By Daniel Zingoni some reflections on the problems of the engineers of the third sector The security
In general, the speech to "build a retirement" is becoming increasingly problematic for all, for a hypocrisy of the fund that focuses on the fact that you download on the worker, and only these, the set of issues related to the increase of age of the population, the mismanagement of the past, the leveling down of earning capacity and thus saving employees today. There are "retirees" who have done work for municipalities that receive a pension level that those who still have it, the board will never see. Not only that, probably will live a lifetime by making a complex profession (much more than in the past) and how to earn more and pay less for what others take as their pension.
Inarcassa in this context, does not escape the problem. The concept of "vested right" applies here as in other cases, so it is never called into discussion of the load set against the "future" than the past.
The abrupt change and the increases projected by the recent change of shares to be paid, although still not active, it is largely the result of this, the fact that in addition to "build a pension," a professional who works today must also contribute to "those who do not build that if it is built" (or, in any case has not contributed enough in its time).
do not think there is much to be done in this area ... but at least it seems to me this duty is not enough to make ends meet "in every way", there is also a fundamental reason of justice and fairness that should lead to an even balance of payments under and no longer sustainable.
The "less regulated areas"
For the engineers of the "third sector" (electronics, computers .... ) the problem "Provident Fund" is even more difficult because often the work is "professional" only on paper. It is not always so, sometimes you work for "professional job", but look at the facts: the more we approach activities for wide distribution and use (design of electronic circuits, and especially the production of software), much less an engineer in reality is "professional." It 's a common worker is an employee of any.
The situation, as we know it, is dramatic for those who work in the field of Information Technology (ie computers, networks, computer programming, development of software applications). All activities were born in time "recent" (20 - 30 years younger ... well the structural calculations), and above all grown up without rules and without any control, are now vital for society Contemporary (imagine it without a computer), but at the same time suffer from a complete lack of regulations, separation of skill levels, and wage levels.
The standard for a new graduate in computer engineering is, at best, to find a training contract work to 1000 € per month. After several years of experience you can not aspire to much more. The "downside" is the only criterion of choice when companies and organizations must choose their work is also important.
never go looking for a "professional", the more you try the big companies because there is an illusion that has within it their expertise (which often does not have to play in it ... fall just as the outside).
It makes sense in this situation to talk about "occupation"? It makes sense to be enrolled in an order or Inarcassa Professional?
I have always had serious doubts about it, but doubts over time have become certainties: it makes no sense.
do not have it because in this situation a case that considers you and asking you to professional help from a professional is almost exclusively a burden.
Moreover we impose rules (see "additional contribution") that provide only a problem with users who do not consider you a professional.
if we do not have this cash will start to appear, as it appears less "solid" than was envisaged.
if I do not have the cash, and local and national orders are not given a move to bring in your professional activities.
Anyone who is a member of Inarcassa over 15 years ago and maybe now is at stake is the If it continues to dance. But if from this point forward it is expected that an engineer registered with the third sector and covers the chest, and then ultimately if you want the whole system remains standing, it is necessary that the appropriate levels give you a great "move", and lost time.
The causes of the current situation are essentially in the 'property "with which he handled the situation. Than 20 years ago, everything has changed, but the rules have undergone only minor changes (something about the kinds of companies, the ability to "promote themselves" ....).
Here we must solve the basic dilemma: the work is professional or not? If it is then it must be regulated. If not then it is good that the Order and / or cash to separate in different fields in compliance with the various situations, or that represent only the regulated professions.
The problem, as I see it, is that until now has looked at issues like this only from the perspective of one who has already arrived, and that ultimately deemed the current stalemate the lesser of two evils. The problem is instead seen by the "worst view": let into the shoes of a recent graduate, and assume our future. If you can not find a reasonable solution to this perspective ... for others it will always have a better result.
What to do?
After the premise not very rosy some constructive proposals. It 'clear that the situation is so bad, and that there is much to do.
For those who will be called upon to represent the board of Inarcassa the task will certainly be difficult. But I want to list some guidelines that, in my opinion should be pursued and pushed with force as an alternative to the only "reason the numbers without touching the past," as has been done so far by Inarcassa.
Who represents us at Inarcassa should, in my opinion:
- Helping to build a sustainable system of contributions that have regard to the actual production capacity of the income of different professions, maybe for distinguishing between sub-sectors.
- Request that this scheme is based on the most reliable forecasts scenarios "in 50 years", such as those on which it based the latest reform ... If management and adaptation, there should be realistic and must be continuously adapted.
- support as essential the need for a recalculation of the total possible payments by cash, not only downloading on the future of the mistakes of the past and not thinking only for "grandfathering"
- Far count as essential the need for Inarcassa not only collect money from members' experience, but also to enable them to generate income: Inarcassa, in other words, is a more credible partner of the individual to request the necessary regulation of professions unregulated.
- Request management more transparent, for example by changing the intended use of the quarterly publication that we receive from a "comic" for the most useless and expensive (and always late) to a tool for informing prompt and timely management of the situation and the choices made by the Council, perhaps, since we have also the professionals, you might think of something more modern ...
- Trying to reason with the Board of Inarcassa so make choices that make it possible for new students or for professionals who have not yet done! the "redemption" of the years of study and / or military formulas sustainable (currently required contributions, usually modulated to the alleged ability to pay the "professional time that was," are beyond the reach of many members with income levels comparable with those of an employee).
- Learn the tools for calculating pensions allegations that are easier than at present: the simulations can be found at Inarcassa (I tried a few times ...) are complex and are little more than a play with the numbers ... not frighten anyone nor reassuring. It would be good but there were more realistic and precise instruments that can give us consistently the "pulse" of our tax position, and what the future holds.
Daniel Zingoni
Ed:
Daniel was one of the instigators and authors of the document of protest and make proposals on INARCASSA that towards the end of 2008, was signed by many members of Pistoia.
Confirming its attention to the problems of the new professionalism 'of engineering, in which he calls this "fast thinking" draws our attention to a reality' of I think that most of the older colleagues have little awareness.
How many are in fact aware of the profound and rapid transformation that is sweeping the world professional (And I stress all: every sector engineers, lawyers, consultants, architects, etc.). And that is changing the rules of the game? And as you can 'match this transformation, avoiding high prices being paid by all but especially by the younger generation? And finally, what role should play INARCASSA to support self-employment and ensure a peaceful future?
are questions that concern us all and that can not be circumvented.
John
