FAQ

Statutory old-age provision How the pension is financed

Status: 21.06.2021 10:35 a.m.

It is and should remain the foundation of the old-age provision of millions of Germans: the statutory pension. How does our pension system work and what are the challenges it faces?

From Andreas Braun, tagesschau.de

How is the statutory pension basically organized?

The statutory pension in Germany is organized according to the so-called pay-as-you-go system. Those who pay in do not build up a capital stock that they can fall back on in old age, but rather finance the current earnings of the current pensioners. Anyone who pays into the statutory pension thus acquires a right to such a pension in old age, for which the next generation then has to pay. After a certain waiting period – currently five years – this entitlement is given. In order to receive a pension, you must also have reached a certain age (currently 67 years as a rule).

Who pays into the statutory pension fund?

Employees in Germany are required to pay into the statutory pension. Employers take over half of the payments into the pension fund. The contribution rate is currently 18.6 percent, so 9.3 percent each comes from employees and employers. Self-employed, freelancers or people who are not gainfully employed can also make voluntary contributions. All contributors acquire pension entitlements to which a certain pension amount corresponds. It is determined by so-called “remuneration points”.

How much does the federal government pay into the pension fund from tax revenues?

Since the income from contributors has long been unable to cover the expenses of the pension fund, the federal government co-finances the fund through tax revenue. In 2020, these expenditures exceeded the 100 billion euro mark for the first time. The federal budget provides 106 billion euros for 2021. That is more than a quarter of the federal budget. According to experts the proportion could rise to more than 50 percent of the budget in the coming decades .

What caused the deficit in the pension fund?

The demographic development in Germany is the main reason: The number of people paying into the pension system is facing an increasing number of pensioners. In 2020 there were 57 pensioners for every 100 contributors. In 2050, it is estimated that 100 contributors will make payments for 77 retirees. Since the pension level has always been adjusted upwards in line with the general wage level and there have been no pension cuts, the deficit is growing steadily.

What is meant by the “sustainability factor”?

In order to be able to take into account the ratio of contributors to pension recipients when calculating the pension amount, the “sustainability factor” was introduced in 2005. It should lead to the fact that the pension increases are dampened with an unfavorable ratio of contributors to pensioners. However, only a quarter of the factor is included in the calculation.

What are the “stop lines” set by politicians?

The legislator has provided so-called stop lines, which secure the pension level and at the same time limit the contributions to the pension fund. It is planned that the pension level (with 45 years of contribution) will not fall below 48 percent of current average earnings by 2025. A second stop line relates to the level of contributions from employers and employees. The contribution rate may not exceed 18.6 percent until 2025.

Why is the situation in the pension funds worsening?

The increasingly unfavorable ratio of contributors to pensioners – together with the state guarantees for the amount of pensions and contributions – will further exacerbate the funding gap in the pension insurance scheme in the years to come. The federal government has not yet made any fundamental changes to this system.

What are the options for reforming the pension system?

Proposals for reform target both the revenue and the expenditure side of the statutory pension insurance system. In order to increase the income, either the contribution rates could be increased. In addition, statutory compulsory insurance is also being discussed for additional groups of people such as self-employed or civil servants. On the expenditure side, the pension amount can be reduced on the one hand, and the retirement age can be increased on the other. A link to general life expectancy, for example, is conceivable. The income from the contributions paid in, and thus also the future pension amount, could also be increased by investing more contributions in the capital market.

What should the insured expect in the coming years?

The growing imbalance between income and expenditure in the statutory pension insurance will make reforms necessary in the coming years – economists and politicians of the most important parties see this equally. Contribution rates are likely to rise while average pension levels are lowered and working lives are further extended. In any case, it is likely to become even more important for the insured to make private provision for old age

Law for more women on boards Which companies now have to act

Status: 11.06.2021 3:55 p.m.

In future, women must be given greater consideration when filling executive board positions: the Bundestag has passed the “second management positions law”. What are the rules now? And how many companies does this affect?

What was decided?

