The table between the government and the unions restarts to arrive at a 2020 pension reform. The goal is to rewrite the rules on outgoing flexibility to allow a greater number of Italians to retire early without excessive penalties. In particular, the trade unions aim to definitively overcome the system of Fornero law, which raised the retirement age to 67. The government is not against it, but to do so it intends to close it 100 quota at the end of the three-year experimentation (end of 2021 - beginning of 2022) and use the money already allocated for the yellow-green government measure: around 28 billion euros over 10 years.
PENSION REFORM 2020: THE PROPOSAL OF THE TRADE UNIONS REJECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Each year in advance must bring with it a reduction in the benefit, otherwise the pension system would return to an unsustainable trajectory. The problem is finding an agreement on the size of the cut.
The initial proposal of the unions (early pension at 62 years with 20 of contributions) did not envisage penalties and for this reason it was rejected by the government. It cost too much.
PENSION REFORM 2020: THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSAL REJECTED BY THE UNIONS
We then returned to talk about the recalculation of pensions. The question concerns the contributions paid up to 1995, which – according to the Dini reform – are counted with the most generous salary system (linked to the last salary received by the worker). From 1996 onwards, however, the contributions are calculated with the contribution system, which is more penalizing because it takes into consideration only the contributions actually paid. The recalculation provides that the worker, in order to retire a few years in advance, accepts the contribution count also of the contributions paid up to 1995.
EARLY PENSION: -30% WITH CONTRIBUTION RECALCULATION
In this way, however, the check risks being reduced a lot. Too much, according to the unions. L'Pension Observatory of the Di Vittorio Foundation of the CGIL has done the calculations: to retire at 64 instead of 67, a worker who paid 18 years of contributions before 1996 would suffer a cut of a third of the gross pension, equal to a fifth of the net one. For example, an employee who has received roughly the same salary throughout his career would have his allowance reduced from €880 to €690. Less than the citizen's pension (780 euros).
POSSIBLE COMPROMISE: LINEAR CUT INSTEAD OF RECALCULATION
The government is therefore thinking about a counter-proposal: replace the recalculation of contributions with a less heavy penalty for each year in advance. The extent of the cut has not been defined, but it is possible that the 2% per annum proposed years ago by former Pd deputy Cesare Damiano will be recovered. At that point, a three-year early retirement would cost a 6% penalty, much less than the 30% imposed by the contribution recount.
The negotiation is still in its initial phase: only in March, once the first round of technical rounds is over, will the ministries of Economy and Labor begin to clarify their position to the unions.
MANDATE FORCED RETIREMENT AFTER MEDICAL EXAMINATION DONE MESTRE MEDICAL COMMISSION BY LAW 335DEL 95 WHO PAYS ME YEARS MISSING X HUNDRED FEE THAT I HAVE NOT BECAUSE I WAS FIRED ALSO SICKNESS DAMAGES WELL THOSE ARE 6 MAY 2018 I GET 935EURO GROSS MONTH 700NET THOSE WHO PAY ME MISSING YEARS AND
From the very little information that has filtered through regarding the ongoing negotiations on the so-called "supersession" of the Fornero law, I understand that the intention of the current government is to abolish the old-age pension to leave only the old-age pension, which would be lowered by current 67 years to 64 years of age for all. This would mean that those who started working at the age of 18 will have to work for a full 46 years before being able to retire while at the same time people who have only worked for 20 years or so will be able to retire at the same age as the first ones, i.e. at 64 years old. In short, some workers will have to work more than twice as many years as others in order to retire at the same age. I hope that this hypothesis is rejected for obvious reasons of blatant iniquity.
Equally clearly unfair is the unions' claim to lower the retirement age threshold for women by one year for each child, irrespective of their income and whether they and their children are in perfect health conditions; the lowering of the retirement age should in fact be reserved for workers (both women and men) with serious chronic and partially disabling diseases. Moreover, the claim that women with children retire earlier than women without children, perhaps because they are sterile or spinsters in spite of themselves, as well as male workers underlies and endorses an anachronistic conception of women, as if taking care of the home and children cannot be equally divided between the spouses. Moreover, this claim clashes with the ratio of the recent increase in pensions justified by the increase in "life expectancy", i.e. the average length of life, which in Italy is considerably longer for women than for men (85,3 years for women versus 81,0 for men). The result would be that workers with chronic pathologies, even partially disabling up to 73% and perhaps with low incomes, would find themselves having to work more years before obtaining some small pension than very healthy women (after all, childbirth is not a disease but a physiological situation which is more easily achievable in healthy women) and perhaps with high-income spouses and therefore in the economic conditions to be able to opt for part-time working hours.
