Chamber of Commerce demands social gradation for the Insolvency Remuneration Fund

The Chamber of Commerce, as the statutory interest group representing Austrian businesses, represents the employers' side on socio-political issues. From its perspective, social gradation would be a way to deploy the limited resources of the IEF more precisely. At the same time, it warns that financing purely through contributions via the IESG surcharge could further increase non-wage labor costs. A detailed position on this has yet to be taken.

Who finances the IEF

The Insolvency Remuneration Fund is an institution that partially secures outstanding wages and salaries of employees in the event of corporate insolvency. The funds come from employer contributions, which are collected via the so-called IESG surcharge for insolvency remuneration insurance. The exact level of the surcharge rate is regularly adjusted to keep the fund financially operational.

On the employee side, the Austrian Trade Union Federation (ÖGB) and the Chamber of Labour (AK) have already signaled the need for reform. Both take the view that the existing cap creates gaps especially for middle incomes and that adjustments are necessary. The social partners' ideas on what a reform should look like in concrete terms are not yet fully aligned.

Positions of the social partners

The discussion comes at a time when policymakers have already announced solutions for the financing of the IEF. Finance Minister Markus Stocker had pledged that there would be a solution for the financing of the Insolvency Remuneration Fund. What form this solution will take and whether it will include social gradation remains open.

In comparable systems in other countries, such as Germany, similar gradation models are already being discussed. Proponents point out that a degressive payout based on income concentrates limited resources on those who need them most urgently. Critics see this as additional bureaucratic effort and a departure from the previous principle of uniform coverage.

International points of comparison

What is certain is that a reform will ultimately only work if the employers' and employees' sides as well as the government agree on a common model. Until then, the current cap at twice the maximum assessment basis of social insurance remains in force.

Next steps are expected in the coming social partner talks. If an agreement is reached, the issue is likely to be incorporated into the upcoming amendment of the IESG surcharge.

Observers see the Chamber of Commerce's initiative as a signal that the previously rather technical debate on the IEF is becoming increasingly charged with socio-political significance. The question of how much the state, how much social insurance, and how much employers should ultimately bear remains the central point of conflict.