The new minimum number of women on executive boards applies to listed companies with equal co-determination and more than 2,000 employees. In future, you must have at least one woman on the board if it has more than three members. The minimum participation only applies when a new position is filled. “An appointment of a board member in violation of this participation requirement is void,” says the law. There are stricter rules for companies with a majority shareholding by the federal government: In general, if there are more than two members of the management team, there should be at least one woman. This applies to Deutsche Bahn AG or German air traffic control, for example. In addition, the fixed minimum quota for the Supervisory Board is to apply, which is 30 percent.

interview 03/08/2011

Other listed or co-determined companies that do not fall under the requirement should in future have to justify if they plan for the board of directors without women. If this does not happen, there is a risk of fines. With the law, the reporting obligations for companies are tightened accordingly. However, the Federal Council still has to approve the law.

How many women sit on company boards?

More than half of the large listed companies in Germany have no women on their boards, as a study by the Women in Supervisory Boards Initiative (FidAR) shows. The 160 groups in the stock market indices DAX, MDAX and SDAX as well as the 26 companies listed on the stock exchange with equal co-determination (as of March 22nd) were evaluated.

background 02/17/2011

Accordingly, in 103 of 186 corporations examined, not a single woman sits in the boardroom. At the same time, the average proportion of women on executive boards rose to 13 percent compared to the previous year, which corresponds to a plus of 2.3 percent. In the 200 companies with the highest turnover in Germany, the proportion of women on executive boards is 11.5 percent, as a study by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin) shows. In the past year, the proportion of women on supervisory boards in the currently 106 companies that are subject to the mandatory women’s quota was an average of 35.9 percent.

Which companies need to improve?

According to the FidAR study, the number of companies that would be affected by the law passed today is 66. Of these, 25 had no women on the board of directors as of the reporting date. This also applies to the engine manufacturer MTU and HeidelbergCement, two companies from the DAX. The situation will soon change at the building materials company. At the end of May, HeidelbergCement announced that Nicola Kimm will take over the newly created position of Chief Sustainability Officer from September 1st. She is then responsible for the issues of sustainability and new technologies.

05/28/2021

The course has also been set at MTU: The company has formulated the goal of a women’s quota on the Executive Board of 25 percent by 2022. The Executive Board is currently made up of four men. According to the study, Knorr-Bremse was also one of the companies that would have to make improvements. That has now happened: Claudia Mayfeld has been in charge of the newly created Executive Board department for Integrity and Law since May 1, 2021. According to the authors of the study, Adidas, Bayer, Eon, Infineon, Fielmann and Südzucker have each appointed women to their boards since the bill was announced.

Corona protection in companies Are employers allowed to force vaccination?

Status: 08.06.2021 7:13 p.m.

Since the beginning of the week, company doctors have also been able to vaccinate against Covid-19. But what about legally? Can companies require their staff to be vaccinated? And are they allowed to grant privileges to those who have been vaccinated? From Jens Eberl, WDR The companies have a great interest in preventing infections with the coronavirus and sick leave. This is why many employers want their employees to be vaccinated. With the start of vaccinations by the company doctors, various legal issues between employers and employees come to the fore. An overview.

Can the employer oblige his staff to vaccinate?

Employees only need to be vaccinated if there is a legal obligation to do so. There is no statutory vaccination requirement with Covid-19. “However, special features apply in facilities such as hospitals, prevention or rehabilitation facilities and medical practices,” says the Brühl-based specialist lawyer for labor law, Michael Felser. “They must ensure that all measures required by the state of the art of medical science are taken there to prevent infections and the spread of pathogens. Curiously, however, this does not apply in care facilities for the elderly, although the problem here is likely to be comparable”, so Felser. In the health care facilities mentioned, the employer cannot force employees to vaccinate either. However, he must ensure that non-vaccinated people pose no risk to patients. Patient protection can therefore make it necessary that non-vaccinated people can no longer work in certain areas.

Do employees have to inform the employer about their vaccination status?

Actually, there is no obligation to provide information about the personal vaccination status to the employer. However, the Gelsenkirchen labor lawyer Arndt Kempgens emphasizes that companies have to take corona protective measures for their employees. But they could only do that if the corona vaccination status was known. Kempgens concludes from this that in connection with Corona, under labor law – as an exception – there could be an obligation on the part of employees to notify the vaccination status and, under certain circumstances, to prove it.

