\u201cAfter the blows that came from the Stability Law (plus taxes and severance in payroll<\/a>,\u00a0Ed<\/em>), here is another blow to supplementary pensions\u201d. To say it is Anna Trov\u00f2, ex Cisl now president of the Cometa fund (dedicated to metalworkers and related workers; 416,000 members and 8.1 billion euros under management at the end of 2013).<\/p>\n The subject of discussion is the Competition bill<\/a> approved on 21 February by the Council of Ministers, which, among other things, introduces the full right of portability for workers (art. 15) of their pension contributions, eliminating the possibility for national employment contracts to include constraints and conditions also in relation to the employer's share. The obligation for the fund to find subscribers only within the reference professional category has also been removed.<\/p>\n For now only offers<\/strong> \u201cI hope that whoever promoted these innovations will reflect on the consequences and retrace their steps\u201d, continues Trov\u00f2. "This bill is wrong and contradictory, because it seeks to treat profoundly different instruments in the same way, such as trade funds and PIPs, and above all it nullifies the power and contractual will of the social partners". In essence, the accusation that comes from the world of negotiating funds and trade unions and that these proposals serve the interests of banks and insurance companies, rather than workers.<\/p>\n But isn't having more choice good for workers? \u201cYes, but before liberalizing it is necessary to give workers the tools to understand and inform themselves and this has never been done. Today the ability to choose is not widespread\u201d, replies Trov\u00f2.<\/p>\n Better to refer to a specific category<\/strong> \u2013 See more at: http:\/\/www.morningstar.it\/it\/news\/134962\/fondi-pensione-negoziali-contro-ddl-concorrenza.aspx#sthash.LhrAkrDF.dpuf<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.adnkronos.com\/rf\/image_size_400x300\/Pub\/AdnKronos\/Assets\/Immagini\/Redazionale\/lavoro\/Personaggi\/ortolani_fonchim.jpg\")
\u201cThe proposals on the table leave me perplexed. I'm not against competition, but these rules introduce an unfair rivalry,\u201d she echoes Fabio Ortolani<\/strong>, president of Fonchim<\/strong><\/a> (negotiated pension fund for workers in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry, with 147,000 members and 4.3 billion euros under management at the end of 2013).<\/p>\n
\nIt must be said that, since it is a draft law, it will have to be approved by Parliament following a legislative process that is also quite long.<\/p>\nAn army of PF ready to go?<\/strong>
\nThe most discussed point is undoubtedly the portability of the employer's contribution. \u201cThe contribution is a voluntary act that derives from the negotiation between the employer and the union, and which is therefore based on precise conditions also for managing the fund; with this law the employer would be obliged to give it regardless, thus undermining the role of collective bargaining\u201d, comments Ortolani. The danger for category funds is not in their convenience, given that they generally have lower costs as they are not for profit; the danger is a possible haemorrhage of subscribers to types of instruments offered by banks and insurance companies that can count on strong marketing levers and a dense network of operators. "If this rule is approved, the race for financial advisors will start, not towards those who do not have a spare pension today, but paradoxically towards those who already have one and can count on employer contributions".<\/p>\n
\nThe elimination of the constraint on negotiating funds to find members only within certain categories of workers also does not seem to excite the industry. \u201cIt is more useful for us to have a defined reference population, it creates less confusion and makes the negotiation clearer\u201d, says Trov\u00f2. \u201cIn Italy there is the case of a sector to which different categories of workers belong, the Fondo Solidariet\u00e0 Veneto, but in this case there are separate sections\u201d, explains Ortolani. "Then it might make sense, otherwise it wouldn't."<\/p>\n