The pension at the castle will not simply relieve the employer of the debt

While last year the bank and the company reached the pension you owed easily through your employer, now the situation is quite different. Only certain selected items can be automatically deducted from the salary in m.

Especially in companies employing hundreds of employees, they complained about the fact that there are small cases where the person has to pay the salary of his employee. Most often it was some loans and debts on levies, but the objective fact is that administrative and transaction costs remained with the employer without any compensation. At present, although this obligation has not been fully relieved by employers, it has been significantly reduced. Who blamed it?

Without an agreement with the employee, the employer has to carry out the sick only in cases
At present, deductions from wages or salaries are mainly due to the end of work, which significantly expanded its scope. In addition to wages or salaries, the employer can provide employees with srky and other income of the employee. For example, from an agreement on work activities, from an agreement on the performance of work, full performance of various kinds, etc.

The number of cases in which the employer carries out wage deductions has survived, nor should he have in hand either a court decision (execution title) or an agreement signed with the employee on wage deductions. These are the following special cases, from which it is evident that it contributes to the access of the state to long-term pensions:

Personal income tax on vertical activities
Insurance for health and social security and contribution to the state employment policy
An advance on the wage or salary which the employee is obliged to pay
Untitled deposit for travel expenses
Reimbursement of wages or salary for vacation, the employee lost his or her entitlement

If the conditions are not met, then the employer may not pay other wages from the salary without an agreement with the employee. An important left for employers is the fact that since January 2007 it does not have to be paid from wages by employees from contracts that the employee has negotiated with another entity, such as an institution providing consumer loans, etc.

The employer is obliged to collect only cases of receivables for vivn
From the employer’s point of view, any agreement of the employee with this entity regarding the castle of the union through the wage deduction can be refused, with the exception of a secured claim of a living character. In practice, this may be the case, for example, when a mother agrees with a divorced father that she will be liable for their child from their wages. In such a case, the former wife acts as a leader and the divorced husband as a longtime and an employee at the same time. If such an agreement was formerly supported by the partners, then when it is submitted to the employer, they will not be allowed to accept it and to carry out the agreements in favor of the wife.

It follows from the above that this obligation arises for the employer only in the case of the power of the family law in connection with the vivn. Any other agreement of the employee with the creditor (for example, a payment company) may be rejected by the employer without any reason. In practice, the reward is undoubtedly due to the administrative burden and the employer’s lack of interest in the employee’s pecuniary debt with these entities.

It is clear that employers will avoid deductions from wages in favor of three people in drainage cases. This, of course, applies to new agreements concluded, but agreements concluded before 1 January 2007 should respect and continue in wages from wages according to the two concluded worms.

In the case of the obligor, he deviates from the subsistence minimum and the cost of living
Irrespective of the employee’s agreement with this entity, the employer will only allow me to complete the appointment. These are adjusted by Kon about the existing and living minimum. The salary that the obligor must not be deducted more than the so-called deposit. This is equal to the sum of two aunts of the living wage of an individual and the normative cost of living for an individual. In addition, it is necessary to take one quarter of the non-seizable contact for each person who is obliged to provide vivn.

Just to illustrate, let’s apply the law on the existing minimum and the amount of the deposit, from which the employer must base the wage deduction. This year, this deposit is 5785 K. This allowance consists of a living wage of an individual 3126 K and a normative cost of living 2659 K.

In summary, it can be stated that with the new legislative changes, on the one hand, there will be an essentially unsustainable concessions, but on the other hand, the other concessions are decreasing. The consequence of these two changes is that the wage will be beyond its limit, it was not two. The changes in the wages of the employer, who has lost both work and administrative and transaction costs, take the changes in wages as positive.

Heath IM Provement