicio del déficit se retrasa a 2020, pero no se soluciona el
problema.
Junto a este mayor esfuerzo en años cotizados, sugieren que debería endurecerse algo la escala de
aseguramiento, de forma que exijan 40 años de cotización para cobrar el 100% de la pensión, en lugar
de los 35 años actuales. Por último, el documento hace hincapié en que el sistema deberá implantar
"medidas de ajuste automático" similares a los modelos de Alemania o Suecia, de forma que se
adecue a los cambios económicos y sociales y sea más generoso en época de bonanza y se constriña
con vacas flacas.
La población española echa el freno hasta 2020
Si a alguien le quedaba alguna duda sobre la necesidad de reformar el sistema de pensiones, ayer el
INE las disipó con sus proyecciones de población para la próxima década.
España va a envejecer a pasos agigantados. Tras diez años de crecimiento, la población española echa
el freno. Así hasta 2020 el número de habitantes apenas aumentará en 1,2 millones frente a los casi
seis millones que ganó entre 2000 y 2009. La llegada a la edad fértil de una generación de mujeres
más escasa es la causa principal de este frenazo. Junto a ello, la esperanza de vida seguirá
aumentando (hasta los 80,1 años los hombres y 86,1, las mujeres). De todo esto, el mercado laboral
será el peor parado, ya que en los próximos diez años, el colectivo en edad de trabajar (de 16 a 64
años) se recortará en medio millón de efectivos mientras que el grupo de más de 64 años, en edad de
jubilación, se incrementa en 1,3 millones de personas. Así, en 2020, dos de cada diez habitantes
tendrá más de 64 años.
Rassegna stampa
Cinco Dìas
"Pensiones públicas sostenibles y equitativas"
Indietro
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
08/10/2010
El Gobierno ha accedido a poner en primera línea de fuego la reforma de las pensiones, más por la
presión del mercado financiero que por su propia convicción. Lo cierto es que con el actual
desempeño de la economía española, para la Seguridad Social se ha convertido en insostenible a
largo plazo el abono de las prestaciones que la actual legislación determina. En una decena de años,
con la evolución esperada de la población y la esperanza de vida, aun en un escenario de crecimiento
razonable, el sistema público de pensiones sólo tiene dos opciones para mantener sus pagos: elevar
las cotizaciones, recortar las prestaciones o una combinación de ambas.
Dado que el sistema de protección de la vejez es uno de los pilares que sostiene a las sociedades
occidentales, y cuya viabilidad es crítica para consolidar la confianza de la ciudadanía, que precisa
visibilidad y certeza en las rentas tras su retiro para mantener estándares aceptables de inversión y
consumo en el presente, las reformas para garantizar su sostenibilidad, eficacia y equidad deben
hacerse ya. La maduración de las medidas es muy lenta. Además, para respetar la planificación
personal y empresarial respecto al retiro, los cotizantes deben saber a qué atenerse con tiempo
suficiente. Cualquier cambio en las reglas de juego no puede ser brusco, y deberá respetar una
razonable transitoriedad para que la ciudadanía se adapte a los nuevos estándares de cotización y de
prestación, y no puede ser agresiva con el empleo, que es, a fin de cuentas, el fuego que mantiene
caliente al sistema.
Fedea (Fundación de Estudios de Economía Aplicada) presentó ayer las líneas básicas por las que
debe desenvolverse la reforma que proporcionará al sistema más contributividad, más equidad y más
sostenibilidad para hacer frente a la presión demográfica venidera con garantías.
Fedea propone contabilizar toda la carrera de cotización para determinar la cuantía de la pensión (en
vez de los últimos 15 años); establecer una escala de aseguramiento en la que sólo se alcance la
pensión completa a los 40 años de cotización (en vez de los 35 actuales), y en la que todos los años
tienen el mismo peso específico; retrasar la edad de jubilación voluntaria a los 63 años y la legal a los
67 de forma paulatina, e introducir en el cálculo de la prestación un nivelador que considere la
esperanza de vida. La combinación de esas tres medidas de forma completa proporcionaría salud y
longevidad al mecano, incluso sin necesidad de recortar las prestaciones ni incrementar las
cotizaciones, con lo que la variable contributividad sería la gran ganadora. Con estos mecanismos el
sistema se acercaría bastante al principio de que nadie se lleve lo que no ha pagado, ni que nadie
pague más que lo que se lleve el día de su retiro, cosas que ahora ocurren con naturalidad. En todo
caso, estas modificaciones del sistema de reparto (cada generación costea las pensiones de la anterior)
no proporcionan la contributividad perfecta en un mecanismo que conserva más de tres millones de
jubilados con pensiones mínimas, en el que sus cuantías se manipulan política y electoralmente, son
costeadas por los cotizantes más longevos y financieramente más esforzados, y desincentiva la
cotización.
La reforma que encaran los partidos políticos, y en la que se quiera o no hay que dar vela a los
sindicatos y la patronal que representan a los verdaderos financiadores, debe volver a la vieja idea de
los tres escalones de protección, cada cual financiado de forma diferente, y que permita a cada
ciudadano ubicarse allí donde quiera, con las limitaciones que impone una Seguridad Social cuya
cotización es obligatoria por ley.
El escalón asistencial debe mantenerse como garantía para todos los ciudadanos que han aportado
muy poco por sus circunstancias laborales, y deben pagarlo los impuestos; pero estas prestaciones
deben estar convenientemente alejadas en cuantía de las contributivas para no hacer guiños
desincentivadores a los cotizantes. El segundo escalón, puramente contributivo, debe dar cabida a
todos los cotizantes, con un tope de pensión relativamente elevado que devuelva al menos el 70% de
la renta como activo. Y un tercer escalón debe estar formado por la capitalización en los planes
privados de pensiones, voluntarios y libres, para que quienes lo desean se construyan una pensión
privada a la carta.
Rassegna stampa
Cinco Dìas
"Una propuesta de reforma del sistema de pensiones"
Indietro
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
Sergi Jiménez-Martín - 08/10/2010
El imparable proceso de envejecimiento de la población española, debido a la combinación de una
mayor esperanza de vida acompañada de una drástica reducción de la natalidad, derivará, con casi
total certidumbre, en un progresivo deterioro de las cuentas de la Seguridad Social. Así, de la actual
situación de moderado superávit se pasará, en ausencia de reformas, y teniendo en cuenta las
proyecciones demográficas del INE para 2009-2049, a un déficit que alcanzará el 6% del PIB en
2050 (producto de unos ingresos por cotizaciones del 10% del PIB y unos gastos por prestaciones del
16%) y cercano al 10% en 2060. La magnitud del déficit previsto convierten las propuestas de
contener la generosidad del sistema y la necesidad de trabajar más y hasta edades más avanzadas en
imprescindibles para el mantenimiento de nuestro sistema de pensiones.
Sin embargo, para sostener nuestro sistema de pensiones no basta con incentivar, y aumentar la
participación laboral, ya que un simple cálculo revela que para mantener el gasto en pensiones en el
nivel corriente, 8,3%, necesitaríamos una tasa de empleo del 144%! El problema es que, en 2049, aun
alcanzando una tasa de empleo sueca el empleo total disminuiría en un 5%, debido al decaimiento de
la población en edad de trabajar (nótese que el cohorte de 10 años en 2009 es sólo el 51% del cohorte
de 30 y que el de un año en 2009, el mayor de los recientes, es sólo el 60%). En consecuencia, no
tocar el sistema, comportaría a 20 o 30 años vista aumentos impositivos (sobre cotizaciones o
impuestos generales) inasumibles para las generaciones hoy jóvenes y también para las venideras.
A falta de milagros de panes y peces la solución pasa por una disminución de la generosidad del
sistema o, mejor dicho, por una adecuación de la generosidad (o rendimiento) a las disponibilidades
de cada momento. En la propuesta que presentamos ayer un grupo de economistas, sugerimos una
serie de medidas que llevarían, en el marco de un tránsito suave, el sistema de pensiones español en
esta dirección: elevar gradualmente la edad legal de jubilación hasta los 67 y la edad mínima desde
los 61 a los 63 años, con flexibilidad en relación a los colectivos afectados y sus historiales de
cotización; ampliar progresivamente el periodo de cálculo de la base reguladora de la pensión a toda
la vida laboral; ampliar gradualmente el número de años necesarios para tener derecho a pensión
completa de 35 actuales a 40 y fijar, para todos los años de cotización, en 2,5 puntos porcentuales la
fracción de la base reguladora que se acumula.
Resulta evidente que la primera medida sugerida comporta una reducción de la generosidad del
sistema, ya que implica tener, en principio, que trabajar algo más para obtener la pensión completa y,
simultáneamente, disfrutar de la pensión algo menos. Quizás sea injusta, pero no hay alternativa, ya
que el número de mayores se doblará en los próximos 40 años y el número de ocupados incluso
caerá, respecto a la cifra actual, en algo más de un millón.
Las otras dos medidas, que probablemente bajen ligeramente la pensión de aquellos que concentran
sus mejores años salariales en los últimos, mejoran sustancialmente la capacidad de contribución y la
equidad del sistema, y para muestra un botón. Considérese el caso de María que trabajó 40 años y
cotizó por la máxima 25 años para después cotizar los últimos 15, tuvo mala suerte, por la mínima.
Considérese también el caso de Paco, autónomo y que también trabajó 40 años, que cotizó por la
mínima 25 años pero los últimos 15 cotizó por la máxima. Claramente María ha cotizado más que
Paco pero bajo las reglas corrientes a María le corresponde la mínima (mala suerte: 535 euros) y a
Paco la máxima (2.466 euros). Si extendiéramos el cálculo de la base reguladora a, por ejemplo, 30
años, ¿que pensión les correspondería? ¡A María 2035 euros y a Paco 1912! Alternativamente, una
extensión menor, por ejemplo hasta los 20 años, no tendría consecuencias sobre la pensión de Paco y
sí subiría (más que doblaría) notoriamente la de María.
Sin duda podemos pensar que éstos son casos extremos, pero reflexionando sobre los que le debería
tocar a cada uno seguramente concluiríamos: ¡lo justo!
Sergi Jiménez-Martín. Universitad Pompeu Fabra y Fedea
Rassegna stampa
Corriere Alto Adige
"Previdenza complementare PensPlan «on tour» funziona Migliaia
di adesioni in provincia"
Indietro
●
●
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
8 ott 2010
Alto Adige
Previdenza complementare PensPlan «on tour» funziona Migliaia di adesioni in provincia
Da settembre PensPlan è on tour in tutta la Regione. Il primo bilancio
dell'iniziativa di sensibilizzazione sulla previdenza dice che l'ufficio mobile della
previdenza ha toccato 13 piazze e numerosi luoghi di grande affluenza come
scuole, centri commerciali e mense interaziendali dove più di 700 interessati
hanno chiesto informazioni. Le serate informative hanno coinvolto oltre 500
persone e le assemblee presso aziende ed enti, grazie ai partner dei PensPlan
Infopoint e parti sindacali di entrambe le province, hanno visto coinvolti più di
1.400 dipendenti. Dopo una prima analisi dei questionari di gradimento, i
feedback sono positivi. Presso gli 88 sportelli PensPlan Infopoint dei 12 partner
è stato rilanciato il servizio di check up previdenziali. Le prossime tappe del tour
in Alto Adige: domani via Geizkofler a Vipiteno (ore 9-13); martedì serata
informativa Casa di Cultura di Vipiteno (ore 19); il 16 Piazza Centrale a Egna e
Silandro (ore 9-13); il 19 serata informativa a Silandro; il 20 serata informativa
presso a Termeno.
PENSIONI, INIZIATIVA SPARKASSE.
Settimane della previdenza in Cassa di risparmio. «Si tratta di una delle
maggiori azioni di consulenza, da parte dell'intera rete commerciale, mai
intraprese dalla banca», spiega il direttore generale Peter Schedl. Oltre 500
esperti nelle 117 filiali sono pronti per una consulenza altamente professionale.