Are vaccination incentives such as bonus payments from the employer permitted?

Employers could pay a “vaccination bonus”, for example through a one-off sum of money, vouchers or extra vacation days. Lawyer Felser says: “This is not entirely uncritical, because rewards can exert undue pressure not to exercise one’s rights. For example, courts have only declared rewards for employees who rarely get sick to be admissible under strict conditions.” The trade unions consider incentives for those willing to vaccinate to be permissible. However, they have a say in any case, as such a bonus is subject to co-determination. Kempgens emphasizes, however, that it must be fair: “There must not only be a bonus for those who don’t like vaccinations as an incentive to vaccinate, but if so, then for everyone.”

Can the employer exert “vaccination pressure”? Can the staff defend themselves against this?

If there is no statutory vaccination requirement, the employer cannot exert any pressure, neither with instructions nor with threats such as transfer or even warnings and dismissal. Such measures would be illegal. However, attorney Kempgens reports: “We are currently hearing more and more of such cases in legal practice. Pressure is exerted to convince those unwilling to vaccinate.” In extreme cases, employees can even defend themselves against this with an action for an injunction before the labor courts.

Are professional disadvantages possible if you don’t get vaccinated?

If there is no compulsory vaccination, the employer cannot differentiate according to whether someone is vaccinated or not or whether they have not wanted to be vaccinated in the past, as long as there was no obligation to do so. In medical institutions, however, the employer can reject applicants if they are not vaccinated and do not want to be vaccinated. Lawyer Kempgens, however, restricts: “Unvaccinated employees require other protective measures in the company and also lead to disagreements among the employees. For this reason, non-vaccinated employees will certainly not be preferred in the company in the near future.”

Are employers allowed to distinguish between vaccinated and non-vaccinated people?

“In my opinion, they even have to,” says Kempgens. “As with official measures, labor law restrictions are more difficult to justify for vaccinated people, while labor law protective measures have to be stronger for non-vaccinated people.” Felser believes privileges are conceivable, such as the earlier return of vaccinated employees from the home office to the office or the use of communal facilities such as the canteen. However, the incentive or pressure from such preferences should not be disproportionate.

Since the update to the iOS 14.5 operating system, tracking by apps on Apple devices has been automatically deactivated. The group adorns itself with the image of the data protection officer – but the competition rages and complains. The most important questions and answers.

What’s new in iOS 14.5?

With the operating system 14.5, app developers now have to ask iPhone users for permission before they can track their data and movements. However, this only applies to newly installed apps. iOS 14.5 can be installed on all iPhones that also run iOS 14.0. This is true up to the iPhone 6s from 2015.

What exactly is being tracked?

Thanks to the individual number that every iPhone has, known as IDFA (Identifier for Advertisers), the preferences of the users can be tracked by the advertising companies via the installed apps. Because when surfing, users leave traces, including their IDFA, every time. The apps send the data to several corporations, such as Facebook, Google or TikTok, which then forward it to the advertising industry. This, in turn, can use it to create a profile of user behavior in order to place individualized advertising – of course preferably on the data-collecting apps from Facebook & Co.

Can’t you turn off tracking a long time ago?

In fact, on iPhones with operating systems older than iOS 14.5, it is possible to switch off the tracking of the apps. All you have to do is go to the data protection area in the settings app, the one with the gear. There you can find the menu item “Advertising” or in the newer version “Tracking”. Here you can select “Restrict ad tracking” or “Allow apps to request tracking”. “Restrict ad tracking” must be activated on older devices in order to prevent tracking. Deactivate “Allow apps to request tracking” for newer versions.

What if I refuse tracking?

If iPhone users refuse to collect data in the event of a request for tracking, the corresponding app will be permanently excluded from access to the IDFA. And Apple expects apps not to pass on other data such as phone numbers or emails.

Do you then no longer receive advertising?

The advertisements cannot be completely prevented, but they are no longer personalized. This will deal a severe blow to the ad-based business model on which many free apps like Facebook are based. It is estimated that digital advertising can make $ 350 billion a year. A restriction in personalized advertisements would therefore primarily be felt by corporations such as Facebook, Snap, Twitter or TikTok, which sell the data collected from billions of users at a high price.

