A Czech bill aimed at supporting workers in high-risk jobs has been approved by the Chamber of Deputies, although workers will have to wait for the changes to come into force, after representatives voted to delay the start date until 1 January 2026.

The bill would require employers to contribute 3 per cent or 4 per cent of gross wages into voluntary private pension savings if the employee works a category three risk job, such as mining, metallurgy, or hazardous chemical processing.

Employees would then be able to submit a written application and select a third-pillar pension provider in order to access the contributions.

These contributions will be owned entirely by the employee and can be accessed for early retirement or other permitted uses under the third-pillar system.

The proposed law was originally scheduled to take effect on 1 July 2025, with the Czech Finance Ministry previously suggesting that it was "realistic" that it could be approved by the end of the first half of 2025.

But a number of amendments to the bill have been put forward as part of the legislative process, including amendments to delay the original start date of 1 July 2025, to allow for administrative preparations and ensure employers have sufficient time to comply.

In particular, Mayors and Independents (STAN) representative, Viktor Vojtko, proposed delaying the start date to 1 January 2026 due to short preparation time and the changes needed for HR and payroll systems to follow the new rules.

However, ANO 2011 MP, Alena Schillerová, proposed a longer delay, suggesting that the start date for the effectiveness of the regulations should be pushed by a full year, until 1 July 2026.

Arguing in favour of the delay during the debate, Schillerová suggested that a postponement until July 2026 could "avoid chaos during implementation, protect existing agreements between employers and employees and allow employees to reconsider their own retirement savings strategies".

Whilst both amendments had the backing from the Budget Committee, Schillerová's amendment was rejected by a vote of 55 for, 21 against.

This opened the door for Vojtko's amendment, which was approved, with 113 voting for the change, and just 3 representatives voting against.

Other amendments were also voted on and adopted, including proposals concerning the transfer of control over the fulfillment of employers' obligations arising from the law from the labor inspection authorities to the social security administration authorities.

Representatives also voted to adopt an amendment concerning the unification of the contribution into one band, if the employee has worked at least three shifts of risky work, which was a proposal raised by the Budget Committee.

This, according to Schillerová, will "significantly" reduce the administrative burden on employers and bring greater clarity and stability for employees.

A number of amendments to clarify duplications and make legislative and technical corrections were also passed.

Other amendments were the source of more debate, however, including an amendment from the Czech Pirate Party, which would reduce the maximum fees for transformed and participating funds.

Czech Pirate Party representative and vice-chair of the Chamber of Deputies, Olga Richterová, explained that the party had tabled the amendment amid concerns that "the fee for management here is simply disproportionately high".

"We are aware that Czech funds manage less money today, even though we have the same population as Sweden, so we are not proposing a reduction to the same level, but to continue to maintain relatively generous fees and thus ensure that the funds have sufficient space for quality services," she stated.

"To put it very simply, it is a reduction in the fee for managing assets in the participating fund. So we proposed a reduction to 0.4 per cent because our goal is to increase the return for clients, but also higher client deposits, so that, thanks to the higher returns, people simply want to save."

The Pirates Party also tabled an amendment on the expansion of the investment options of participatory funds to include investments in private equity.

"We have long pointed out that most funds are currently at a loss not only because, in real terms, the loss is that the value is not increasing as it should, not only because of high fees, but also because the investment rules are too restrictive," Richterová explained.

"So we have a simple proposal that conservative funds could, should have the pure possibility, to invest up to 30 per cent of their portfolio in shares, and that is still a very conservative approach."

Whilst Richterová acknowledged that there may be concerns that venture capital is simply too risky for pensioners, she argued that it is already commonplace in countries such as the US and Sweden, where pension funds do not invest directly in individual startups, but in several specialized funds, so that the risk is spread out.

"And the goal is simple, so that pension funds can invest in the development of Czech companies, so that the money can circulate in the economy, but at the same time, of course, we do not want to unnecessarily scare anyone," she said.

However, Civic Democratic Party (ODS) MP Vojtěch Munzar, spoke against these amendments, arguing that "pension funds offer other options, dynamic, balanced ones, and if we were to change this setting that people can choose in any significant way, it also deserves a more professional discussion and comment procedure and not to resolve it with an amendment".

Both amendments were ultimately rejected following disagreement within the Chamber of Deputies.

Despite the passing of the bill, broader concerns have also continued, with a number of representatives from different political parties raising concerns over the need for the bill in the first place.

"Honestly, this is another setback for these employees from the Fial government," SPD representative, MP Iveta Štefanová, stated.

"There are more than 100,000 of them, and the government originally promised them that from the beginning of this year they would be able to retire early, fully, and without any cuts.

"But the government canceled this promise at the last minute, due to a proposal from other deputies."

Štefanová continued: "Instead, government deputies are now coming up with the idea of ​​so-called early retirement, but not from the public system, but from mandatory savings in private pension funds.

"And that is a huge problem. It would financially harm most people in demanding professions. Not only would they lose money, but they would also have lower pensions in the future.

"And what is worst of all, many people will not even be able to achieve this early retirement, because they would have to save hundreds of thousands of crowns.

"Even if they succeeded, they would earn less in early retirement than the current minimum wage. Only private funds and their owners would benefit from this, not ordinary workers.

"In our opinion, this proposal is completely antisocial and we fundamentally reject it."

ANO 2011 representative, Schillerová, expressed similar concerns, arguing that "instead of a systemic amendment, this separate proposal came, which is unfortunately not legislatively or substantively prepared".

"The proposal was created in isolation, without sufficient discussion with the professional public and without cooperation with employers who already contribute to their employees' pension products as part of benefit programs or collective agreements," she continued.

"These systems often also cover employees who will receive a new mandatory contribution under the proposal. As a result, they will not receive anything extra. The law does not take into account that this practice already exists and works."

Schillerová also raised specific concerns that the bill does not contain any analysis of regional impacts, warning that disproportionate numbers of workers in risky professions in some areas could have a significant impact on the labor market and in public sector costs.

"We still do not have information on the age composition of the affected employees, how many of them do not have any pension products, or what volume of new funds private pension companies will receive," she added.

"There is no analysis of the impacts on public budgets, even though the proposal also affects more than sixteen thousand employees in the state administration.

"Ladies and gentlemen, instead of a systemic solution, the government is coming up with an immature, isolated and administratively demanding amendment. This amendment does not really bring new value, but instead creates new complications.

"This is not a way to strengthen trust in the pension system, but rather another example of how important issues are resolved hastily and without well-considered consequences."

---