The age at which to retire in Italy has been raised on the grounds that life expectancy has lengthened. Therefore, type I diabetics (therefore completely insulin-dependent) who, according to the only statistics existing to date, live on average between 11 and 12 years less than healthy people, the retirement age threshold should be lowered by 11 or 12 years old. The problem is that managing type 1 diabetes is much more difficult when you have to work full time for more than 40 years; in fact, after 20 years of diabetes, 90% of patients developed retinopathy, which is the major cause of blindness in working age. Article 32 of our Constitution says that "The Republic protects health as a fundamental right of the individual and in the interest of the community". In a country like Italy where pension expenditure is under control and in line with European parameters while welfare expenditure is out of control, what is the point of making people with type 1 diabetes work for so many decades – a disease not due to or linked to a wrong lifestyle – until they become seriously disabled, with all the burden of collective expenses and tragic individual suffering that this entails?
Personally I have been teaching for 36 years in high school and for 20 with T1 diabetes and due to the day and night glycemic fluctuations I am really at the extremes of wear and tear and on the verge of despair, because I cannot afford to stop working because I cannot live on income and I would receive a meager pension only in 8 years and perhaps more, given the hypotheses recently in circulation.
I therefore ask that for T1D sufferers, as is done for healthy workers, the retirement age is related to the effective average life span, updated from year to year. Therefore it would be urgent that the Superior Health Council - in accordance with the statute of its purposes - annually carry out and make public the survey of the average age of deaths of T1 diabetics, on the basis of which to calculate the threshold for retiring (NB with a contributory regime); alternatively, for the purpose of calculating this age threshold, each year worked with the burden of illness could be considered as valid for two years worked by healthy people.
I expect everything from those who play health, political and trade union roles except for a comfortable, easy, cynical and indifferent silence, which would concretely mean the inexorable (and avoidable) slow ruin of the lives of many Italian citizens in the next 5-10 years.
Currently even those who, like me, have a civil disability recognized at 60% have no right to any early retirement. What I would like to remind you is that until about twenty years ago the minimum pension threshold for men was 35 years of work, today 42 and 10 months (which should, however, gradually increase...). Therefore, if I had been born twenty years before my actual year of birth, I would have already been able to retire (I already have 36 years of work behind me), without having to ask for an early exit from work as I have T1 diabetes.
I ask at least that workers in my health conditions are not forced to work a number of years higher than that of those who can access, even if in perfect health, the "old age pension" with only 20 years of contributions. It is absurd that those who have been working for decades in my conditions, and therefore are exposed over time to the risk of serious irreversible complications, should work for 43-45 years, that is more than double the number of people in perfect health.
I ask at least that the old-age pension is not eliminated because, if only the old-age pension is left at 64 (as according to the projects of the government in office), to favor fathers' sons and upper-class ladies, those who are wrongly penalized who started working at 18 and those who didn't waste time going off course at University.
For example, I – the second of five children – was unable to hang around at University (which I started at the age of 18 for personal reasons) and I graduated at the age of 23, having already started working on a permanent contract while preparing my thesis; therefore at the age of 64 I will have 46 years of contributions behind me, 30 of which worked as a type 1 diabetic (i.e. with a completely destroyed metabolism).
Does it seem acceptable to you that those in my condition should pay, in terms of the retirement threshold, for the privileged of the past, the present (20 service for late workers) and the future (I am referring to the "guarantee pension" for young people and to healthy and economically well-off mothers): do people like me have neither human rights nor acquired labor rights nor guarantees???
Anyone who tried to live, even work full time, even for 48 hours with my condition would avoid taking positions that cry out for vengeance before God on the issue I deal with.
Respectful greetings.
Leonardo
* worker with 60% civil disability and 24-hour wearer of an electronic sensor with subcutaneous cannula for continuous glycemia monitoring.
As affected by DT1 forced to undergo a three-year exam for license renewal, but as regards the pension threshold considered perfectly healthy...
unfortunately in France they know how to react to state provocations. We Italians only know how to speak, but we never react with deeds
What a shame, women still pay for all these economic massacres, they certainly worked fewer years, but don't you consider that the family is still on women's shoulders? In France they know how to do it! 62 years for men and 58 for women. In Italy we only know how to maintain caste!!!!
As usual, always lose the usual .... people who worked 35/42 years will retire older in age! /62 /67 WITH Penalty……..congratulations