Martin Werding, an expert economist, is arguing against setting up specific pension regulations for certain arduous professions. Speaking to the “Handelsblatt”, he stated that in other countries, the list of professions eligible for these perks appears to be driven more by effective organizational structure and strong lobbying efforts than by genuine occupational health science. As a former member of the pension commission, Werding noted that the “Heavy Work Pension” system in Austria, which was promoted by SPD politician Dirk Wiese as a model, relies on an outdated conception of strenuous labor. He argued this view is no longer viable, given the increasing number of new retirees experiencing mental and psychological impairments. However, Werding pointed out that these conditions are far less easily tied to specific job categories than physical disabilities.
Christine Mayrhuber, a pension expert at the Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO), echoed this skepticism in the same newspaper, characterizing the Austrian solution as partially a “help construct born out of necessity.” She highlighted that both Austria and Germany lack a systematic way to track working conditions. Consequently, Vienna was compelled to tie the claim for a heavy work pension to criteria that could be verifiable retrospectively. Mayrhuber lamented: “It is truly a tragedy that we know almost nothing about work-related stress factors.”
Werding further commented that the German Pension Insurance Authority does not even have detailed knowledge of the professions of its insured members, making it impossible for them to enact such tailored policies. This presents a stark contrast to the Austrian system, where employers are legally obligated to report “heavy work” when applying for the special pension.
