CEOE accuses the Government of “collective gluttony” and “head-on” opposes its pension reform proposal

the first -y expected- the fall of the social pact which the Government intended to carry out the second block of the reform public pensions, agreed with Brussels. CEOE, Cepyme and ATA showed their “most frontal” opposition to the proposal sent to them this morning by the Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migration, which includes, among other measures, top of the maximum contribution basewith the aim of improving the income of the system.

“Maintenance of the system falls on the workers and companies in the country through a general increase in contributions that will reduce the wages of all workers and will increase labor costs, jeopardizing job creation“, the businessmen said in a statement in which they denounced the proposal that Escrivá intends to approve after he “practically” closed it with Brussels.

They see a populist and regressive proposal

Although the employer pointed out that will perform a “comprehensive analysis” of the document which was delivered to them this Friday, insisted that the proposal “is completely regressive, as it implies more years of work, more contribution effort and less pension”.

Cessation of EU sovereignty

Businessmen also harshly criticized that the Government intends to approve this second round of pension reform.without the necessary discussion and social dialogue, after reaching an agreement with Europe, ua an unprecedented surrender of sovereignty». He qualifies it as “unthinkable”, assuring that the proposal “violates the necessary discussion that should have been held in the Toledo Pact”, and in addition, it is not accompanied by an impact analysis “that the social partners have been asking for since the summer”.

CEOE indicates that He attended the meeting in “responsibility”after the businessmen were invited a day earlier and without prior documentation, which, however, was leaked to the media.

The organization chaired by Antonio Garamendi is also described as “populist” proposal of the ministrywarning that the Government’s “billing gluttony” will “undermine companies’ efforts to negotiate wages, as workers, with a heavier burden on the contribution side, will absorb some of the increase in income”.

They conclude by assuring that this approach, in addition to a cap on maximum contribution bases, includes a transition period in which the period of years with which the pension is calculated is chosen (either the current 25 years or 29, excluding the two worst-case listing procedures), “small businesses and the self-employed poses a serious risk”, due to weaker financial strength and increasing costs, with a “consequential negative effect on job creation”.

Just the opposite, UGT and CC.OO. they entered in good spirits in the agreement to an appointment with the Ministry of Social Security, despite the fact that they also stated that they needed to read the fine print of the proposal before making sure they would support it.