È stato sviluppato uno specifico tool di analisi: attraverso l'inserimento di dati
personali, quali età, stipendio, anni di contribuzione e importi accantonati, è
possibile calcolare il divario esistente tra l'importo della pensione o pensione
complementare da un lato e l'importo dello stipendio dall'altro. Collaboratori
della Banca saranno impiegati in un tour attraverso stand informativi ed uno
speciale automezzo denominato «Pensione-Mobile» dal Brennero a Milano e
Mestre.
Rassegna stampa
Espresso, L'
"I pasdaran della pensione"
Indietro
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
Attualità
RISCHIO ELEZIONI
I pasdaran della pensione
di Primo Di Nicola
Il voto anticipato preoccupa la maggioranza dei parlamentari. Che non hanno maturato il
vitalizio
Al diavolo le dichiarazioni di guerra del capo della Lega Umberto Bossi che tuona chiedendo le
elezioni anticipate come unico rimedio per togliere le pastoie al governo e sottrarsi al ricatto dei
"traditori" di Futuro e Libertà. E non parliamo poi del leader dell'Italia dei valori Antonio Di Pietro,
un altro da non prendere in considerazione quando anche lui proclama la necessità di chiudere la
legislatura per tentare con il voto di mettere in ginocchio il Pdl e distruggere Berlusconi. Va già
meglio la linea del segretario del Pd Pier Luigi Bersani, che prima del ritorno alle urne ipotizza un
governo di transizione. Altro che elezioni anticipate: per un folto drappello parlamentare l'Italia ha
bisogno di continuità politica. Per risolvere la crisi economica, ma soprattutto per consentire agli
onorevoli deputati e senatori che ne hanno bisogno di completare felicemente la legislatura.
E già, mentre Fini e Berlusconi se le danno di santa ragione mettendo a rischio la sopravvivenza del
Parlamento e l'opposizione è dibattuta sul ritorno al voto, a Montecitorio e palazzo Madama sta in
agguato e silenziosamente preme uno schieramento che della stabilità ha fatto un vero dogma e che in
fatto di numeri nulla ha da invidiare ai gruppi parlamentari più forti. Si tratta del Pap, il Partito degli
aspiranti alla pensione, deputati e senatori che desiderano solo completare il mandato per maturare
l'anzianità indispensabile per riscuotere il ricco vitalizio: cinque anni alla Camera, solo quattro anni e
mezzo, e vai a capire perché, al Senato.
Nella lista degli esponenti del Pap (vedere tabelle di queste pagine e l'elenco completo dei nomi sul
nostro sito www.espressonline.it) c'è di tutto: parlamentari illustri di destra e di sinistra che almeno a
prima vista dovrebbero temere poco lo scioglimento anticipato delle Camere visto che, almeno loro,
in Parlamento dovrebbero tornarci sicuramente. Gente del rango di Pietro Lunardi, Giorgia Meloni,
Raffaele Fitto e Mariastella Gelmini tra i berlusconiani; o di Lorenzo Cesa, segretario dell'Udc;
Gianrico Carofiglio (scrittore e magistrato) e Ricardo Franco Levi, ex braccio destro di Romano
Prodi, del Pd. Ma ci sono anche, e sono la maggioranza, soprattutto sconosciuti peones che per
approdare in Parlamento hanno dato fondo a tutte le loro risorse, risparmi compresi, che devono
ancora rifarsi delle spese e che della ricandidatura non sono affatto sicuri. Comparse come Mario
Lovelli, Francesco Laratta e Daniele Marantelli tra i democratici. O come Eugenio Minasso, Giustina
Mistrello Destro o Marco Martinelli del Pdl. Tutti semisconociuti vicinissimi al traguardo del
vitalizio e che per assicurarselo potrebbe ricorrerre ad ogni mezzo, magari anche qualche cambio di
campo.
Un'esagerazione? Può darsi, ma un assaggio di quello che potrebbe accadere sempre più spesso in
Parlamento lo si è visto alla fine di settembre, quando Berlusconi ha chiesto la fiducia. Fosse andato
in minoranza ("Senza voti, tutti a casa", lo slogan del Cavaliere), lo spettro delle elezioni si sarebbe
materializzato pericolosamente. Una eventualità che stava mettendo a repentaglio i consensi dei
senza-pensione. Per questo il premier è corso ai ripari promettendo a tutti i suoi la rielezione e
avviando la campagna-acquisti che ha visto emigrare nella maggioranza una decina di parlamentari
dell'opposizione. Gente proveniente soprattutto da Udc e Pd, ma anche dalle file del Pap e più che
mai vogliosa di allungare la vita della legislatura per conquistarsi il vitalizio. Qualche nome: Bruno
Cesario, ex Api, e Americo Porfidia, ex Idv, ai quali mancano meno di 200 giorni alla pensione, per
esempio; l'ex democratico Massimo Cima Calearo, imprenditore di professione, uno che del vitalizio
non dovrebbe avere bisogno (a lui mancano 900 giorni), anche se con la crisi che corre non si sa mai.
Guai dunque a sottovalutarli, i parlamentari del Pap. Alla Camera sono addirittura in maggioranza:
ben 394 su 630. E soprattutto sono ben distribuiti in un temibile schieramento trasversale che ne vede
allineati 135 nel Pdl, 144 nel Pd, 44 tra i leghisti, 21 nell'Udc, 17 tra i finiani e i dipietristi, per non
parlare dei 16 del gruppo misto. E lo stesso capita al Senato dove gli eletti che devono ancora
conquistarsi il vitalizio sono 172 su 321, 36 in più degli iscritti al gruppo Pdl. Numeri importanti se si
dovesse arrivare al redde rationem.
A parole, infatti, quasi tutti giurano di fregarsene della pensione: "Lavoro come un cane e del
vitalizio me ne infischio", dice per esempio il berlusconiano Fabio Rampelli, forte del fatto che lui il
traguardo lo sta praticamente tagliando, mancandogli solo una settantina di giorni. E come Rampelli
tanti altri, a partire da Ettore Rosato, Pd, al quale di giorni ne mancano una ventina: "Se torno sul
mercato, un lavoro lo trovo", afferma. Ma attenzione a fare conto su tanto disinteresse: "La paura di
perdere lo scranno e il paracadute pensionistico è generalizzata", avverte Linda Lanzillotta, anche lei
del Pd, un'altra alla quale mancano 200 giorni al vitalizio. E non è la sola: "In effetti sono molti quelli
che si preoccupano per la pensione", ammette Sandra Zampa (a lei di giorni ne mancano 900). Una
preoccupazione avvertita anche da Maria Paola Merloni, dinastia di imprenditori alle spalle e la
pensione alle porte (meno 200 giorni): "Tra 630 deputati", spiega, "chi è disposto a votare per il
vitalizio piuttosto che per la politica c'è sicuramente". Quanti? Ecco è il problema.
Nelle file del Pap militano soprattutto gli eletti per la prima volta nella sedicesima legislatura, quella
inauguratasi nel 2008, e molti parlamentari in carica eletti anche nella precedente del 2006. Prima di
allora avere la pensione era molto facile, per lungo tempo è bastato addirittura mettere piede un solo
giorno in Parlamento per riscuotere il vitalizio. Poi grazie alle proteste contro i privilegi le norme
sono state rese più stringenti. Stringenti? Si fa per dire, visto che ancora fino al 2007 bastavano due
anni e mezzo per maturare il diritto, quello stesso che la gran parte dei comuni mortali conquista solo
dopo 35 anni di lavoro. Solo tre anni fa Camera e Senato hanno rivisitato i propri regolamenti,
stabilendo che per riscuotere il vitalizio ci vogliono una legislatura completa di cinque anni (Camera)
o quasi (Senato), collezionabili anche attraverso più mandati. In cambio, deputati e senatori devono
versare mensilmente una percentuale della propria indennità, circa mille euro. Una cifra modesta
considerando quello che si va a riscuotere una volta raggiunta l'età "pensionabile": con le nuove
regole, 65 anni con una sola legislatura, uno in meno e fino a un minimo di 60 anni in caso di più
elezioni. Quanto per la precisione? Ben il 20 per cento dell'indennità parlamentare (oggi attestata a
circa 12 mila euro) con cinque anni di anzianità, cioè 2.486 euro. Molto di più, fino al 60 per cento,
per quelli che riusciranno a collezionare sei o più legislature. Ma attenzione, queste norme valgono
solo per gli eletti a partire dal 2008. Gli altri, i parlamentari di lungo corso che sono riusciti a
conquistare lo scranno nelle legislature precedenti, dell'indennità parlamentare possono arrivare a
riscuotere, beati loro, fino all'80 per cento, cioè quasi 10 mila euro al mese. Una cifra ragguardevole,
in grado di assicurare una vecchiaia serena e che molti parlamentari potrebbero decidere di
agguantare ad ogni costo.
ha collaborato Giulia Cerino
Rassegna stampa
gomarche.it
"Porto Recanati: controlli sul lavoro, un arresto per violazioni
ritenute previdenziali"
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
Indietro
Giovedì 07 Ottobre 2010
Porto Recanati: controlli sul lavoro, un arresto per
violazioni ritenute previdenziali
I Carabinieri della Compagnia di Civitanova Marche e del Nucleo Carabinieri
Ispettorato del Lavoro di Macerata, a seguito di una serie di controlli a sei cantieri edili della costa
finalizzati a focalizzare le irregolarità sia alle norme di sicurezza sul lavoro che a quelle previdenziali
ed assistenziali, hanno emesso sia denunce penali che sanzioni amministrative per i titolari di due
imprese del maceratese.
I due titolari sono stati quindi accusati di non aver provveduto alla messa in sicurezza delle aperture dei
solai e di non aver provveduto a mettere a conformità i tesserini degli operatori.
Un imprenditore di 40 anni poi è stato tratto in arresto a Porto Recanati perchè responsabile di omissione
del versamento delle ritenute operate dal datore di lavoro sulle retribuzioni dei dipendenti. Pertanto, le#39;
imprenditore dovrà ottemperare nel termine di tre mesi. Qualora questo non accada, scatterà la denuncia e
si andrà a giudizio mentre se continuerà a mantenere irregolare quella posizione potrà essere condannato
ad una pena fino a tre anni di reclusione.
Inoltre le#39;uomo dovrà scontare una pena detentiva di un mese e venti giorni determinata dal Tribunale
maceratese per fatti commessi dalle#39;imprenditore nel corso delle#39;anno 2005. Così, dopo le formalità
di rito, il 40enne è stato condotto dai militari presso la casa circondariale di Camerino.
Sudani Scarpini
Rassegna stampa
Guardian, The
"Frozen pay now a pension cut"
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
Indietro
Letters
Frozen pay – now a pension cut
●
●
The Guardian, Friday 8 October 2010
larger | smaller
I am a civil servant in the Department for Work and Pensions and, as such, one of the people whose
pension John Hutton has reviewed (Report, 7 October). While it is refreshing to hear someone admit
that civil service pensions aren't "gold-plated", this was something we already knew, so not much
relief there. But the main source of worry is the recommendation to government to increase
employee contributions in the short term. If I can put this in context, for the last three years my
salary and that of tens of thousands of my colleagues has increased, in turn, by 2%, 0% and 1%.
This while inflation was constantly above this level and therefore effectively three years of pay cuts.
As I am paid over the arbitrary limit of £21,000, my pay is now to be frozen for a further two years;
meanwhile inflation is still running well above the Bank of England's target of 2%, so more pay
cuts. Now, John Hutton suggests that I have my salary reduced by even more.
Just out of interest and apropos of nothing at all, what proposals does he have for decreasing the pay
of bankers, the real villains of the financial crisis?
