De Unie, in your interest
De Unie

Action Page Government Plans

The new cabinet has been trying to govern the country since the end of February. The proposed cuts to social security included in the coalition agreement have caused a tidal wave of reactions. Consequently, over the past few months we have received an unprecedented amount of questions and comments from concerned members. In the run-up to Prinsjesdag, the cabinet's plans have been slightly adjusted. What the adjustments look like precisely is not yet known. That is due to become clear on 15 September.

Become a full member of De Unie now

Now is the time to find out in detail what these plans mean for social security and what De Unie is doing about them. Let one thing be clear: De Unie considers both the plans set out in the coalition agreement and the amended plans leaked on Prinsjesdag to be unacceptable in their current form. For now, these are ‘merely’ plans, and there is still a long process to go through before they can become a reality. We are dealing with a minority government, and anything could still change. Keep an eye on our website for relevant updates.

What does the cabinet plan to do with our social security?
In the coalition agreement, the government announces cuts to certain aspects of social security. With regard to the state pension (AOW), the aim is to further raise the state pension age over time, meaning that the shift in responsibility will gradually increase in the years following this government’s term of office. Under the Unemployment Benefit (WW) scheme, the government intends to reduce the maximum benefit period to one year and delay the accrual of entitlement, meaning that, in the event of unemployment, workers will face a lower level of income support sooner once their WW benefits expire. The government then proposes to reduce the maximum daily wage by 20%; this maximum determines the upper limit for benefits under the Unemployment Benefits Act (WW), the Work and Income (Capacity for Work) Act (WIA), the Temporary Incapacity for Work Act (WAZO) and the Sickness Benefits Act. A lower ceiling means that middle and higher earners in particular will face a greater drop in income in the event of incapacity for work or unemployment. The government proposes that the IVA (Income Support for People with Disabilities) should be abolished. The exact details are yet to be set out in legislative proposals, but the direction is clear: lower benefit entitlements and less income security.
What does the CPB conclude from the calculation?
The Central Planning Bureau (CPB) has calculated what the plans mean for households and for the economy. The key finding: the trend in purchasing power is deteriorating compared with what was previously expected. Instead of an average increase of around 0.6% per year over the period 2027–2030, the new measures mean that only around 0.2% of this remains. On balance, this means that households will see their purchasing power increase by an average of around 0.4 percentage points less than they would have without these plans. .

The CPB also sees that the effects are not the same for everyone. Lower incomes are hit relatively harder than higher incomes. In addition, according to the CPB, income security is decreasing. This is because benefits for unemployment and disability are becoming less generous and may last for shorter periods. The proportion of people falling below the poverty line is rising slightly.

The core of the analysis is, therefore, that the package leads to less purchasing power growth, greater differences between income groups, and a less robust social safety net.

Latest news on the cabinet plans

What does this mean to you?

The plans are not yet law. But it is understandable that many members want to know what this could concretely mean for their own situation. Below, based on the known proposals, we show what the possible effects could be.

Unemployed icon

Unemployment benefit

WW shortened and lowered. Read what this means for you.
Sick leave icon

Incapacity for work (WIA / IVA)

What's changing in the WIA and what does that mean for you?
AOW icon

AOW

The AOW retirement age is rising further. What does that mean for your pension?

What we hear from our members

Since the presentation of the governing agreement, we have been receiving daily reactions from members. The tone has ranged from concerned to angry, from legally questioning to personally affected. Behind the figures from the CPB calculation lie real people with concrete concerns about their income, their legal position and their future.

We would like to share some anonymised responses with you.

Income drop

“For me, that means almost € 1,000 less gross per month. On an annual basis, that’s around € 11,900. I hardly slept a wink last night.”

– Member with IVA benefit

Legal certainty

“Can something like that just be changed? Isn't there some acquired right?”

– Member with WIA benefit

Premium and justice

“I've always paid the maximum premium. Is it fair that my benefit suddenly becomes significantly lower?”

– Incapacitated member

Solidarity

“Anyone can become chronically ill. We're not talking about millionaires here, but about people who can no longer work.”

– VAT-eligible member

Call to action

“What is De Unie going to do? Will there be a collective action or a court case?”

