The aim of these demands is to put an end to poverty as a result of the cuts in the retirement system of the last decade. With the risk of simplification, the basic demands of the pensioner movement can be reduced to: not a retirement premium below €1,080, the defence of the public pension system, the annual update of all pensions on the basis of the CPI and the elimination of the sustainability factor.

The Basque Government has always liked the Voluntary Social Welfare Institutions (EPSV). Faced with these demands, the Basque Government, chaired by the PNV, has proposed as a solution to the problem of pensions the generalisation of private pension schemes. Another leader of the PNV, in this case Unai Rementeria, claimed his position in favour of extending the EPSV, by allocating part of the salaries of employees, namely 6%, to supplement public pensions. Finally, the PNV has transferred this proposal to the Toledo Pact, an area in which it has been well received.

However, this attitude of the PNV and the Basque Government is not new, as the EPSV were regulated for the first time in 1983. Since then, the Basque Autonomous Community has accumulated EUR 24.7 billion (33.7% of the CPI, while in the Spanish State it does not reach 9.5% of the CPI). Since then, employment-related EPSV models have been launched and deployed in such important sectors as: Elkarkidetza (for municipal and foreign workers), Itzarri (for officials of the Basque Government) or Geroa (initially the Gipuzkoa metal agreement for workers was applied to them and subsequently extended to many large provincial conventions in Gipuzkoa)

Despite these data, it is clear that, after 35 years of progress, this alternative has not solved the problem of the dualisation of pensions. To those who explain EPSV as the solution to the problem, it is forgotten that this model only benefits people with salaries altos.No there is more to see that only 25% of people with incomes below 30,000 € open an EPSV compared to 63% of those who declare higher incomes.

Furthermore, they forget that almost 60% of PLPSs are of an individual model, i.e. not related to employment. In most cases, attracted by the banks’ favourable conditions or preferential tax policies for the granting of a mortgage loan. With this data, the question would be whether it would not have been the same as EPSV had benefited from the tax benefits they have or that banks and banks would not have rewarded the opening of an EPSV at the time of making a mortgage.

We must not forget that the main beneficiaries of these financial products are banks and insurers. It should be noted that only 16% of this money is invested in the CAPV, the rest goes to the financial and speculative market without any ethical control.

There are other alternatives. ESK has always been opposed to employment-related PPE. At the time we opposed Elkarkidetza, Itzarri or Geroa, because then we already saw in favour of private pension schemes that had nothing to do with them. While some trade unions were trying to be on boards, ESK filed a lawsuit to have the EPSV contributions considered a deferred salary, unfortunately the courts did not give us the reason. It is time for all trade unions to reflect and abandon the boards of directors in order to put an end to the tacit legitimisation of the PPE.

ESK considers that private supplementary pensions are an attack on the public pension model, as its sole objective is to create a containment wall to further reduce the public pension model. Furthermore, since EPSV is not global, they will always reward the richest layers of society, generating more discrimination and poverty.

It is essential to ensure a public, universal and pensions system. And that is in the hands of our authorities. This is a question of political will. Just as tax policies that reward the creation of EPSV (thus, the richest layers of society) have been implemented, they can implement tax policies that allow for a greater and better distribution of wealth, while budgetary measures that guarantee decent public pensions can be put in place. There has never been as much wealth as there is now, the problem is not that there is no money, but that there is a distribution.

It is also necessary to put an end to measures promoting lower incomes in the social security contribution, such as corporate bonuses and flat rates, and to remove the limits on the contribution of higher wages.

The other aspect that needs to be addressed to ensure public space is work, as guaranteeing pensions for the future will be difficult with the contributions of the current model laboral.Es urgently put an end to the current precariousness and temporality that characterize labor relations and, taking the claim against the pensioners’ movement, demanding an SMI of € 1,200 that generates enough contribution to sustain the public system.

All this will ensure a dignified public and universal pension system and will not require the use of alternatives that reward the richest sectors of society.

Iratxe Álvarez Reoyo

Sergio Ortega Pérez

Members of the National CSR Committee