Dan Tanzey
Thornton Cleveleys, Lancashire
•?To listen to cabinet ministers you would think the cost of public servants' pensions was spiralling
out of control. Yet Lord Hutton's report shows that the proportion of our national wealth spent on
public sector pensions over the next 50 years will in fact fall from 1.5% of GDP to 1.1%. Making
policy on the basis of moral panics is never a good idea and the impact of these rushed changes will
be to destroy the financial security of many millions of hard-working staff while making recruiting
the best to key professional occupations in schools, colleges, hospitals and universities even more
difficult. Public servants deserve better.
Sally Hunt
General secretary, University and College Union
•?Fair and sustainable pensions – yes, please! Now we're all supposed to be in this together, why not
a single, state-administered scheme for all workers, public and private? A decent basic state pension
would be a good start, supplemented with a top-up based on total career earnings and funded by
compulsory employer/employee contributions. The maximum size of the top-up and its structure in
relation to total career income would be contentious. But such a scheme would have the benefits of
simplicity, security, fairness and universality. For many (myself included) it would be infinitely
superior to the present situation, where future retirement income is in effect an insecure punt on the
performance of the financial markets.
Peter Collier
Harlow, Essex
•?I welcome Lord Hutton's initial approach to public sector pension reform, in particular
acknowledging that the average local government pension is less than £5,000 year and far from
"gold-plated". But in recommending reforms, please don't lump all public sector pensions together.
There is a huge difference in terms of affordability between local government pensions, such as
ours, which are funded schemes, and those of civil servants, teachers, health, police and other public
sector workers, whose schemes are not funded and depend largely on general taxation.
Cllr Ken Thornber
(Con) Leader, Hampshire county council
•?John Hutton is worried about the effect of state pensions on the public sector borrowing
requirement. Surely it was the voracious appetite of the private sector's borrowing requirement that
caused the financial crisis. Or did I miss something?
Cllr Jonathan Wills (aged 63½)
Bressay, Shetland
•?In the year when 4,500 City people had bonuses over £1m, I'd think they all put £250,000 into
their pension schemes, and so were able to reclaim 40% – £100,000 – in tax, total £450m. We have
to do it, otherwise they might fritter it all away, and, elderly, become a burden on the state. So you
see, it is necessary to cut universal child benefit, in spite of the increased administrative costs. Trust
Cameron, he is a true Conservative believer in fairness.
Bill Hyde
Offham, Kent
Rassegna stampa
Guardian, The
"John Hutton refuses to give a green light to slash and burn on
pensions"
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
Indietro
John Hutton refuses to give a green light to
slash and burn on pensions
Trade unions that attacked pensions report did not do John Hutton justice: we are living longer and
he recognises this
●
❍
❍
❍
Michael White
The Guardian, Friday 8 October 2010
larger | smaller
John Hutton:
advising the coalition on pensions. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images
On pensions there is always good news to offset the bad. Yes, most currently struggle to pay their
way, but the underlying cause of the problem, alongside breezily over-optimistic promises by
companies and governments, is that most of us are living so much longer.
John Hutton, the former Labour cabinet minister now advising the coalition on pension reform, only
half-joked today that in the course of a single radio interview his own life expectancy had increased
by 15 minutes.
Public sector trade unions that rushed to attack Hutton's interim report did him less than justice. The
TUC and unions such as the GMB were more nuanced. Hutton is a Blairite technocrat, the kind of
politician whose promotion would have come faster without the Blair-Brown feud. But, as a former
work and pensions secretary, he understands the system. His report did not give the green light to
the slash-and-burn brigade.
But cries of "unfairness' by the public sector unions, understandable though their concern is for their
lower paid members, that does not change the facts.
Most of us are living longer, the cost of under-funded public pensions has risen by 32% in a decade
(to a symmetrical £32bn a year), and the shortfall is costing 1.9% of GDP, most of it borne by the
taxpayer.
This would be hard to justify in the best of times. But these are not the best of times. Public sector
workers talk of lower pay than the private sector in return for greater job security and state-backed
pension.
Such arguments fail to impress their private sector colleagues who have seen final salary schemes -
in some cases, all pension schemes - modified or close as a combination of factors exposed their
financial fragility.
The free market narrative blames chancellor Gordon Brown, whose famous assault on pension fund
tax perks (building on Norman Lamont's early raid) did not help. But nor did company pension
contribution holidays in the boom years, followed by panic after the stock market tanked. Rarely put
in the dock is the change to transparent accounting, which forced private companies to stop
pretending all was well.
Critics such as John Ralfe have long regarded private sector final salary schemes as a bit of a con,
dangled before staff to justify senior management's own generous self-provision. Like the spurious
bonus culture, fat cat pensions were aped by the public sector's senior managers. Public sector
liabilities are still grossly underfunded, says Ralfe.
Hutton's interim findings are meant to generate debate about the one in five Britons - 12 million of
us - who depend on more modest public sector pensions. He does not want to embrace the private
sector's cash purchase model (your pension is worth only what you paid in) lest it push low-paid
state workers, struggling with extra costs and pay freezes, to stop saving for retirement or fall into
means-tested poverty.
He wants workers to contribute more and to work more years. How can retirement at 60 be justified.
It sounds reasonable. Is the coalition minded to agree?
Rassegna stampa
Guardian, The
"Public sector pensions: Protecting the public good"
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
Indietro
Public sector pensions: Protecting the public
good
Lord Hutton has provided a basis for a rational solution, but any changes should be guided by
fairness, sustainability and affordability
●
●
●
Editorial
The Guardian, Friday 8 October 2010
larger | smaller
Lord Hutton, the Labour politician formerly known as John Hutton, had some bad press when he
agreed to chair an inquiry into public sector pensions for the coalition. Yesterday's interim report
justifies his decision. Although he recognises the imperative for reform, he has expressly refused to
lead what he calls "a race to the bottom" in pension provision. He has written a useful survey of
how public sector pensions work that recognises their real costs and benefits (and challenges the
private pensions industry to come up with something as efficient). Rather than provide cover for the
chancellor to raise contributions to ease the deficit in the spending review later this month, he
emphasises the existing pressures on public sector pay and conditions, and recommends a phased
introduction of higher contributions, and the exemption of workers in the lowest grades. In short,
there is no quick fix.
He is right that reform is necessary. We are living too long and saving too little for the existing
public sector schemes to remain viable (although the local government pension scheme, with
£103.4bn in investments and assets, can make a strong case to be treated separately). Any changes
should be guided by the principles of fairness, sustainability and affordability. Meeting the existing
public pension shortfall will cost £4bn this year and £9bn by 2014: not affordable now, nor
sustainable in the longer term. And if fairness is calibrated solely in the relationship between the
taxpayer (who is likely to be in a less generous private scheme) and the public sector worker, then
yes, it is unfair. But there are other measures of fairness.
The great strength of public sector schemes is the high level of fairness they deliver between their
members. Although Lord Hutton rightly points out that even in the public sector the highest-paid get
twice as much benefit per pound of contribution as the lowest-paid, the differential is of a different
order in the private sector, where executives negotiate pension packages out of all proportion to
their low-paid employees. In particular, women and part-time workers do much better from public
sector pensions than private sector ones. As a result, 85% of public sector workers are in a pension
scheme, but only 35% of those in the private sector. That means public sector workers are less likely
to need means-tested benefits in retirement. But these pensions, despite the clamour against them,
are not gold-plated. In local government they average about £4,000; the average of all public sector
pensions is only £7,800 (the median figure is £5,600). Finally, Lord Hutton points out that changes
made by Labour, followed by the emergency budget decision to upgrade pensions more slowly than
in the past, already means cuts of up to 25%.
This is not to say that nothing needs to be done. The retirement age will have to rise, and keep
rising, in line with life expectancy (but soldiers and police, and for example carers, cannot work into
their 70s). Contributions will also need to go up. Even so, that will not meet the problem that, with
economies of scale and government guarantees, they offer benefits beyond the reach of the private
sector, where a pension pot of £300,000 would be required to fund a pension of £7,800. The private
sector could never sharpen its act that much. The difference between the two has a sclerotic impact
on public service reform and on job mobility. Finding ways of protecting the good of public sector
pensions and minimising the harm they do is the challenge for the final Hutton report.
Meanwhile public sector unions are preparing to add pensions to their list of grievances. But
privately the tone is calmer. That may be why Ed Miliband – branded all week by the Conservatives
as the representative of the sectional interest – warned against a wave of strikes. There is a real
problem, but Hutton has provided a basis for a rational solution.
Rassegna stampa
Guardian, The
"The government isn't foolish: there's a plan B in the offing"
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
Indietro
The government isn't foolish: there's a plan B
in the offing
Lord Hutton's pensions report demonstrates that if the opposition adopts a principled approach the
coalition can compromise
●
❍
❍
❍
Martin Kettle
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 7 October 2010 20.30 BST
larger | smaller
So much has been said and written about the political damage that will be inflicted on the coalition
when the public spending review is announced, and about the revolt that will follow when the cuts
begin to bite, that the prospect of blood on the coalition floor, and perhaps even blood in the streets,
has become almost a default assumption. But do the facts any longer bear this cataclysmic view out?
Might it not instead be time for the long expected political hurricane to be cautiously downgraded to
a tropical storm?
Here are three very current reasons for thinking the answer is yes. The first is this week's report in
the Financial Times that Treasury officials are working to "reprofile" the planned cuts more evenly
over coming years. Avoidance of upfront redundancy costs and financial penalties for breaking
contracts were cited as the main reasons for doing this. But so was continuing anxiety about cutting
the wrong projects too quickly and the risk that deep deficit reduction action might undermine the
recovery.
All of this fits with the evidence that most of the benefits changes that were announced at the
Conservative party conference will not kick in before 2013. The withdrawal of child benefit from
higher rate taxpayers is scheduled for 2013-14, while Iain Duncan Smith's universal credit will not
start to be phased in until 2013. But the report also fits with the arrival in ministerial interviews of a
cautious willingness to acknowledge that a plan B might be necessary if the Treasury's growth
forecasts are not upheld over the coming months and the economy tips back towards recession.
Now here's the second reason. It comes in the form of yesterday's joint declaration by the UK's three
devolved first ministers that the cuts are too fast and too deep. Given that Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland are all disproportionately threatened by the cuts, the joint declaration is hardly
unexpected. Nevertheless anything that gets the SNP's Alex Salmond, Labour's Carwyn Jones and
the DUP's Peter Robinson on the same side cannot be dismissed as the usual suspects.
As recently as Monday, in his speech to the Tories in Birmingham, George Osborne claimed that
only Ed Miliband and the union bosses that made him Labour leader were opposed to the
government's plans. Everyone else from the IMF and the OECD to David Miliband, Tony Blair and
the British people were on the coalition's side in the argument, said Osborne. Yesterday's joint
declaration makes that claim look silly. And it gives sceptics within the government's own ranks and
on the coalition backbenches a bit of extra credibility too, because now they cannot merely be
accused of singing old Labour's song.
The third piece of evidence is in some ways the most suggestive of all. John Hutton's interim report
on public sector pensions is as intelligent a piece of political and policy work as one would expect
from this most underrated of former Labour ministers. At its heart is Hutton's belief that denial
about the affordability of the problem is simply not a long-term option. But central too is his
rejection of many of the lazy cliches about public sector pensions into which both the Conservatives
and the Lib Dems have recently fallen.
David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Vince Cable have all attacked the "gold-plated" pensions available
in the public services. In fact, as Hutton points out, such language is simply false. Most public
sector pensions are "fairly modest by any standards", he says. But that does not mean that there is
not a long-term public pensions problem that must be addressed by higher contributions, later
retirement and a fairer system than final salary schemes that disproportionately reward high earners.
The report is hard-headed and very balanced stuff. This is why it also received a notably considered
response yesterday from many in the trade union movement. The usual union grandstanders
grandstood, as they always do. But the TUC's Brendan Barber, the GMB and the teachers' union
NASUWT all said there were things to welcome in Hutton's proposals. Public sector workers would
be angry at being asked to pay more, the TUC's Nigel Stanley pointed out in his Touchstone blog,
but ministers will also be disappointed that Hutton neither buys into the "pensions out of control"
rhetoric nor offers the Treasury any short-term cuts.
