I’ll tell you about the government and Lega somersaults on pensions and 100 shares

I'll tell you about the government and Lega somersaults on pensions and 100 shares

Giuliano Cazzola's article

After the Council of Ministers of April 24, which reviewed the text carelessly put into circulation the previous day, the word "pensions" was banned from the NRP . In truth, it is not that the first drafter of the Plan had done much. On 319 pages (now 335) on a topic that is worth about 17% of GDP and which is the object of fierce passions of millions of people, a laconic phrase was reserved: "On the subject of pensions, the transitional phase of application of the so-called Quota 100 will end at the end of the year and will be replaced by measures aimed at categories with tiring jobs ". But for some sectors of the supermajority it was too much.

This was explained in an interview by Valentina Conte di Repubblica, the under-secretary of Lega Claudio Durigon, moved to the Mef "to act as a stake" in the defense of the measures (among which 100 stood out) that he had helped to launch from the Labor Count-1. "The League does not intend to return to the Fornero law", Durigon specified, so much so that in his draft of the Recovery plan the sentence on the exceptions only "for tiring tasks" is not there. After all, he added clarifying the mystery, “it could not be otherwise: the pension reform is not done in the NRP. Quota 100 was a relief to the unfair Fornero law. We have said, in any case, that it was an experiment ”.

Therefore, even the League does not expect an extension. “Did you have the sentence removed?” Asks the journalist. “Let's say – the undersecretary replies diplomatically – that the drafts circulated were wrong, perhaps a residue of Conte's Recovery”. Basically, a misprint not intercepted, a piece not removed by a malicious "hand". Claudio Durigon, then, specified that it is necessary to think “of a slide for private companies that will have to restructure. With the end of the blockade, between 500,000 and one million layoffs are expected. The model is that of the banking world: to go out six years earlier. We need to find the best formula ”.

Admitted and not granted that such a massacre of jobs is true, Durigon makes an explicit reference to solidarity funds, an idea tenaciously supported by Alberto Brambilla (it would be important for the League to seek advice from an expert on money orders such as the President of Social Security Itineraries). But it is precisely the reference to the banking model that highlights that solutions of this type are not easy to implement and require medium-long times to accumulate the resources suitable to cover 6 years of early retirement.

The League's policy on pensions is as changing as a kaleidoscope. On 11 January of this year, the Carroccio group in the Chamber (first signatory Durigon himself) had presented a pdl (AC 2855) which provides, in article 2, to keep the quota 100 only for individuals who carry out strenuous work identified with the criteria already in use for access to the social Ape or pension for precocious workers. This is because – it is written in the introductory report – "at the end of the current year 2021 the transitory experimental phase that accompanied the introduction of the criterion for access to early retirement with the rule of the so-called quota 100 will be concluded".

It must be said that the concept of "wearers" has a narrower scope than that of "wearers" contained in the amended Pnrr. It is therefore not clear why the League wanted to ban from the text of the Plan also a generic reference to pensions which, in addition to reiterating an orientation considered peaceful and shared (i.e. that 100 should expire and leave the scene) even seemed in tune with the Durigon PDL. Meanwhile, in the "come and go" of phrases only allusive at most, the terrorist campaign on the "staircase" is already starting. Italians are told that they will have to retire at 67. This will happen only for those who will not be able to take advantage of the ordinary retirement retirement whose requirements will remain blocked (at least so the rules in force provide) at 42 years and 10 months for men and one year less for women up to the whole of 2026, regardless of age: a milestone that, as the data show, was often reached at the age of less than 62.

Quota 100, then, did not allow to retire at 62 and that's it. It was also necessary to claim 38 years of payments. While he had had 40 years of contribution a few years less than the canons 62, he had to wait to reach that age and therefore his contribution seniority shifted towards that required for ordinary treatment (not surprisingly, the majority of "quotacentists" could retire at 64 years of age and the average contributory seniority was 41 years).

Undersecretary Durigon in the interview poses a serious problem: how to manage the redundancies when the redundancy block ends. Is it really necessary to disturb the practice of early retirement when there are so many other tools in the legal system? The Ape package , for example, which would allow – thanks to the recovery of the voluntary advance and the encouragement of the use of the company Ape – to solve many problems without trespassing into the minefield of the pension system, leading it to play the improper role of shock absorber social. The so-called expansion contract is also in force: for those who are 5 years after retirement, all companies with more than 250 employees can pay 3 years of severance pay and the State adds 2 years of Naspi; wouldn't this generalized “company slide” be enough to avoid the layoffs of older workers and encourage turnover?

Article published on ilsussidiario.net

This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/economia/vi-racconto-le-capriole-di-governo-e-lega-su-pensioni-e-quota-100/ on Sat, 01 May 2021 22:05:35 +0000.