The Minister-President of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Manuela Schwesig of the SPD, has strongly contested the federal government’s plans regarding early retirement without deductions after 45 years of contributions. Speaking to the news portal T-Online, Schwesig argued that the current pension proposals effectively result in lower benefits for individuals who have worked the required 45 years. For an average retirement benefit of €1,300 in Eastern Germany, she stated that she, as Minister-President, would not accept what she described as a “de facto pension cut” in her state. During her campaigning, she made it clear that she is fundamentally opposed to abolishing this entitlement and vows to do everything possible to prevent it.
Schwesig justified her criticism of the federal government’s goal to link pensions more closely to life expectancy by referencing the specific situation in Eastern Germany, which experiences lower average life expectancy rates. She prefers the economic proposal suggesting that pensions be tied to the number of years contributed. According to Schwesig, the average German citizen pays into the statutory pension system for 37 years, so the federal government must consider how to bridge the gap from 37 years to the proposed 45. She stressed that those who work and contribute longer should not be penalized.
Schwesig rejected the calls made by Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU) and Labor Minister Bärbel Bas (SPD) to incorporate the recommendations of the pension commission into the law with minimal changes. She instead urged that discussions be held with the federal states before such a reform is implemented. While acknowledging that the commission’s proposal is one possibility, she asserted that the final decision must rest with the federal government, the Bundestag, and the Bundesrat. Furthermore, she insisted that the starting age of employment must make a difference-between starting at 16 or starting at 26, for example.
Responding to the criticism that her resistance would jeopardize the entire pension reform project by reducing fiscal space, Schwesig dismissed this as a threat used to dismiss a legitimate question. She is advocating for a factual discussion regarding the reform’s consequences. Moreover, she warned that removing incentives for those who work and contribute for 45 years could be counterproductive. For her, the matter is fundamentally one of fairness: those who contribute the longest and for the longest period should be the ones to benefit the most.
Looking ahead, Schwesig indicated that she is awaiting joint discussions between the federal and state levels and insists that the consequences of the proposals must be precisely analyzed, which she noted is standard practice for major legislation. She expressed the view that it would be ideal if the pension after 45 years remained intact. She was unambiguous that the “hardship clause,” which currently allows people to retire early only if they become ill, is not a compromise she would accept.
