At first glance, the interest is extremely low: Of the 1,900 companies that the Federal Chemical Employers’ Association (BAVC) wrote to, only 50 had decided in favor of the new “Nahles pension” by the beginning of December. A rate of 2.6 percent. Nevertheless, Klaus-Peter Stiller, general manager of the association, is anything but disappointed. After all, the companies currently have other concerns in the energy crisis than adjusting their pension systems. “In this respect, the 50 companies that have said yes so far are a very good result from our point of view.”

Stiller is optimistic that significantly more companies will adopt the new model in the future: “It will prevail because it has to. Otherwise we will no longer be able to offer attractive company pension schemes in the long run.” The head of the association indirectly alludes to the financial risks that companies have had to take with their pension obligations so far. The new social partner model, on the other hand, is intended to ensure greater predictability.

Farewell to guaranteed pension levels

When the then Federal Labor Minister Andrea Nahles presented the model she had initiated in the Bundestag in 2017, she already knew that it would not be easy to convince employees and trade unions in particular. The new company pension was “a real communicative challenge,” said the SPD politician at the time. Nahles accused critics who spoke of a poker or gambler’s pension of “irresponsible propaganda”. The Company Pension Strengthening Act finally came into force on January 1, 2018.

The core of the “Nahles pension” is the move away from the so-called benefit commitment. So far, employers have always had to guarantee their employees a certain amount of pension. In order to keep this promise, they invested the contributions they paid in conservatively, often in low-risk government bonds. If there was a deficit in the pension fund, the employer had to add money.

More focus on the stock market

In the case of the social partner model, the employer no longer guarantees a specific pension amount, but makes a contribution commitment. He only guarantees that he will pay a certain amount into the pension fund each month. The money can then be invested more risky, for example in shares. How high the company pension is afterwards depends on the long-term development on the financial markets. In the payment phase, the monthly amount can fluctuate.

For employers, the advantage over the classic company pension is obvious: “I don’t have to reckon with having to add something at some point in the course of a guarantee and possibly falling interest rates again, rising inflation,” says Klaus-Peter Stiller. However, the term gambler’s pension is nonsense. “There is no gambling here, but money is invested very responsibly with the participation of the social partners, i.e. the union.”

Read more @Globe Echo