By far the most significant response, though, was Ed Miliband's. John Hutton was a reasonable
person whose proposals he would examine, the new Labour leader told ITV1. There was certainly
no case for unions talking about industrial action that would harm their members and alienate the
public. Later Liam Byrne gave the report an even stronger endorsement. This was not just the right
response from Labour on the substance. It was also smarter than it has been recently on the tactics.
Together, these three episodes contain significant lessons. Public opinion is ambivalent about the
deficit reduction strategy. But it is not in denial. It wants the deficit tackled. But it does not want it
tackled destructively. If the government's opponents try to make alliances, as they have done in the
devolved governments' declaration, and adopt balanced but principled approaches, like the one
Hutton has provided for them on public sector pensions, the coalition's instinct is to come to meet
them. The Cameron-Clegg coalition is a tactically deft group of moderates. They are not in the
business of giving their opponents a cause to unite, especially after the unexpected volatility
provoked by the child benefit cut this week.
Perhaps this is a Panglossian way of looking at the current political dynamic. But it is also
consistent with the facts in ways that more apocalyptic analyses simply are not. There is no
evidence that coalition ministers seek a war to end all wars with their opponents over the deficit
reduction strategy. Even Cameron said this week that public spending after the cuts will still be at
2006 levels – which means public spending at 41% of GDP, hardly a Tea Party scenario.
The coalition parties are up for tough actions all the same. They have concluded from the European
protests at the end of September that head-on opposition is survivable. But that doesn't mean they
want to govern by confrontation and lose the next election. They want to incorporate and negotiate
their way through the problems, with the aim of preserving sustainable welfare, pension and other
public programmes for better times. They may be right or wrong. But they are not fools.
Rassegna stampa
Guardian, The
"Union anger at 'pay more, retire later' pensions plan for public
workers"
Stampa
Indietro
Union anger at 'pay more, retire later'
pensions plan for public workers
• Pension system called unfair and unsustainable
• French-style strike threat after Hutton report
●
●
●
Data:
08/10/2010
Polly Curtis and Randeep Ramesh
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 7 October 2010 19.07 BST
larger | smaller
Civil servants in
Whitehall: Lord Hutton said claims of 'gold-plated' pensions were wide of the mark. Photograph:
Martin Argles for the Guardian
Union anger over plans for 6m public sector workers to pay more and retire later on smaller
pensions threatened to spill over into industrial action today with warnings that low-paid women
employees might stop saving for their retirement altogether.
Lord Hutton, the former Labour work and pensions secretary commissioned by the government to
conduct a review, issued an interim report branding public sector pensions schemes "unfair and
unsustainable".
He recommended that the government should increase pension contributions immediately, raise the
retirement age and end generous final salary schemes over the longer term. But he insisted claims of
"gold-plated" pensions were wide of the mark. The average public pension is £7,800 a year.
Union leaders rounded on the Hutton plans – with one threatening "French-style" disruption in the
streets – describing the decision as a de facto pay cut.
Many are poised to ballot their members if contributions are increased dramatically in the
comprehensive spending review on 20 October. The government is also facing industrial action on a
second front after the largest civil service union refused to sign up to a new redundancy scheme.
The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, urged unions to avoid action that could prove counterproductive.
"Often, when they have gone on industrial action … they have alienated the public," he said.
"If we want to fight against some of the cuts – which I think we are going to have to, because I think
the way the government is going about it is pretty irresponsible – then we have got to do so in a way
that wins public support."
Hutton told the Guardian: "I am asking people to save more for their retirement, not contributing to
fiscal retrenchment or paying off debt. I am looking at the facts."
The report gives no suggestion of by how much contributions should be increased, but his report
says that "a one percentage point rise in contributions for all active public service members could
raise around £1bn per year across the unfunded schemes".
Brendan Barber, the general secretary of the TUC, said: "Public sector workers are already facing
job cuts, a pay freeze and increased workloads as they are expected to do more with less.
"At a time when inflation is breaking targets and pay is already frozen, asking people to pay
immediate increased contributions adds up to a significant pay cut."
Bob Crow, the general secretary of the Rail Maritime and Transport union, said: "This attack on the
people who make this country tick will drive millions on to the streets in French-style protests to
stop the great pensions robbery."
Gail Cartmail, the assistant general secretary of Unite, said: "Eroding the quality of public sector
pensions will hit women the hardest. Many women may have to opt out of pension schemes
altogether, or even leave the public sector."
Separately today the Cabinet Office minister, Francis Maude, agreed a revised redundancy scheme
with five of the six civil service unions, although he still faces possible action from the biggest.
Earlier this year he imposed a scheme that would cap compulsory schemes at one month's pay for
every year worked up to a maximum of 12 months. For voluntary redundancies the cap would be 15
months.
The new deal keeps the one-year compulsory cap but raises the voluntary cap to 21 months. The
notice period will ffall from six to three months and the law will change to allow the government to
impose future changes without union agreement.
The biggest union, the PCS, which claims to represent twice as many civil servants as the other
unions put together, has abandoned the talks and has previously taken strike action on the issue,
raising the prospect once again.
Leader comment, page 34
Rassegna stampa
HelpConsumatori
"PREVIDENZA. Inps: on line posizione dei lavoratori iscritti alla
Gestione separata"
Data:
08/10/2010
Indietro
Stampa
News
PREVIDENZA. Inps: on line posizione dei
lavoratori iscritti alla Gestione separata
07/10/2010 - 15:43
Partono in questi giorni oltre tre milioni di lettere indirizzate ad altrettanti lavoratori
iscritti alla Gestione separata Inps, per lo più collaboratori a progetto, per informarli della
possibilità di consultare online (sul sito istituzionale dell'Inps, www.inps.it) il proprio estratto
conto previdenziale, per prenderne consapevolezza e per verificarne la correttezza. Sempre
online - ma anche tramite numero verde e tramite sportello di sede - si possono segnalare
eventuali incongruenze o errori.
Nelle lettere in questione viene fornita la prima parte del Pin che consente l'accesso
individuale e personalizzato alla banca dati online. La seconda parte del codice può essere
generata telematicamente, seguendo le istruzioni sul sito, oppure richiesta al numero verde
(803.164). In alternativa al Pin coloro che sono in possesso di Cns (carta nazionale dei
servizi) hanno la stessa possibilità di consultazione.
2010 - redattore: VC
Rassegna stampa
Herald Scotland Online
"Tesco chief warns of great error' in pension closures"
Indietro
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
Tesco chief warns of ‘great error’ in pension
closures
●
●
Tesco Chief executive Sir Terry Leahy
Tim Sharp, City Editor
Share
0 comments
6 Oct 2010
Tesco chief executive Sir Terry Leahy has warned hindsight will show it was a “great error” to
allow so many defined benefit pension schemes to close.
His comments were a rare defence of traditional corporate pension provision by a senior executive
and came just days before publication of a Government-commissioned report will re-ignite debate
about public sector pensions.
Sir Terry, who will himself retire from the retailer in March, said defined benefit schemes are a taxeffective and low-cost way for staff to save.
He said: “The board is extremely proud of the way Tesco has stood up and preserved its defined
benefit commitment. Uniquely we have increased the number of people in defined benefit
arrangements.
“I think people will look back and see it has been a great error to allow so many of these schemes to
go by the wayside. I am very pleased we have held on to that.”
The board is extremely proud of the way Tesco has stood up and preserved
its defined benefit commitment.
Sir Terry Leahy, Chief executive, Tesco
Tesco’s scheme has 165,000 active members who are still contributing, 77,000 deferred members
(those who have left the company) and 33,000 pensioners.
The supermarket chain cut costs by switching from a pension scheme based on an employee’s final
salary to career average earnings in an agreement with trade union USDAW in 2003.
But it has not moved to the generally inferior money purchase schemes adopted by many employers.
Tesco has also asked staff to put in more money and upped its own contributions.
The majority of the UK’s 6653 defined benefit schemes are closed to new members and an increasing
number are closed to existing staff.
The trend has been exacerbated by rising life expectancy pushing up scheme costs and volatile
investment performance.
One of the latest to stop accrual for existing members was pharmacist Alliance Boots, now headed by
former Halifax Bank of Scotland chief executive Andy Hornby. Barclays bank, and Wm Morrison
supermarket took similar steps last year.
Sir Terry’s remarks were supported by his board colleagues.
Tesco chairman David Reid said of its pension scheme: “It is a comparative advantage.”
Incoming chief executive Philip Clarke said Tesco’s pension scheme led to lower levels of staff
turnover and higher productivity.
The issue of pension provision in the public sector will come to the fore this week.
Former Labour Cabinet minister Lord John Hutton is expected to present his report on public sector
pensions to Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne tomorrow.
He is likely to recommend a sharp increase in contribution rates and a higher retirement age.
Recent debate has centred on figures published by the Office for Budget Responsibility in June
showing that the gap between the amount paid into pay-as-you-go pensions by staff and employers
and the sum paid out to retirees will rise from £4 billion this year to £10bn by 2015-16.
Rassegna stampa
Independent, The
"'End final salary pensions in the public sector'"
Indietro
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
The Government looked to be on a collision course with unions today after a report called for an end to final salary pension
schemes for public sector workers.
Former Labour Cabinet minister Lord Hutton said long-term structural reform was needed to public sector pensions, including an
end to the current final salary schemes.
He called for a new model of pensions to be introduced that shared the risk more fairly between the Government and workers.
Related articles
●
●
●
Unions warn of anger over pension changes
One in five entitled to public sector pension
Search the news archive for more stories
But he ruled out replacing final salary pensions with individual funded defined contribution ones - under which the employee
bears all the risk - as has happened in much of the private sector.
Lord Hutton said he would consider a range of alternatives in his final report, including a career average scheme, under which
pensions are based on a worker's average pay during their career, rather than their salary immediately before they retire.
Other options include hybrid schemes, which share the risk, and collective or notional defined contribution pensions.
He added that if the Government wanted to make short-term savings, it should raise pension contribution rates for workers.
But he stressed that it should protect the low-paid from the increases and not hike rates for the armed forces at this time.
Lord Hutton was commissioned to carry out the review by Chancellor George Osborne, who warned that the "unsustainable" rise
in the annual bill for public sector schemes must be tackled.
There are five main public sector pensions, with schemes for local government workers, the NHS, teachers, the civil service and
the armed forces, and there is a wide variation in contribution rates across them.
The former Labour work and pensions secretary said the fact that people were living longer, the imbalance of risk between
taxpayers and employees, as well as contribution rates that did not reflect the value of the benefits received all demonstrated
the need for reforming the system.
He added that the current system also unfairly rewarded high-flyers over ordinary workers, as they could get almost twice as
much back in pensions as those on more modest earnings for the same amount of contributions.
He said the current system had been unable to respond to changes in life expectancy, with someone retiring now likely to spend
40% of their adult life in retirement.
He said this had driven up costs by a third during the past decade, and these costs had fallen almost entirely on taxpayers.
But he dismissed descriptions of public sector pensions as being "gold-plated", saying the average pension paid out was around
£7,800 a year, while half of people received less than £5,600 and 10% were £1,000 or less.
He said: "I also reject the argument that the downward drift of pensions in the private sector is justification that pensions in the
public sector must follow the same course. I have rejected a race for the bottom."
Lord Hutton made clear that he favoured increased contributions by public sector workers to make schemes more affordable and
said it was "unfair" that some employees could retire at 60 now whereas their children would have to work until they were 65.
"I feel very uncomfortable at retiring at 60 while my children will have to retire at 65. I don't think that's fair," he said on BBC
Radio 4's Today programme.
Lord Hutton said there was not much people approaching retirement could do, but added that decisions on the retirement age
would have to be made between now and publication of his final report next spring.
