On Tuesday 30 November we continued negotiations with Achmea about the new collective labor agreement. Unfortunately, these negotiations have not yet led to an agreement. Positions are so far apart that a deadlock threatens. That is why the planned negotiations of Thursday 2 December have been postponed for the time being until mid-December. With the text below we would like to inform you further and ask for your opinion.
Not receiving our newsletter yet? Then sign up quickly.
What's on the table?
After a considerable number of discussions, Achmea has broadly made the following offer:
- Term 2 years.
- Salary increase of between 1-3% on January 1, 2022.
- Retrenchment of the pension scheme by reducing the accrual percentage from 1,875% (1,796% in 2021) to 1,6% and the transition to a cushioned cost-effective contribution, including changes to the indexation for active people (based on wage inflation instead of price inflation).
- Climate budget of EUR 3.000 net (once) per employee, to be spent from 2023 on, for example, on solar collectors or a heat pump. The costs of this agreement would fall outside the wage margin of the new collective labor agreement and would be charged directly to Achmea's result.
- Extend social plan.
What do we think?
In itself we think a term of 2 years is fine. However, this includes a more appropriate pay raise. The recently conducted survey shows indisputably that reward is the most important topic indicated by you. And we understand that well. After all, inflation is constantly rising and the situation on the housing market is becoming increasingly dire. Achmea's results also give no reason to moderate at the moment. We therefore find an offer of between 1%-3% for a two-year collective labor agreement much too meager. That is why we have proposed to Achmea to increase wages by 2 x 3,5% (on 1 January 2022 and 1 January 2023).
In addition, we find the intervention in the pension plan such as Achmea is now proposing far too rigorous. This would result in annual savings of about 50 million!
We understand – also in light of the agreements yet to be made in the context of the new pension contract – to gradually limit the costs of the pension scheme. But really gradually. We find the transition to a cushioned cost-effective contribution acceptable (will yield approximately 35 million), but we are much less enthusiastic about the reduction in the accrual percentage. As far as we are concerned, we will maintain the current structure as much as possible. This approach is also in line with the outcome of the survey, which shows that there is understanding for the reduction of costs, but on the other hand great importance is also attached to the quality of the current scheme.
And then it climate budget. It is, of course, a good thing that Achmea is paying attention to this. Comments were also made about this in the survey. The question is, however, whether this subject should be given such a prominent place in these negotiations. We don't think so. If only because the impression can arise that this one-off budget 'one way or the other' is at the expense of the other (structural) collective labor agreement topics. In addition, the limited spending options of such a budget is also challenging, and can differ for everyone.
About the 34-hour working week is, despite repeated urging by De Unie, still not substantively spoken. We deeply regret this, because the survey does give rise to this. Are the principles of that time still valid now that people are working from home much more than before and the labor market is becoming tighter? And working 4×9 hours is and remains desired by many of you. Why wouldn't it be possible to give employees more choice, in addition to the 34-hour working week as a basis? After all, the so-called transitional arrangement is still widely used?
Finally, the social plan. We attach great importance to that. However, the current social plan has not yet ended and we would like to discuss this further with Achmea in the short term. But then separately from the collective labor agreement. We see these as 'separate topics', so that we can coordinate about this with our members before we start conversations about this topic.
How further?
It should be clear that we still have a considerable difference of opinion with Achmea about the new collective labor agreement. We really believe that, especially at this time, Achmea employees deserve a good collective labor agreement. Not a meager collective labor agreement with a (too) large intervention in the pension scheme, but a collective labor agreement that is also more in line with the outcome of the survey. A survey that was held at the start of the process among all employees (including an appropriate/better wage increase, an acceptable reduction in pension costs and more choice in working hours). After all, we didn't ask our employees for their opinion for nothing.
The previously planned meeting of Thursday 2 December has been postponed to Tuesday 14 December for the time being.
Your opinion requested
The deployment of De Unie so far has been based mainly on the results of the survey. We had also promised this. In recent weeks we have of course also coordinated with our executives.
We are now also curious about what you think of the situation. What do you expect from the new collective labor agreement and how do you view the current situation? Sit De Unie on the right track or is there understanding for Achmea's efforts? We are very curious.
If you would like to respond (and we hope so, of course), please send an e-mail to, the advocate Huug Brinkers, huug.brinkers@unie.nl. Also colleagues who are not yet members of De Unie are able to respond.
[print_link]