– Multiple members

What members wrote to us

In the many emails and phone calls, a number of themes regarding concerns about the proposed austerity of the social safety net (state pension, unemployment benefit, disability benefit) keep recurring:

  • Major financial concerns over a drop in income of hundreds of euros per month;
  • Questions about legal certainty and vested rights;
  • Misunderstanding about the choice to specifically affect the disabled;
  • A clear appeal to De Unie to speak out firmly and take action.
What does De Unie think?
De Unie is critical of the course of action chosen by the government. The coalition agreement states that the Pension Agreement and the agreement ‘Healthy retirement’ will be implemented. The Pension Agreement specifically contains clear agreements on slowing down and making predictable the increase in the state pension age. Now, there is a renewed focus on further increases in the long term. This is at odds with the peace and stability that were promised at that time. Furthermore, experts such as emeritus professor Paul de Beer question the necessity of increasing the state pension age from a budgetary perspective.

But there is something else that we emphatically want to mention.

When lowering the maximum daily wage, there is often talk of “high earners”. This gives the impression that these are big earners. That image is incorrect. With the current maximum daily wage, you are talking about fully qualified teachers in the classroom, experienced nurses, police officers, IT specialists, technicians, and middle managers in small and medium-sized enterprises. Ordinary, hard-working people with middle incomes. People you meet every day. People in crucial professions. The backbone of our society.

When their safety net is reduced under the 20% scheme, it is not a small group “at the top” that is affected, but a broad group of professionals who have paid contributions for years and made their contribution.

Social security is not a favour. It is a collective insurance. Working people pay premiums with the expectation that the system will be there when needed. If that protection is reduced, the balance between premium and entitlement changes. That undermines trust.

That trust is essential. Our research into spending certainty already showed that tax and premium payments are linked to the feeling that agreements are being kept and that the government is handling collective resources carefully. If agreements on the AOW (state pension) age are adjusted and benefit rights are reduced, that will also put further pressure on tax morale.

De Unie therefore believes that:

  • Agreements on the state pension age from the Pension Agreement must be respected;
  • the maximum daily wage must not be reduced at the expense of middle incomes;
  • existing rights must be handled with care;
  • income security in case of illness, disability and unemployment must not be a budgetary tool.

We are emphatically working with the Trade Union Federation for Professionals (VCP) in this matter. Our commitment is clear: these plans must be withdrawn or fundamentally altered.

For De Unie, one thing is certain: social security does not protect “the other”. It protects us all.

What now?

Let one thing be clear: De Unie finds these plans, in their current form, unacceptable. De Unie and the VCP have already made their views on this clear in various media outlets.

The reduction of the social safety net, the raising of the state pension age in breach of previous agreements, and the lowering of benefit entitlements directly affect the income security of our members. Our primary objective is therefore clear: these proposals must be withdrawn, or drastically amended.

Join us!

In the coalition agreement, the government offers assistance to social partners and speaks of a “joint social agenda” and consultation on the implementation of measures concerning unemployment benefits, disability benefits, and continued pay during illness. We will not shy away from that discussion – but not as implementers of cutbacks. We will participate to exert influence, to provide a counterweight, and to amend or block proposals where necessary.

What is the formal process like?
The plans from the coalition agreement are not yet law. For that, a legislative process must first be completed:

  1. Elaboration in draft bills
    The cabinet must translate its intentions into concrete legislative proposals. This typically takes many months or even years.
  2. Consultation and advice
    Concept laws often go out for public consultation on the internet. The Council of State also advises on legal quality and feasibility.
  3. Parliamentary Debate
    The House of Representatives discusses and amends the proposals. Because the cabinet does not have a fixed majority, support from other parties is necessary. Here lies an important moment to block or amend proposals.
  4. First Chamber Procedure
    Next up is the Senate. This body specifically looks at feasibility, legality, and consistency with existing legislation and agreements.
What are we focusing on?
We are focusing on three lines:

  • Political pressure: in discussions with MPs and through public statements, we make it clear that these plans are socially and legally problematic.
  • Influence via the Trade Union Centre for Professionals (VCP): together we work towards the cabinet and parliament.
  • Focus on transitional law and the protection of existing rights, should the government nevertheless proceed with parts of the plans.
What does this mean to you?
Nothing is changing at the moment. As long as no legislative amendments have been adopted, the current rules will remain in force. If any legislative proposals are introduced, they will usually only come into effect on a future date (for example, 2028 or 2029).

The coming months will therefore be crucial. This is the phase in which plans can be amended, delayed or blocked. During this phase, De Unie, together with the VCP, will actively and visibly oppose any measures that undermine our members’ income security.

We will keep you informed of developments and our efforts.

External news:

Become a full member of De Unie now

  • Complete help with work, benefits & income
  • Exclusive member benefits
  • Legal advice & support
  • Understanding your pension
  • Help and advice with your benefit
  • Input into your employment terms
I want to take advantage of the benefits