"There is a general principle - it is unsustainable to remain wedded to this idea that you can still retire at 60. We are all living
much longer in retirement. We expect to live to 88 or longer."
Lord Hutton continued: "My real focus has been on long-term reforms. We have under-estimated the cost of providing the
current range of public sector pensions for years."
The former minister said he was not suggesting taking action against pension rights that have already been built up, arguing
that increasing contributions was the "more effective" way forward.
Government ministers will have to decide how much contributions should increase, said Lord Hutton, adding that pension
scheme costs had risen by a third over the past decade, virtually all shouldered by the taxpayer.
"Providing we are careful, there is a strong case for increasing pension contributions."
Lord Hutton made clear that final salary schemes should end in the public sector.
The average payout was less than £6,000 a year, but the real problem was that they were "fundamentally unfair."
Lord Hutton said he did not want to see "good, decent people" facing poverty in retirement.
But he stressed that the problem could not be "buried" any longer because of the problems being stored up.
Reforms introduced by the Labour government did not go far enough, he said. Costs are rising and action needs to be taken.
Chancellor George Osborne told the BBC News channel: "I think the report is very impressive and substantial. I think John
Hutton is bringing experience that he has as Labour's former work and pensions secretary to bear and he is addressing this
whole issue of fairness.
"He's saying that we want decent, generous pension provision that helps people in retirement, people who have worked for the
public services through their lives, but we also need to make sure it's affordable for the taxpayer and that's a fair balance.
"Now he sets out his interim views in the report and we as a Government will give our official response in the spending review."
Sponsored Links
Rassegna stampa
Independent, The
"David Prosser: The Swedish model that might save our pensions
system"
Indietro
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
Outlook Having seen Gordon Brown's government turn to Sweden for a prototype of how to solve the bankingcrisis – its bail-out
of the banks in 1992 served as a blueprint for the former prime minister – it is the turn of the Conservatives to look to
Stockholm for public-policy solutions. Lord Hutton's interim report on public-sector pensions yesterday singled out the Swedish
model as one we might adopt.
He is right to do so because there is much to admire about Sweden's public-sector pension system: in particular, the way in
which the interests of low-paid workers have been preserved at the same time as the burden on taxpayers has been reduced.
The trick is what the pension professionals, who like their jargon more than most, describe as a "notional defined-contribution"
scheme. The problem in Britain is that public-sector pensions are guaranteed, locking taxpayers into expensive commitments
which have to be met whatever theprevailing economic or financial conditions. In the private sector, meanwhile, these definedbenefit plans are rare. Instead, defined contribution is now the norm, with workers' pensions dependent on the vagaries of the
markets.
Related articles
●
●
●
Unions warn of strikes over public-sector pension reform
Leading article: The real pensions divide
Search the news archive for more stories
Sweden's "notional DC" combines the two concepts. Like ours, it is a pay-as-you-go system, with no actual funds set aside for
the future. For basic pensions, the scheme assumes a set investment return is achieved each year, whether or not this is what
the markets achieve, so workers know they are guaranteed a minimum income in retirement. Beyond the basic pension, for
those who contribute enough, additional returns are granted with reference to the performance of Sweden's economy.
The arrangement has a number of advantages. Everyone gets a certain level of pension in retirement. For less well-paid
workers, this may represent their whole entitlement, but they can at least be confident of their future. Better-paid workers,
meanwhile, stand to get more from the scheme, but on this portion of their pension, they have the risk of a funding shortfall off
the hands of the taxpayer. If the economy disappoints, theirpension top-ups will be correspondingly smaller.
In the long term, this sort of hybrid arrangement is likely to provide the template for an affordable system of public-sector
pensions in the UK.
That said, it is important that everyone recognises – and Lord Hutton himself made this clear yesterday – that there is very little
we can do to address the funding issues of the short term. And the anxiety about the sizeable hole in the finances of publicsectorpensions over the next few years should not infect the debate about how to put these on a sounder footing for the coming
decades.
Nick Clegg, for one, has made much of how the gap between what public-sector workers pay into schemes and the pensions to
be paid out of them is set to widen from £4bn to £9bn by 2015. He may be right, but unless the Deputy Prime Minister is
prepared to rip up the pension promises made in the past to workers who are now coming up to retirement, it's too late to do
much about that. Higher employee contributions, even if introduced right now, will make only a tiny dent in the deficit.
This is the great difficulty with pension reform – and one that has confounded successive governments. Even very meaningful
changes to the system take many years to bear fruit, certainly longer than the five-year electoral cycles to which politicians are
so finely tuned, but can be exceptionally unpopular in the short term. Pensions, then, provide an early test of whether David
Cameron's government is genuine about "working together in the national interest".
Sponsored Links
Rassegna stampa
Independent, The
"The real pensions divide"
Indietro
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
When John Hutton was commissioned by the Coalition to produce a report on public sector pensions, he was accused by tribal
Labour politicians, including John Prescott, of "collaborating" with the enemy. The interim report released by the former Work
and Pensions Secretary yesterday, even though it rejects the common assertion that public sector pensions are a "gold-plated"
trough, is unlikely to cool the ire of such critics.
Mr Hutton considers a series of radical options: for scheme members to pay higher contributions, for later retirement and for
payments to be made on the basis of a member's average earnings over their career (rather than the salary they are drawing
when they retire). The public sector unions have given the report a chilly reception. And it is certainly the case that, if enacted,
these reforms would be painful for many public sector workers.
Related articles
●
●
●
Unions warn of strikes over public-sector pension reform
David Prosser: The Swedish model that might save our pensions system
Search the news archive for more stories
But, sadly, Hutton is right when he argues that reform is necessary. Final-salary pension schemes were sustainable in an era
when workers lived, on average, for 20 years after a retirement. But life expectancy in retirement is now pushing 30 years. Finalsalary pensions have almost disappeared in the private sector in recent years as firms have struggled to cope with the liabilities.
Such generous schemes now exist almost exclusively in the public sector.
While some of the apocalyptic forecasts over the scale of the burden on the public purse are scaremongering, it is true that
continuing to make payments in this manner will impose a growing strain on the national finances. The Office for Budget
Responsibility has estimated that the gap between contributions paid in and pensions paid out is on course to double over the
next four years to £9bn. Even with the reforms already enacted – raising the pension age for new members, switching to a CPI
index rating rather than RPI – public sector pensions are on an unsustainable trajectory.
Further, the gap between the state of public and private sector pensions has grown too great to be justifiable. The argument
that better public sector pensions are a form of compensation for lower public sector pay is not convincing now that pay levels
between the two sides of the economy have moved much closer together.
But though public sector pension reform is necessary, the same is true of private sector schemes. Mr Hutton's report, rightly,
points to the vast discrepancy between the pensions of most public sector workers and a minority of highly paid senior
managers. Yet that discrepancy is just as wide in the private sector, where senior managers tend to receive huge pension
contributions (often as a way of avoiding income tax). Sir Fred Goodwin, who stepped down from the Royal Bank of Scotland in
disgrace two years ago, with an astonishing £700,000-a-year pension, was not atypical. And the increasing casualisation of
private sector workforces – with employers shrugging off their responsibility to contribute to pensions – is another source of
unfairness.
For the sake of equity, the public and private sectors need to move closer into line. But for the sake of equity, a spotlight should
also be shone on private pension schemes. That means the huge gulf between the benefits of top managers and the rest and the
failure to pay pension benefits to casual staff. It also means the high fees charged by many private pension fund managers.
Some managers charge annual fees of 1.5 per cent, which might sound modest, but over a lifetime of contributions can result in
more than a third of the pot being siphoned off.
There is inequality in pensions. But the most significant divide is not between public and private sector workers, but between
those who are benefiting from the present arrangements and those who are not.
Sponsored Links
Rassegna stampa
Independent, The
"Unions warn of anger over pension changes"
Indietro
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
Union leaders warned today that public sector workers would be "angered" by the review's call for them to pay more for less
generous pensions but some said Lord Hutton had not given the green light for an all-out attack on retirement schemes.
TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: "Public sector workers are already facing job cuts, a pay freeze and increased
workloads as they are expected to do more with less.
Related articles
●
●
●
'End final salary pensions in the public sector'
One in five entitled to public sector pension
Search the news archive for more stories
"They have already had the value of their pensions cut by the switch to CPI indexing, which will slice a little off their pension
every year.
"At a time when inflation is breaking targets and pay is already frozen, asking people to pay immediate increased contributions
adds up to a significant pay cut.
"But the precise details of what will happen are as yet far from clear, and on important issues John Hutton has firmly pushed the
ball back into the Government's court. These should be negotiated with unions rather than imposed from above."
Mr Barber said many of the critics of public sector pensions - including ministers - had been "rebuffed" by today's report.
"Public sector pensions are not gold-plated, and the report says that pensions should be linked to salary, that change should be
introduced in ways that do not deter pension saving, and that there should be protection for the low-paid. This will stop a race to
the bottom.
"The review is also a challenge to Government to do more in the private sector. If ministers accept these proposals, the two in
three private sector workers who get no employer pension support have every right to ask why they can't have decent pensions
too."
GMB national officer Brian Strutton said: "GMB consider that Hutton has not given the green light to attack public sector
pensions and Hutton is right to resist a slash-and-burn approach.
"We have always believed that public sector pension reform should be evidence-based and Hutton has dispelled some of the
myths peddled by politicians and the media alike.
"It is the correct message for him to send to the Government that defined benefit provision is the most suitable method of
providing affordable and fair pensions for most public sector workers - indeed, GMB believes this applies to all workers.
"Hutton has identified an affordability gap that he does not think should fall on taxpayers."
Joanne Segars, chief executive of the National Association of Pension Funds, said: "Lord Hutton has heeded our warnings about
not placing too much of the burden on the low- paid, recognising the risk that many may opt out of pensions altogether.
"Reforms should be focused on those who are set to gain the most out of the current system.
"The report dispels some of the myths about these pensions but is realistic about the need to reshape them. The long-term
solution to public sector pensions mustn't become a race to the bottom. All workers deserve a good workplace pension, whether
private or public sector."
Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, said: "Our key priority is to make sure that our members' pension schemes, that they
pay into all their working lives, remain sustainable and affordable and that there is no damaging race to the bottom.
"We will seek to maintain, using all means possible, the agreements reached two years ago to make our public service schemes
sustainable and also protect existing members of the scheme.
"We are pleased that Hutton recommends keeping a defined benefit scheme, but we are adamant that the final salary scheme
should be retained.
"There is a real danger that taking a career average to calculate pensions will see the low-paid getting less in their retirement especially as the Government has switched from using the RPI to using the CPI to calculate pensions.
"Public sector workers already pay a sizeable amount into their pension schemes year in, year out. Many of our members would
struggle to pay more.
"Council workers, including home carers, librarians, social workers and dinner ladies, pay in 6.4% of their wages, while NHS
workers pay an average of 6.6%.
"Plans to make public sector staff work until they drop will hit the low-paid hard. For many public sector staff, working longer is
not an option.
"Many nurses, home carers, paramedics and refuse collectors are already forced into early retirement because of the physical
nature of their jobs, and the damage it does to their health.
"It is time the Government turned their attention to the private sector, where two-thirds of employers don't provide a single
penny towards their employees' pensions, forcing taxpayers into picking up a massive long-term benefits bill."
The National Pensioners Convention warned that the report may cause future generations of low-paid public sector workers to
retire in poverty.
General secretary Dot Gibson said: "It's a myth that all public servants have a gold-plated pension. Even now, many who retire
are still entitled to additional benefits because their income is so low and Lord Hutton's report could make that situation worse
for future generations.
"We also face making a decision about future pensions based on population projections that are completely false.
"There is a direct link between life expectancy and income, so the poorest in our society - care workers, teaching assistants,
school dinner ladies - will be those who may have to work until they drop if the retirement age goes up."
David Yeandle, head of employment policy at the Engineering Employers Federation, said: "It is important for public sector
pensions to be affordable and sustainable, both now and in the future, with their costs and liabilities made more transparent
than is currently the case.
