Like
Jens Rohde · 1,697 like this
August 24, 2010 at 11:34pm ·
  • Går til EU Kommissionen med forslag om større frihed for lønmodtagere til at vælge pensionsselskab og krav om gennemskuelighed i pengestrømmene. Mange lønmodtagere er gennem fagforeninger og arbejdsgivere stavnsbundet til pensionsselskaber, hvis investeringer ikke kan gennemskues, og hvis afkast er decideret elendigt. Frihed og bedre pension til lønmodtagerne! Se magasinet Penge på DR1 i aften.
    · Comment
    • Jenny Sterndorff, Lasse Winkel, Søren Steen Andersen and 18 others like this.
      • Torben Thomsen Hørt Hørt! Det er simpelthen stavnsbinding i visse pensionskasser, hvor man tvinges til at betale til alle mulige underlige forsikringsordninger efter solidaritetsprincippet! Hermed udhules opsparingen unødigt.. hvis man er en ansvarlig borger og har sine forsikringer i orden!
        August 24, 2010 at 11:55pm · 1
      • Lizeth Winther HØRT !!
        August 25, 2010 at 12:02am
      • Anna Exner Riis Og kan vi så også lige få de feriepenge og administrere selv!
        August 25, 2010 at 1:31am
      • Morten Wilder frihed, er at selv kunne vælge, så, du har min støtte Rohde
        August 25, 2010 at 2:52am
      • Kristine Og Knud Larsen-Jensen Tak, Jens! Det er på tide, vi selv får lov til at bestemme over vores penge og hvor vi ønsker at placere dem ....!
        August 25, 2010 at 3:18am
      • Erik Møller Jensen
        TAK - det er på høje tid at det bliver bragt op politisk. Når anden og tredjemand disponerer over førstemands penge bliver taberen ... tada, førstemand. Dvs. arbjedsgiver og pensionsselskab laver den ordning der er bedst for dem, og medarbe...jder er sorteper. I min branche er der desværre langt mellem virksomheder der ikke "tilbyder" en obligatorisk pensionsordning. Nogle steder er det mere end 15 % der forsvinder ned i et sort hul. Det hedder sig at man selv betaler 5 % og virksomheden betaler 10 % - men når man forhandler løn lægger de selvfølgelig de 10 % oveni, så man betaler reelt selv.See More
        August 25, 2010 at 8:15am
      • Erik Møller Jensen
        Man kan som medarbejder næsten altid blive optaget i ordningerne uden at selskabet indhenter helbredsoplysninger. Dvs. at man får lov til at betale bla. forsikringspræmien. Hvis der så sker en skade, betinger selskabet sig ret til indsigt i... samtlige ens helbredsoplysninger, og graver så efter ethvert søgt argument for at det er følger af en gammel skavank. I så fald afviser de at udbetale erstatning - men man har da fået lov til at betale forsikringspræmien :-SSee More
        August 25, 2010 at 8:19am
      • Erik Møller Jensen
        Hvis man skifter job, og derfor ikke deltager i det gamle firmas ordning, så skulle man jo tro at man var dækket for skader der var sket i den periode man var forsikret der - men næ nej. Det eneste der kan udbetales som erstatning for uarbe...jdsdygtighed, er saldoen på ens opsparing kan deles op i månedlige rater. Den varige udbetalingen på op til feks. 40 % af månedslønnen er man kun dækket for så længe man indbetaler på ordningen.See More
        August 25, 2010 at 8:22am
      • Erik Møller Jensen
        Pensionselskaberne - de store finansielle koncerner - tilbyder mange produkter. Kan det tænkes at der er noget kick-back til virksomheden, feks. i form af lavere rente på kassekredit, billigere leasingydelse - eller helt banalt, at folk i l...edelsen får en langt bedre service i forsikringsordningerne ? - jeg har oplevet til et møde i et firma jeg var ansat i, at økonomidirektøren fortalte glad og fro om den flotte behandling han havde fået af en skade, mens en menig medarbejder berettede at være blevet afvist med en sportsskade. See More
        August 25, 2010 at 8:27am
      • Erik Møller Jensen Vil lige tilføje at jeg heldigvis ikke har haft brug for løbende udbetalinger fra disse forsikringer. Emnet interesserer mig - det er en stor del af lønnen som arbejdsgiver åbenbart helt lovligt kan få lov at råde over.
        August 25, 2010 at 8:47am
      • Jens Rohde
        Til orientering er her brevet, som sendes til Kommissionen på tirsdag om emnet. Jeg skal nok lave en udgave af det på dansk, som også bliver lagt ud.