Why is Apple doing this?

Apple has made customer privacy a key selling point for its products, especially the iPhone. With this, the company hopes to defend and expand its share in the premium cell phone market. In addition, Apple plans to expand its own “privacy-oriented” advertising business. Because Apple is also busy collecting data from its users. And last but not least, the procedure is also dealt a blow to the competition.

Why is the competition complaining?

If many Apple customers decide to ban tracking in the future, as industry observers expect, the major online services such as Facebook or Google fear that they will lose advertising income as a result. Because the advertising companies pay more if they can place advertisements tailored to the user. In addition, apps that can no longer sell the data they have collected must find other sources of income. This includes higher sales prices and subscriptions. Of this, Apple in turn receives a commission of 15 to 30 percent if they are offered via the App Store. The “Fortnite” developer Epic Games has filed an antitrust lawsuit against this practice. How this will end is not yet clear.

By Christoph Kehlbach, ARD legal editors

What changes are there in terms of home office?

In the professional environment, too, the legislature is concerned with minimizing the number of direct contacts as much as possible. The aim is to contain the uncontrolled spread of the corona virus. For this purpose, there has been a right to work from home since January. The Corona Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance says: “In the case of office work or comparable activities, the employer must offer employees to carry out these activities in their home, if there are no compelling operational reasons.” However, employees were more or less free to decide whether to make use of this right. So if you – for whatever reason – wanted to work in the office rather than at home, you could do that too. Now, the change in the Infection Protection Act will also increase the pressure on employees: The above wording is written into the law. So far it has only been found in the ministerial occupational health and safety ordinance. It is supplemented by the following sentence: “The employees have to accept this offer, provided there are no reasons to the contrary on their part.” It should therefore become the rule that, where possible, office work is done from home.

What exactly does that mean?

The new wording makes it clear: employees should no longer be completely free to decide whether they should go to the office after all. You now need a reason for this. However, the requirements are not as high as those of employers. They only have to offer a home office if there is a “compelling reason”. Employees only need a “reason” if they do not want to work from home. So the requirements are not high here. The explanatory memorandum gives examples of “limited space”, “interference by third parties” and “inadequate technical equipment”. Other reasons are possible. It is also sufficient for the explanation that the employee informs the employer of the reason. So there is no need to provide evidence.

What is the situation with corona rapid tests in the workplace?

Something is also happening in terms of rapid tests: The relevant provision of the Corona Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance is to be changed on this point. Instead of once a week, employers should now have to provide their employees with a quick test twice a week. However, there is still no firm obligation to take the tests offered. Unlike many school students, employees are free to decide whether to test themselves before going to work. From a legal point of view, the increase from one to two quick tests offered is not part of the “federal emergency brake”. Because this change will not be in the Infection Protection Act, but in the corresponding occupational health and safety ordinance. It was therefore not part of the current voting. Incidentally, at the state level there are a few regulations that make it mandatory for certain employees to be tested. Such rules are currently still the exception.

How are the changes to home office and quick tests to be assessed?

Employment lawyers such as specialist lawyer Michael Fuhlrott from Hamburg see the home office obligation as an appeal rather than a binding legal obligation. The increase in the home office quota is the right approach, but the content of the new regulations does not convince him. In terms of rapid tests, it is difficult to understand why there is no obligation to test for employees. “If you look at rapid tests for a suitable means under infection protection law, an increase in the weekly test frequency will only lead to success if everyone participates. Everyone means here, however, companies and employees: Tests offered but not perceived help protect against infection in any way regardless of whether the employer offers this once, twice or even daily. “