"John Hutton's review should also address the complex and expensive problems that companies undertaking public procurement
exercises face when taking on public sector employees due to the Fair Deal reached between the previous government and
public sector unions.
"These problems have resulted in some companies being discouraged from bidding for public sector contracts or deciding to
withdraw altogether during the bidding process.
"It is important that public sector pensions do not aversely affect the movement of employees between the public and private
sector, as this element of labour market flexibility benefits employers on both sides."
Emma Boon, campaign manager at the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Taxpayers face a bill for more than a trillion pounds needed to
pay unfunded public sector pensions. The Government should increase employee contributions and raise the pension age to
make much-needed immediate savings.
"Final salary pension schemes are all but extinct in the private sector, but necessary changes in gold-plated public sector
pensions haven't been made.
"It is not right for taxpayers to be subsidising million-pound retirement benefits for the public sector elite while seeing the value
of their own pensions plummet. Public sector staff are well paid and we can't afford to pay for such generous benefits as well."
Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail Maritime and Transport union, said: "The summary of the ConDem pension enforcers
proposals is clear - work longer, pay more and get less. This attack on the people who make this country tick will spark a furious
backlash and will drive millions on to the streets in French-style protests to stop the great pensions robbery."
Sponsored Links
Rassegna stampa
Independent, The
"Unions warn of strikes over public-sector pension reform"
Indietro
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
Millions of public servants face the triple blow of working longer, paying larger pension contributions and having less money to
live on when they retire.
A drastic overhaul of the pensions paid to NHS staff, teachers, civil servants, council workers, police and other state sector
employees is inevitable after a government-commissioned report warned their schemes were in financial crisis.
Related articles
●
●
●
David Prosser: The Swedish model that might save our pensions system
Leading article: The real pensions divide
Search the news archive for more stories
Lord Hutton, its author, said it was "unsustainable" for most public sector employees to retire at 60 on final salary pension
schemes and backed proposals requiring them to pay more money towards their retirement.
Battle lines were drawn between the Government and unions last night as George Osborne, the Chancellor, praised the
conclusions as "impressive" while angry union leaders warned that workers would fiercely resist the changes.
Increasing life expectancy and higher numbers of public sector workers has created a £4bn yearly shortfall between retirement
payments and the amount of money in their pension funds. The gap, which has to be plugged by the taxpayer, is forecast to
increase to £9bn within five years.
Lord Hutton, a former Labour Cabinet minister, also warned there was a growing disparity between the pension systems for
public and private sector employees.
And he condemned the final salary schemes as fundamentally unfair to the vast majority of state sector workers as they
disproportionately rewarded relatively small numbers of highly-paid public servants such as judges and doctors.
Lord Hutton will produce his final conclusions next year, but made clear the direction of his thoughts in an interim report
published ahead of Mr Osborne's Comprehensive Spending Review in 12 days' time.
Although he did not suggest a figure – explaining that was a matter for ministers – he said he supported higher pension
contributions. Some experts have forecast that payments could have to rise by 1.5 to 2 per cent of salary for higher earners.
He added that lower earners, such as members of the Armed Forces who are "fighting and dying for us in Afghanistan", should
be shielded from larger contributions.
Lord Hutton, who said there should be no dilution of existing pension rights, also signalled that he believed the days where most
public servants could retire at 60 were at an end. He said that some could spend 40 per cent of their adult life in retirement.
"It is unsustainable to remain wedded to this idea that you can still retire at 60. We are all living much longer in retirement. We
expect to live to 88 or longer."
The peer backed an end to final salary schemes, under which public sector staff can earn up to two-thirds of their wages when
they retire. Such "gold-plated" schemes have already largely vanished in private companies.
Lord Hutton said they were "fundamentally unfair" because of the disproportionate rewards received by the highest paid.
One cheaper alternative would to replace them with schemes based on an employee's average pay during their career.
Mr Osborne said: "The report is very impressive and substantial. I think John Hutton is bringing experience that he has as
Labour's former work and pensions secretary to bear and he is addressing this whole issue of fairness.
"He's saying that we want decent, generous pension provision that helps people in retirement, people who have worked for the
public services through their lives, but we also need to make sure it's affordable for the taxpayer and that's a fair balance."
But unions last night protested that they already faced a pay freeze and hundreds of thousands of job cuts and would resist this
latest "assault" on their conditions. The headache for ministers is that the issue of cuts to pension entitlements could unite all
the major unions in the heavily unionised public sector.
Brendan Barber, the TUC general secretary, said: "At a time when inflation is breaking targets and pay is already frozen, asking
people to pay immediate increased contributions adds up to a significant pay cut."
Paul Noon, the general secretary of Prospect, said: "Civil servants have been subjected to a recruitment embargo, job cuts and
attacks on their terms and conditions. They are in no mood to accept unfair and unwarranted attacks on their pension schemes."
But business leaders welcomed the report as a "long-overdue first step" to delivering sustainable pensions in the public sector.
John Cridland, of the CBI said: "Everybody needs to understand the true scale of pension liabilities being built up. Taxpayers
cannot be expected to make up the difference."
Q&A: How many does it affect and why don't the sums add up?
How many people are in public sector pension schemes?
Twelve million – or about one in five of the British population. Just over three million former public servants and their
dependants are currently drawing pensions. About five million are currently paying into pension schemes; the rest are deferred
members.
What jobs did/do they do?
There are around 300 public service pension schemes, but more than 95 per cent of members belong to one of the six largest
schemes, covering local government (4.8 million), NHS (2.9 million), teachers (1.8 million), civil service (1.5 million), armed
forces (1 million) and police (300,000).
How does the take-up contrast with private companies?
Dramatically – 85 per cent of public sector staff are in a pension scheme, against only 35 per cent of employees in the private
sector in company schemes.
And how do the schemes compare?
Public servants typically receive the most generous final salary pensions – those linked to their pay on the day they retire. Such
"gold-plated" schemes have almost vanished from the public sector, where pension pay-outs depend on the performance of the
money invested on their behalf in pension funds. Public sector pensions are funded by contributions from current employees,
rather than from funds built up by the claimants while they are in work. Public sector employers also contribute more into
employees' pension pots than private firms.
How fast is the cost of public sector pensions rising?
Last year pensioners and their dependants received almost £32bn from the schemes – an increase of 32 per cent in 10 years –
and equivalent of two-thirds of the cost of the basic state pension.
The problem is that the gap between the money in the pension funds and the money paid out is widening, with taxpayers
making up the shortfall.
This year the pensions black hole will be about £4bn. It is forecast to more than double to £9.4bn in five years – a financial
burden that Chancellor George Osborne has warned is "unsustainable".
Why is it rising?
The main reason is the rapid increase in life expectancy. Many public pension schemes were designed in the early 1970s, when
the life expectancy of a 60-year-old was about 18 more years; this has risen to about 28 years and with continuing medical
advance is likely to keep growing.
The growth in the public sector in recent decades also means there are more retired pension claimants to support. Finally, stock
market volatility has meant modest growth in public sector pension funds.
How much do retired public servants receive?
Despite their apparently generous pension arrangements, the average retired public sector worker receives only around £7,800
a year, with half of workers receiving less than £5,600 a year. The sums reflect the fact that many are on relatively low wages
(or work part-time) when they are in employment. However, more than 2,300 retired NHS staff enjoy pensions of at least
£67,000.
Has the Government already made changes to public sector pensions?
Yes. Mr Osborne announced in the emergency Budget that, from next April, pensions will be increased in line with the consumer
prices index rate of inflation rather than the retail prices rate of inflation. The National Union of Teachers has said the switch
would cost pensioners thousands of pounds over the course of their retirement.
The high earner: Building up pension pot of nearly £2m
Ruth Carnall, Chief executive:
The current system, which pays a percentage of the salary upon retirement every year for the rest of a worker's life, has been
criticised as benefiting high-flyers. Hutton called the system, "unfair" as it often sees top earners such as Ms Carnall receiving
almost twice as much relative to their contribution as those with more modest incomes.
As chief executive of the London Strategic Health Authority Carnall earns about £255,000, which would reportedly give her a
pension of about £1.9m.
A new system, which took into account average earnings over her lifetime, would see her paying more into the scheme, while
drawing less.
The middle earner: £13,000 a year isn't exactly gold-plated
Chris Tansley, Social work manager:
Having spent 35 years in the public sector, Mr Tansley, 59, is beginning to think about retirement. "I never took out a private
pension scheme because the local government one was so good. To suddenly change it now to one which takes into account
lower earnings is a real blow.
"I earn a relatively good wage for a public-sector worker at £39,000. My last pension statement said I could expect £13,000 per
year upon retirement. That is not gold-plated.
"The number of people who earn six figures in local government is tiny: this will hit the majority and it will hit them hard."
The low earner: Working longer and paying more
Mary Locke, Hospital ward housekeeper:
To 52-year-old Mary, who earns just over £15,000, debates about the fairness of the schemes take a back seat to having
enough cash to pay the bills. "My budget is so tight that any increase in contributions is going to come directly from the money I
have available to spend on basics. I will be able to draw around £3,000-4,000 when I do retire and I am not sure where the rest
is going to come from. I already have to cut down on luxuries and that is without indulging in smoking and drinking. The people
at the top may well draw less than they otherwise would, but they are the ones who need it the least. For me, this means
working longer, paying more and drawing less."
Sponsored Links
Rassegna stampa
Italia Oggi
"Contributi in più casse? La pensione si allontana"
Data:
08/10/2010
Indietro
Stampa
ItaliaOggi
sezione: Periti Industriali data: 08/10/2010 - pag: 31
autore:
corsia preferenziale
Contributi in più casse? La pensione si
allontana
Giro di vite per moltissimi lavoratori in età da pensione dopo la
manovra economica
Giro di vite per moltissimi lavoratori in età da pensione con la manovra economica
d'estate approvata in luglio (legge 122/2010), che obbliga tutti i dipendenti pubblici
a restare a lavoro ancora per un anno. La vite si stringe ancora di più, in realtà, per
coloro che abbiano contribuito alla Gestione separata Inps (ad esempio i co.co.co.),
nonché alle gestioni speciali degli artigiani, dei commercianti e dei coltivatori i
diretti, perché per loro l'uscita è ritardata di un anno e mezzo. In buona sostanza,
chi intendeva andare in pensione a gennaio 2011, vi andrà l'anno successivo,
alcuni dopo 12 mesi altri dopo 18.Il provvedimento tocca direttamente anche i
liberi professionisti i quali abbiano contribuito per un certo numero di anni negli
istituti di previdenza del sistema pubblico (come l'Inps, l'Inail o l'Inpdap) oppure
nella gestione separata Inps e che vogliano avvalersi della «totalizzazione» per
ottenere una pensione unica senza perdere alcun contributo versato. Anch'essi
dovranno attendere poiché di fatto gli istituti pubblici hanno bloccato i
pensionamenti. Con un cortese eufemismo, l'Inps (circolare 126 del 24 settembre)
fa sapere che le «finestre» per andare in pensione sono diventate uniche e sono
bloccate un anno per tutti. Per i lavoratori autonomi, poi, la finestra pensionistica
ritarderà di ancora 6 mesi ed i professionisti che vorranno totalizzare i contributi
versati non in Eppi sono avvertiti: anche per loro la pensione si allontana.Un caso
comuneDel resto il caso dei professionisti che abbiano svolto più attività e che
abbiano versato i contributi presso differenti sportelli è molto comune: ci sta che,
prima della libera professione, un perito industriale abbia insegnato o sia stato
dipendente presso uno studio, tanto più che l'Eppi è attivo solo dal 1996. Un
professionista, ad esempio, potrebbe aver insegnato per 12 anni e aver versato i
contributi all'Inpdap, essere stato iscritto all'Inps per altri 13 e poi avere contributo
in Eppi per altri 11. Tenendo separate le gestioni, il nostro Mario Rossi accede solo
alla pensione Eppi, mentre se totalizza i vari spezzoni, mette insieme tutti i periodi
(36 anni) e riceve una unica pensione composta dalle quote di tutte e tre le
gestioni. Fino a tutto il 2010, il nostro Mario Rossi poteva andare subito in
pensione, dal 2011 occorrerà invece attendere fino ad un anno e mezzo.Lavorare
più a lungoLa finanziaria d'estate, in questo senso, non è intervenuta sulle norme
generali della totalizzazione, ma è stata protagonista di una manovra con il fine di
contrarre la spesa pubblica generale. Dunque ritardare l'uscita da lavoro significa
poter mettere ancora in attivo nel bilancio dello Stato le quote pensionistiche che,
al massimo entro un anno e mezzo, salteranno però alla voce passivo. D'altro
canto, però, siamo alle prove tecniche di allungamento dell'attività lavorativa,
perché il provvedimento temporaneo preso quest'estate ha tutta l'aria di preludere
al provvedimento più strutturale, che scatterà a partire dal 1° gennaio 2016, e
riguarda le previdenza pubblica: adeguare la finestra di uscita di ogni pensionato
alla sua attesa di vita media. Più questa crescerà, più il lavoratore ritarderà l'uscita
dal sistema produttivo.
