Making hard labor arrangements permanent is prohibited by employers and the government, which washes its hands of innocence.

Why were the pension law and the state pension law changed? Answer: Because politics refuses to remove the obstacles. The obstacles that have prevented indexation since 2008, despite the doubling of pension assets. The obstacles consist of:

• The discount rate (which is used to calculate future assets) is too low;
• And the thresholds in indexing, where the threshold was raised from 105% to 110/125% in 2015;
• Abolition of the average statutory pension entitlement (= independent of age) decided by Parliament. The abolition of the average statutory pension premiums has been restored in the new law. Without this reform, insurance premiums for older employees would be high, thus reinforcing age discrimination;
• The increase in the state pension age has been very high in the Netherlands. Much higher than in neighbouring countries. Moreover, politicians have declared that collective schemes for hard work cannot be introduced. This causes particular problems for people who work with their hands.

Invalid Argument Against the 2019 Pension Agreement and AOW
The argument of opponents of the state pension and retirement agreement that the new system is based on investment results is not correct in my opinion. The pension in the old system is also based on premium income and investment results. An additional drawback is that the coverage ratio must be calculated using the market interest rate. Moreover, the indexation threshold is very high (110% for a small increase and 125% for a full increase). In the new system, the indexation threshold has been reduced to 105%. As in the old system, pensions in the new system are based on premium income and investment results.

Taking advantage of the new laws
Pension assets acquired through contributions and increased through investments can now be used for indexation. In anticipation of the new law, significant pension reductions have been avoided. The reduction threshold has been reduced from 104.5% to 90% for pension funds switching to the new system. In anticipation of the new law, the indexation threshold has been reduced to 105% for pension funds switching to the new system.

Due to the lower indexation threshold, the increases were implemented in 2022/23.

Temporary benefit if it is up to employers and the government
The state pension age has been paused and future increases will be slower. Until 2025, hard-working arrangements can be concluded between trade unions and employers’ organisations, allowing people to retire 3 years earlier than the state pension age. However, this is somewhat at the expense of the old age pension.

Attempts by trade unions to make it possible to permanently improve hard-working arrangements have so far been thwarted by employers and a government that innocently washes its hands of them, like a veritable Pontius Pilate. Despite the fact that it is people who work with their hands who apply for disability benefits due to wear and tear. Employers once again choose to shift the consequences of work onto society. The number of people who are wholly or partially rejected is increasing.

• The costs of compensation arising from the abolition of the statutory average entitlement are transferred, by the government and the departments, to pension assets. The FNV Board has unfortunately rejected the focus on paying compensation through the temporary employer bonus as creating bad luck and a generation of good luck;
• Abolishing the age-independent statutory pension system is better for young people, but worse for parents who work shorter hours while looking after children during the school year. Statistically worse for women.
• Conversion costs are transferred to pension assets;
• The allocation of excess returns may vary by age group;
• The group benefit stage, so that pensioners are treated equally, must be determined when applying, but it is not mandatory;
• Borrowing restrictions have been lifted, meaning more of the money saved can be used for each age group;
• It is not clear what the transfer of pensions paid and pensions due to each participant will achieve.

Consult with FNV members on the commitment to negotiations for each pension fund
In 2019, FNV consulted its members in a referendum through clarification meetings on the pension agreement and the AOW. Participation was high. Members could vote digitally or in writing by post. An overwhelming majority (75%) voted in favour. The Members’ Parliament followed up on the results of the members’ consultation and voted in favour of the decision with 80%.

Unfortunately, the National Pensions Union does not hold standard consultations among members (workers and pensioners together) – for each pension fund – on proposals for negotiations on the transition to the new pension system. Surveys are conducted. However, relevant questions are not addressed or are only indirectly discussed. Issues such as the distribution of reserves and the payment of compensation (by employers or on account of pension reserves). Payment of the necessary compensation for employees aged 45 and over. Compensation for the abolition of the statutory average pension entitlement.

CBP previously calculated the costs at 30 billion percent of the market interest rate. The interest rate is now 2.8%, or $84 billion, or 5.6% of the combined retirement assets of $1,500 billion. The compensation could be paid through the temporary employer premium (with tax breaks) or could be charged to retirement assets. Whether or not there is a collective benefit phase (a collective benefit phase ensures that the allocation of excess earnings is the same regardless of age after retirement and does not decrease with age). The FNV Members’ Parliament has adopted a proposal to this effect. Whether or not more money will be invested than saved for each age group (borrowing restrictions have been lifted in the law).

Consult with FNV members on the results of the negotiations.
In contrast to the use of negotiations, the results of the negotiations on the transition of each pension fund to the new pension system will be presented to the FNV members. However, voting in these referendums usually takes place online. Attempts to have members who do not have a computer or who have indicated in My FNV that they want to receive trade union information by mail to vote in writing were rejected by the FNV Board. The FNV Members’ Parliament did not correct this. In my view, this is a fundamental mistake that goes against what the FNV Association should be.

Physical membership meetings are rarely held to discuss the outcome of the negotiations on the introduction of each pension fund with members. Often only a few virtual meetings are held. The exceptions to this are membership meetings on the outcome of the negotiations on the Academic Bridge Program and the Minerals Sector.

The outcome of the negotiations for the Academic Bridge Programme pension fund on the transition to the new system will also be explained, in addition to the digital webinars, at member meetings at 6 locations in the Netherlands. The outcome of the Mittal pension fund was explained at 10 physical member meetings. The outcomes of the other pension schemes were not explained at member meetings. The outcome of the negotiations for the Health and Social Care pension fund was only explained at two digital meetings, where questions were only answered in a private chat (not visible to others).

Furthermore, I believe it is necessary to hold physical meetings of members at least in each province. Negotiators should consult with members virtually and not reject negotiation proposals and negotiation results digitally.

In summary
The new system removes a number of obstacles that were raised by politics. Unfortunately, new obstacles are also being put in place by Parliament and the government. Obstacles such as age discrimination in indexation and the ridiculous formation of individual pots. Making hard-working arrangements permanent is blocked by employers and the government innocently washing its hands. The way in which FNV members are consulted by each pension fund is not good in my opinion and compares unfavourably with the FNV consultation on the Pension Agreement and AOW from 2019.