        Dear Commissioner Andor

        Dear Vice-President Almunia
        ...
        We are writing you in regards to the recent ruling of the ECJ concerning the failure of Germany to comply with its obligations resulting from the directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC on public service contracts. In the case 271/08 the ECJ ruled in favour of the Commission that the German local authorities were in breach of the above-mentioned directives when granting contracts to pension providers with prior public tenders.

        The Court based its ruling on the need to balance the respect for the right of collective bargaining and the respect for the free movement of services and freedom of establishment on which the directives in question are based. The court ruled that the respect for the collective bargaining in this case does not necessitate a limitation of the free movement of services as it would have been possible to fulfil the collective agreements' pension obligations with a public tender.

        Furthermore, the Court ruled that the purpose of the directives is the hindrance of public authorities favouring domestic suppliers. Therefore the collective agreements do fall under the directives regardless of the role the local authorities were fulfilling. In the same manner the contracts fall under the scope of the directive as they do entail a pecuniary interest even if it's not the local authorities but individual employees who are the recipient of the service. According to the Court, regardless of the function of the local authorities, they did have as a minimum an indirect influence on the choice of pension providers and were thus able to have given a favourable position to certain providers in breach of the purpose of the directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC.

        Thus, the pension contracts could have been duly fulfilled through a public tender and the contractual relation between the local authorities and the pension providers is that of a relation included in the two directives.

        The key premises in the ruling as accounted for above reflect similar circumstances in other Member States' labour market, such as Denmark. In far most of the cases collective agreements include a pension scheme. As in Germany, employees do not have a free choice of service providers as the suppliers are chosen in the collective bargaining by employees' and employers' organisations with no public tender.

        Therefore, we would like to enquire whether the Commission intends to examine the pension schemes in other EU member states and the potential consequences of the recent Court ruling.

        Firstly, does the Commission believe that the premise of the ruling leads to an inclusion of all pension schemes in collective agreements for public employees whether they are mandatory or voluntary part of the remuneration packages? Secondly, how does the Commission envisage a public tender procedure that would ensure as high a level of freedom of choice as possible for the individual employee with a view to maximise each individual's pension savings?

        In addition to the two directives concerned in the ECJ ruling, does the Commission intend to examine whether there could be any further anti-competition elements in the way that collective agreements and their pension schemes are created?

        In this regard we would like to highlight the Danish example as the Danish competition authorities have found that there is effectively no competition on the pensions market in Denmark. There is no or little transparency in how the pension providers are chosen, although coincidentally many labour market organisations have their own pension provider. There is also no or little transparency in the different pension providers' performance in terms of returns and administrative costs. Furthermore, if an individual wishes to move to another pension provider the person can only transfer a small portion of his or her accumulated contributions as the rest will be in a locked collective fund. This effectively hinders the freedom of choice for the individual pension saver, hinders transparency and competition.

        We look forward to the Commission's answers and thoughts on this crucial issue as the demographic challenge facing us will require an effective pensions system financed via the labour market instead of public finances.

        Kind regards,

        Jens Rohde, MEP, ALDE
        Anne E Jensen, MEP, ALDE
        Morten Løkkegaard, MEP, ALDE
        See More
        August 25, 2010 at 1:14pm
      • Erik Møller Jensen Synes rigtig godt om at de 2 her bliver bragt frem:
        1 : "Secondly, how does the Commission envisage a public tender procedure that would ensure as high a level of freedom of choice as possible for the individual employee with a view to maximise each individual's pension savings? "

        2 : "as the Danish competition authorities have found that there is effectively no competition on the pensions market in Denmark"
        August 25, 2010 at 3:22pm