Rassegna stampa
Italia Oggi
"F24 senza frontiere"
Indietro
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
ItaliaOggi
sezione: Imposte e Tasse data: 08/10/2010 - pag: 25
autore: di Giovanni Galli
ENTI PUBBLICI/ Raffica di risoluzioni dalle Entrate
F24 senza frontiere
Delega per tutti i tributi e i premi
L'F24 enti pubblici si estende a tutti i tributi, contributi e premi. Pronti il
vademecum e i codici per il versamento di tutti i tributi amministrati dall'Agenzia
delle entrate e dei contributi previdenziali e pensionistici dovuti all'Inps e all'Inpdap
e dei premi assicurativi in favore dell'Inail. Le risoluzioni 96/E, 97/E, 98/E, e 101/E
pubblicate ieri spiegano come compilare l'F24 enti pubblici, la delega di pagamento
che dovrà essere usata dagli enti e dalle amministrazioni dello Stato che rientrano
nel sistema di tesoreria unica per versare, oltre ai tributi erariali amministrati
dall'Agenzia, anche i contributi previdenziali e pensionistici dovuti all'Inps e
all'Inpdap, nonché i premi per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro e le
malattie professionali a favore dell'Inail. Arriva poi una nuova infornata di causali
contributo che i datori di lavoro dovranno utilizzare per versare, tramite F24, i
contributi per il finanziamento degli Enti bilaterali. Con le risoluzioni nn. 95/E, 99/E
e 100/E sempre di ieri entrano rispettivamente in scena EST1, CIFE ed EBUC.
Serviranno a perfezionare le operazioni di riscossione. EST1 dirotterà i contributi
verso l'Ente bilaterale di assistenza sanitaria integrativa per il personale dipendente
delle aziende del commercio, del turismo e dei servizi (risoluzione 95/E del 7
ottobre). CIFE riguarda i versamenti a favore dell'Ente bilaterale nazionale Settore
privato (risoluzione 99/E del 7 ottobre). EBUC, invece, servirà a “rifornire” l'Ente
bilaterale Unci Confsal (risoluzione 100/E del 7 ottobre). Le nuove modalità di
versamento, con i relativi codici, spiega una nota delle Entrate, saranno attive dal
2 novembre prossimo. Per i tributi erariali gestiti dall'Agenzia è previsto un periodo
transitorio fino al 31dicembre 2010 durante il quale sarà possibile continuare a
usare il vecchio sistema. La versione aggiornata della nuova modulistica e del
software, reso gratuitamente disponibile dall'Agenzia, è stata approvata il 3 giugno
scorso con un provvedimento del direttore delle Entrate, in attuazione del percorso
di semplificazione amministrativa partito con il primo decreto anticrisi (dl
185/2008), che ha esteso l'uso del modello anche al pagamento dei contributi
assistenziali e previdenziali e dei premi assicurativi.
Rassegna stampa
Italia Oggi
"Pensioni, l'Inps ha un cuore hi-tech"
Data:
08/10/2010
Indietro
Stampa
ItaliaOggi
sezione: Primo Piano data: 08/10/2010 - pag: 8
autore: di Giovanni Galli
Mastrapasqua: estratto conto on line anche per i 3 milioni di iscritti alla
gestione separata
Pensioni, l'Inps ha un cuore hi-tech
Per pagare 18 mln di trattamenti bisogna essere
all'avanguardia
In settembre il sito dell'Inps ha ricevuto 800 milioni di accessi, per un totale di 212
milioni di pagine viste. Un incremento del 60% rispetto ai contatti dello scorso
anno. Con questi numeri si immagini se l'Istituto possa soffrire di computer». Il
presidente dell'Inps, Antonio Mastrapasqua scarica un po' di dati sul tavolo e
aggiunge un sorriso sornione. Non vuole ribattere al sondaggio della Fondazione
dei Consulenti del lavoro che avevano evidenziato alcune criticità dell'informatica
dell'Istituto: «I consulenti del lavoro sono nostri partner importantissimi, si
immagini se voglio polemizzare. Anzi, i loro rilievi sono stimoli per meglio operare.
Ci tengo però a ribadire un'immagine hi-tech dell'Istituto che anche il mensile
Capital ha recentemente sottolineato. Una tecnologia al servizio dei cittadini, delle
imprese e di tutto il paese che è sempre stato un tesoro nella storia dell'Inps,
anche se spesso misconosciuto. Non potrebbe che essere così per quello che
siamo: l'architrave del welfare italiano».Erogare puntualmente 18 milioni di
pensioni al mese, pagare centinaia di migliaia di lavoratori in mobilità o in cassa
integrazione, o in disoccupazione, e poi assegni familiari, di maternità, malattia:
non sarebbe possibile tutto ciò se non battesse un forte cuore hi-tech nel corpo
dell'Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale.Una tecnologia che anche in questi
giorni darà nuova prova di sé: sono in distribuzione oltre tre milioni di lettere,
indirizzate ad altrettanti lavoratori iscritti alla Gestione separata (insomma i
collaboratori a progetto), per invitare questa platea a connettersi ai servizi online
dell'Inps (www.inps.it) per consultare per la prima volta l'estratto conto
previdenziale.«Con questa iniziativa si completa la prima fase dell'operazione
“trasparenza” avviata a giugno a favore dei cittadini, per promuovere la cultura e la
consapevolezza previdenziale», spiega il presidente dell'Inps, Mastrapasqua, «con
questi nuovi tre milioni di invii saranno complessivamente raggiunti oltre 25 milioni
di italiani, lavoratori attivi, cui abbiamo dato la possibilità di prendere visione della
loro situazione contributiva previdenziale, fornendo nel contempo la possibilità di
interagire telematicamente con l'Istituto. È un passo importante per introdurre
l'abitudine di controllare il proprio conto previdenziale, così come si controlla
periodicamente il proprio estratto conto bancario».Sull'onda di questa colossale
operazione di telematizzazione nel rapporto con i cittadini, l'Inps ha registrato una
fortissima pressione di servizio. Tra luglio e settembre sono stati attivati 1,2 milioni
di nuovi Pin (che ormai sono più di cinque milioni). Sono stati visualizzati 3,5
milioni di estratti conto e oltre 2 milioni di Cud previdenziali.Numeri che si
aggiungono a quelli che riguardano il rapporto con le aziende: nei primi nove mesi
dell'anno, tra gennaio e settembre, sono stati eseguiti quasi 66 milioni di click per i
flussi UniEmens, cui si aggiungono i 3,5 milioni di quello che nei primi mesi
dell'anno era ancora l'Emens. E poi 12 milioni di Durc, oltre 3 milioni di “click” per
le attività inerenti la cassa integrazione.«Se non avessimo questa forza
tecnologica, non potremmo garantire questi servizi», continua il presidente
dell'Inps, Mastrapasqua. «Con Pin (codice personale di accesso) o Cns (le carte
nazionali dei servizi) ormai quasi tutti i lavoratori sono in condizione di consultare il
servizio online dell'Istituto».I consulenti del lavoro contestavano però una difficoltà
specifica, quella di un incompleto uso della Pec da parte dell'Istituto. «È una lettura
distorta», conclude Mastrapasqua, «sembra che le nostri sedi rispondano solo al
24% delle Pec dei consulenti, perché le Pec che arrivano dai consulenti al direttore
di sede vengono smistate ai singoli responsabili di processo che rispondono con
mail non Pec. A fronte di 9.600 Pec in entrata dalle sedi sono uscite verso i
consulenti oltre 34mila mail, contando quelle certificate e quelle non. Proprio
perché confidiamo sulla nostra struttura hi-tech abbiamo annunciato che da
gennaio una ventina dei nostri servizi potranno essere richiesti solo con domanda
online».
Rassegna stampa
New York Times
"Editorial: New York's Pension Scandal"
Indietro
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
New York's Pension Scandal
Published: October 7, 2010
●
●
E-Mail
Print
●
Reprints
Alan Hevesi, the former comptroller, has provided the best argument to stop giving one person the
power to invest New York State’s $125 billion pension fund.
Editorial Series
●
New York State Government
Related
●
Times Topic: Alan G. Hevesi
Mr. Hevesi pleaded guilty on Thursday to a felony corruption charge for accepting more than $1
million in travel expenses, sham consulting fees and campaign contributions. In return, Mr. Hevesi
allowed his benefactor to earn more than $18 million in management fees for investing $250 million
of the state’s pension fund.
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, in his announcement of Mr. Hevesi’s plea, accused him of
indulging in a “culture of corruption.” Mr. Hevesi, who is now cooperating with the broad pension
investigation, could serve up to four years in jail, which would make him the highest-ranking elected
official in New York State to go to prison in recent memory. In 2006, Mr. Hevesi resigned rather than
go to jail for misusing state resources.
New York’s comptroller alone determines how to invest the third-largest pension plan in the country,
one of the biggest portfolios in the world. From January 2003 to December 2006, anyone who wanted
to invest any of the state’s pension funds needed to negotiate a way past Mr. Hevesi’s political
gatekeepers. In return for contributions or other rewards, Mr. Hevesi then handed out millions to their
firms to invest and make millions in fees and expenses.
Two major reforms are needed to clean up this scandal and prevent it from recurring.
First, the comptroller’s office should have a board of directors whose sole duty would be to protect
and increase state pension assets, and it would have to approve the awarding of investment contracts.
New York is one of only four states that give one official the power to invest pensions. Albany’s
lawmakers should also adopt public financing for comptroller campaigns, rather than forcing
candidates to troll for money from lawyers or financial interests.
Mr. Hevesi was the seventh person to enter a guilty plea after an investigation by Mr. Cuomo and the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Repayments of $138 million have been made to the fund. Mr.
Hevesi’s longtime political consultant, Hank Morris, is fighting 76 charges that he profited by
controlling the lucrative contracts for managing pension investments.
With the Hevesi announcement, Mr. Cuomo’s office also made it clear that the current comptroller,
Thomas DiNapoli is not under investigation. But that news does not relieve him and Mr. Cuomo of
pushing state lawmakers in Albany to provide more control over pension investing and to create
public financing of campaigns.
Rassegna stampa
New York Times
"Hevesi Pleads Guilty in Pension Case"
Indietro
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
Hevesi Pleads Guilty in Pension Case
By DANNY HAKIM and WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM
Published: October 7, 2010
●
●
E-Mail
Print
●
Reprints
Former State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi, once considered a leading voice on corporate governance
and ethics, stood before a judge on Thursday and calmly explained how he took part in a sprawling
corruption scheme involving New York State’s $125 billion pension fund while serving as its sole
trustee.