During an informal question and answer session, the female artist answered questions from the audience about her new hairstyle and long-term confidentiality. Billie Eilish wears a wig on the Grammy red carpet. Photo: Allure. “It took me six weeks to finish bleaching and dyeing my hair. The first time I entered my hair color change cycle on January 16. Right now, my hair is very healthy,” Billie said. She also said that with the effort of 6 weeks, the hair can also be in the correct light yellow color with special care from experts. The singer’s hairdresser – Lissa Renn – said the way to keep her hair from being damaged when changing the light color gamut is to dye and bleach her hair for a long time. Each day will carry out each black curls for weeks until the hair is completely covered with the pale golden shade. “You have to go through this process for about a month and a half to go from black to bright tones without damaging your hair. Billie also has to follow my strict hair care regimen,” Lissa said. The female singer keeps a secret. It took the female singer 6 weeks to change her hair color. Photo: Savoir Flair. Recovery after bleaching, dyeing is essential to avoid hair loss as well as improve roughness, not smoothness. According to many studies, the hair bleaching and dyeing process loses elasticity up to 60%. If you want to maintain the dyed hair color and the smoothness of the hair, you need to recover the damage by a masking process with olive oil, coconut oil 2 times / week at home. Believers need to focus on choosing a dedicated shampoo for dyed hair, avoiding sulfate-containing types. After the first 3 weeks of hair removal, you should wash less than usual, have a bottle of dry shampoo in your bag for emergency use. Alternating shampooing with purple shampoo and protein is recommended for those who dye their hair regularly. Bleaching has side effects that can lead to brittle, frizzy hair, dry ends, and split ends. Just pruning the tail regularly will make hair thicker and smoother. One thing to note is to limit the effect of heat on hair after bleaching. Because the hair is very weak, it is necessary to wear a wide-brimmed hat to protect it from sunlight exposure. Also, let hair dry naturally after shampooing, avoid heat stretching or curling hair after bleaching. Hair care after the bleaching and dyeing process is essential for the hair to recover to its original state. Photo: Justdial.

From Claudia Kornmeier, ARD legal editors

Can the federal government issue corona rules?

Yes, he can. Because the legislative competence for infection protection lies with the federal government. According to Article 74, Paragraph 1, No. 19, the “measures against publicly dangerous and communicable diseases” are a federal matter. The federal states are only responsible if the federal government has not regulated anything. So far, the federal government had set a certain framework, but then authorized the states to decide specifically which measures should be taken to combat the pandemic. That is why the corona rules have so far mainly been issued by the federal states by ordinance. But that should change now.

Could the federal government lay down even more corona rules?

Yes. The Bundestag could stipulate further concrete measures directly in the Infection Protection Act. However, it is also planned that the Infection Protection Act will in future also allow the federal government to take further measures for all of Germany by ordinance. Corona measures can be adjusted a little faster and more flexibly via statutory ordinance than in a legislative procedure.

To what extent does the Federal Council have to be involved in the reform?

The federal states are involved in the legislative process at federal level through the Bundesrat. There are laws that the Federal Council must approve in order for them to come into force. The Land Chamber can only appeal against the majority of the laws. Then a mediation committee has to be convened. In this way, a legislative process can at least be delayed. According to the Basic Law, the approval of the Federal Council is not required for protection against infection. The federal government also assumes that the current law is merely an “objection law”. However, it is controversial as to what applies when infection protection, for example, coincides with the issue of education, for example when schools are closed. Because the federal states are responsible for education. And with previous changes, the Infection Protection Act was also viewed as an approval act.

Is a curfew legally permissible?

Whether curfews are proportionate is very controversial. Critics doubt that such restrictions are even suitable for containing the infection rate. If you go for a walk alone at night, you don’t risk any infections. However, exit restrictions are more about preventing inadmissible private meetings. If you have to be home by 9 p.m., you may not even have dinner with a group of friends. In the past there were already comparable exit restrictions in some federal states. Some of them were overturned by the courts. Some courts have also questioned the effectiveness of exit restrictions. In other cases, exit restrictions were also overturned because the seven-day incidence was low at the time and continued to fall. However, the legislature also has a certain amount of leeway. In the explanatory memorandum for the law, the Federal Government expressly refers to experience in other countries and scientific studies. It may well be that the currently planned regulation will ultimately end up with the Federal Constitutional Court.

Who can overturn these new rules?

Only the Federal Constitutional Court can overturn the planned statutory rules. The corona regulations of the federal states, on the other hand, can be attacked before the administrative courts. If there are federal ordinances, things will look a little more complicated. In these cases, too, one could first sue the administrative courts. Filing a constitutional complaint directly could also be permissible. However, the hurdles are high.