Enlarge This Image
Daniel Barry for The New York Times
In State Supreme Court on Thursday, Alan G. Hevesi, former state comptroller, admitted accepting
inducements to approve a $250 ï®million investment.
Related in Opinion
Editorial: New York's Pension Scandal
Related
●
Hevesi Successor Cleared in Inquiry (October 8, 2010)
Looking the part of the button-down financial watchdog in a black suit, a white shirt, striped tie and
round wire-rimmed glasses, Mr. Hevesi, 70, said in State Supreme Court in Manhattan that he had
approved a $250 million pension investment in exchange for nearly $1 million in benefits from a
California businessman, Elliott Broidy.
They included hotel and travel accommodations for himself and his family during trips to Israel and
Italy, $380,000 in sham consulting fees paid to a friendly lobbyist and more than $500,000 in
campaign contributions.
“I deeply regret my conduct and I sincerely and deeply apologize to the people of the state of New
York, to the court, to my family,” Mr. Hevesi, a Democrat, told those in the courtroom, after pleading
guilty to a single felony count.
He appeared with his three adult children, two of whom had become entangled in the investigation,
which was led by the office of Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo.
Still, it was unclear whether Mr. Hevesi will face any jail time; the count, an “E” felony, does not
require it. The judge, Lewis Bart Stone, set sentencing for Dec. 16.
In some ways, the day was also a fitting coda to four extraordinary years of corruption spanning a
single statewide election cycle.
In December 2006, just after his re-election, Mr. Hevesi pleaded guilty to a felony and resigned after
admitting he had used state workers to chauffeur his ailing wife.
His guilty plea, shocking as it was at the time because of Mr. Hevesi’s previously robust reputation as
a state assemblyman, city comptroller and state comptroller, was only the first domino to fall in a
remarkable tumult of scandal: the resignation of Gov. Eliot Spitzer; the federal prosecution of Joseph
L. Bruno, the former Senate majority leader; and many investigations encircling the current Senate
majority leader, Pedro Espada Jr., and the current governor, David A. Paterson, among other officials.
Also on Thursday, Mr. Hevesi admitted for the first time that he had known that his longtime political
consultant, Hank Morris, set himself up as a middleman between investment firms and the pension
fund, an arrangement that state officials have alleged netted Mr. Morris millions of dollars and
allowed him to grant a variety of favors to Mr. Hevesi’s allies.
Mr. Morris, who is accused of profiting far more handsomely than Mr. Hevesi did, has maintained
that he did nothing wrong.
The admission was a turnabout for Mr. Hevesi, who has long said he had no knowledge of the
activities that prosecutors attribute to Mr. Morris.
Two investigators brought the former comptroller into the Manhattan courthouse at 8:15 a.m. on
Thursday with his hands cuffed in front of him beneath a draped trench coat. Once he reached the
lobby, the handcuffs were removed and Mr. Hevesi was taken to the fifth floor for the first of two
arraignments, which took place in Criminal Court. He seemed upbeat during a brief delay, joking
with his children, who sat behind him on benches in the small courtroom.
He was silent as the judge read the charge. Then, in a second courtroom, he entered his plea before
Justice Stone, reading in calm tones a lengthy description of his crime: how he steered $250 million
in pension funds to Markstone Capital Partners, Mr. Broidy’s investment firm, from January 2003 to
September 2005.
In exchange, court documents said, Mr. Broidy conferred roughly $75,000 worth of travel benefits on
Mr. Hevesi and donated or raised more than $500,000 for his campaign. Mr. Broidy also paid
$380,000 to an unnamed lobbyist.
According to people with knowledge of the case, that lobbyist is Frank Sanzillo, brother of Thomas
Sanzillo, a former aide to Mr. Hevesi who served as interim state comptroller after his resignation.
The people who identified Frank Sanzillo as the lobbyist spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying
they did not want to get ahead of the attorney general’s investigation.
Mr. Sanzillo did not immediately return a call requesting comment.
Mr. Hevesi is cooperating in the investigation, Mr. Cuomo’s office said, though it is not clear if he
would be willing to testify against Mr. Morris, once his close friend and confidant.
He pleaded guilty to a felony count of receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree,
but Justice Stone said that because the acts related to the pension fund corruption predated the actions
related to his prior conviction, his latest guilty plea would be considered a first offense.
Mr. Hevesi could get up to four years in prison, but none is required.
The plea was a priority for the office of Mr. Cuomo, the Democratic nominee for governor, who in
his campaign has highlighted his record of fighting corruption.
“Alan Hevesi presided over a culture of corruption and violated his oath as a public servant,” Mr.
Cuomo said in a statement on Thursday.
“He was solely charged with protecting our pension fund, but he exploited it for his personal benefit
instead. With his guilty plea, we can now focus on the process of restoring public trust in
government.”
The pension investigation is one of the longest-running in Albany and has encapsulated the capital’s
pay-to-play culture.
The investigation by Mr. Cuomo’s office, and a parallel inquiry by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, led to a nationwide re-evaluation of public pension practices and the role of placement
agents, the middlemen who brokered business for the investment firms from the comptroller’s office.
Last year, the current state comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, barred placement agents and other paid
intermediaries from doing business with the state fund. The city comptroller has also banned
placement agents from the New York City pension funds.
A number of other Hevesi lieutenants have been implicated in the investigation, which began in 2007
amid accusations that Mr. Hevesi’s former chief of staff, Jack Chartier, had obtained, among other
things, a loan from Mr. Broidy for a friend, the actress Peggy Lipton, best known for her role on the
television show “Mod Squad.”
Mr. Chartier has been cooperating with investigators, people with knowledge of the case have said.
In March, David J. Loglisci, the former chief investment officer in the comptroller’s office, pleaded
guilty to securities fraud, saying he had helped steer pension money to Mr. Hevesi’s political
contributors and to companies that paid Mr. Morris kickbacks.
The case has also entangled prominent New York figures and institutions. Last year, the Carlyle
Group, the private equity firm that once employed the first President George Bush, paid $20 million
to settle charges related to the investigation.
Although Mr. Hevesi pleaded guilty to participating in broad pension fund corruption, he can take
comfort in at least one regard: Under current state law, he keeps his own pension, which pays him
roughly $105,000 a year.
Mr. DiNapoli, the comptroller, said Thursday that the law allowing felons to retain their pensions
needed to be changed.
“No one who violates the public trust so egregiously should be allowed to receive a taxpayer-funded
pension,” he said.
C. J. Hughes contributed reporting.
Rassegna stampa
Piccolo di Trieste, Il
"pensioni misere"
Indietro
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
TASSE Pensioni misere
Per i pensionati i tempi sono grami. Le pensioni, contrariamente a stipendi e salari che hanno aumenti
periodici dovuti al rinnovo dei contratti, agli scatti biennali di anzianità, all’indicizzazione del costo
della vita, agli assegni di merito e altri benefit aziendali, restano sostanzialmente ferme al valore
iniziale di accreditamento e subiscono una perequazione talmente bassa da risultare, come potere
d’acquisto, in continua diminuzione rispetto all’aumento vertiginoso del costo della vita. La vita
media si allunga e la pensione rimane praticamente la stessa.
Purtroppo il nostro sistema fiscale tratta in uguale misura i contribuenti sia lavoratori che pensionati,
anzi questi ultimi sono trattati peggio se pensiamo che la tassazione a loro imposta è fra le più alte
d’Europa. Il risultato di questa iniqua situazione si è visto soprattutto negli anni recenti in cui, con
l’entrata dell’euro, i prezzi sono raddoppiati: le pensioni non riescono più a garantire un potere
d'acquisto adeguato in grado di consentire a molte persone, quasi tutte over 65, di avere un tenore di
vita onorevole. Colpiti sono coloro che hanno prestato la loro opera per decenni versando i contributi
in un sistema che, essendo di tipo solidaristico, non restituisce neanche per intero quanto maturato nel
periodo lavorativo. I sistemi pensionistici sono pressoché uguali in buona parte d’Europa ma in alcuni
Paesi, proprio per le considerazioni sopra esposte, la tassazione sulle pensioni è molto inferiore. In
Italia i pensionati rappresentano uno zoccolo consistente in quanto contribuiscono per circa un terzo
dell’Irpef ma percepiscono, a parità di pensione lorda, un netto inferiore del 15% rispetto a francesi e
tedeschi che sono in grado quindi di affrontare molto meglio il presente e gli anni a venire. Nel nostro
Paese, sarebbe forse il caso, nell’ambito della promessa revisione delle aliquote fiscali, di rivedere
quelle a carico dei pensionati recuperando il mancato introito con una maggiore tassazione delle
pensioni d’oro, spesso cumulate, e delle rendite finanziarie di grandi ricchezze. Va da sé che, in
aggiunta, si devono avviare anche una sostanziosa riduzione delle spese pubbliche che, pur avendo
raggiunto livelli incredibili, risultano ancora senza freno e una lotta ancora più incisiva all’evasione.
Bernardino de Hassek
Rassegna stampa
Sole 24 Ore, Il
"Pensioni, dall'Eliseo riforma più morbida"
Indietro
Data:
08/10/2010
Stampa
Il Sole-24 Ore edizione: NAZIONALE
sezione: MONDO data: 2010-10-08 - pag: 13
autore: Marco Moussanet
Parigi. Concessioni per le madri
Pensioni, dall'Eliseo riforma più morbida
PARIGI. Dal nostro inviato Ieri mattina, di fronte al moltiplicarsi degli annunci di possibili scioperi a oltranza in
molti settori, a partire dai trasporti, il presidente Nicolas Sarkozy ha convocato di buon'ora il ministro del
Lavoro Eric Woerth e annunciato alcune modifiche, peraltro attese, alla legge di riforma previdenziale. Dallo
slittamento di due anni, dai 65 ai 67, del diritto a percepire una pensione a tasso pieno, saranno escluse per un
periodo transitorio di cinque anni le donne che hanno avuto almeno tre figli e che per questo sono state
costrette a interrompere temporaneamente il lavoro. L'esclusione è invece perenne per i genitori di ragazzi
handicappati, che hanno accumulato buchi contributivi legati alla necessità di occuparsi dei loro problemi
familiari. Le due misure avranno un costo, in termini di mancati risparmi rispetto alla versione originale del
provvedimento, di circa 3,4 miliardi cui si farà fronte soprattutto con un aumento del prelievo sulle plusvalenze
da cessioni immobiliari prima casa esclusa. Pur riconoscendo che si tratta di un passo nella giusta direzione, i
sindacati ritengono però che siano interventi ancora largamente insufficienti e hanno ribadito l'intenzione di
alzare la pressione della piazza su governo ed Eliseo. In realtà gli spazi di manovra delle organizzazioni
sindacali sono abbastanza stretti. Si rendono conto che l'opinione pubblica ha sostanzialmente digerito la
riforma e che quindi non sarebbe disposta a tollerare gravi disagi dovuti agli scioperi nei trasporti o nell'energia
per obiettivi in cui non si riconosce o che ritiene comunque marginali. I dirigenti dei grandi sindacati si chiedono
inoltre se una radicalizzazione dello scontro non finirebbe per portare acqua al mulino di Sarkozy, al quale
probabilmente non dispiacerebbe affatto ingaggiare un braccio di ferro che sa già di vincere. Con tutti i
vantaggi che il presidente, in forte crisi di popolarità, potrebbe ricavarne agli occhi del proprio elettorato.
Qualche osservatore ha commentato che proprio l'atteggiamento sindacale sta trasformando una piccola
riforma in una grande riforma. Ma i sindacati non possono neppure mostrarsi troppo rassegnati o
accondiscendenti, rischiando di farsi sorpassare "a sinistra" dalle frange più movimentiste, che ovviamente
stanno cavalcando un più generale e meno razionale malcontento. L'ipotesi più probabile è che continueranno a
fare la voce grossa e a giocarsi la piazza, mentre gli scioperi a oltranza resteranno nel cassetto.
RIPRODUZIONE RISERVATA