SAK: If the lunch allowance were to be removed, it would hardly be replaced by a salary increase

Standard about removing the lunch allowance have come to the fore in recent days, when economists have condemned the lunch tax allowance given to employees as unnecessary and complicated.

In the employee camp, the possible removal of the benefit is seen as a direct weakening of the benefits of the employees.

If the lunch benefit were to be removed or weakened, the employees would hardly receive compensation as large as the removed benefit. This is what the vice-chairman of the board of the Employers’ Association SAK, which represents the employees, thinks Katja Syvärinen.

Syvärinen reminds that the lunch allowance is part of the salary.

The lunch allowance has been agreed upon in the collective agreements, and if the government decided to end the tax benefit, the labor market parties would have to renegotiate the agreements in this regard.

Discourse about the possible removal of the lunch allowance gained momentum after HS Visio said that economists consider the tax advantage pointless and as a complex tax system.

In their opinion, workers should be able to decide for themselves where to spend their money and how to organize their lunch meal during the working day.

Also The Koumpusunores have presented elimination of the tax benefit. According to them, removing the lunch allowance would be an easy savings target for the government and would bring savings of 20 million euros.

In addition to the lunch allowance, the Kokoomusnuoret would also like to remove the exercise and culture benefits given to employees, i.e. the so-called incentive benefits, which would bring about another 10 million euros in additional savings.

Now, the employer receives support for the employee’s lunch tax-free at a rate of 25 percent. The employee pays the remaining 75 percent out of his own pocket. That is, if lunch costs 14 euros, the employer pays 3.5 euros and the employee 10.5 euros.

This year, the minimum value of the lunch allowance is 8.80 euros, which means that the employee must pay at least that much for lunch. The maximum amount of the nutritional benefit, on the other hand, is 14 euros.

Although the lunch allowance has been agreed upon in collective agreements, the Finnish government can decide to remove the tax allowance if it wishes. This is because the lunch tax benefit is regulated by law, just like other fringe benefits.

How the removal of the tax benefit would be compensated for the employees, or whether it would be compensated in any way, would be left to be negotiated between the employer and employee sides. That should be agreed upon in collective agreements.

On social media forums, many supporters of removing the tax benefit say that they would rather have the lunch tax benefit as money, so that they could decide for themselves what to use it for.

“The lunch allowance is not a general right, but it is actually a negotiated benefit and part of the salary.”

Would it be possible for the removal of the tax benefit to be compensated by giving employees the same amount of more pay?

Syvärinen would not be very optimistic about this.

“It’s hard to see that the eliminated tax benefit would be paid in some other form.”

He reminds that salary negotiations have been difficult recently and the employer has no obligation in itself to offer anything in place of the outgoing tax benefit. It is an employment benefit that the employer can offer to his employees if he wishes, there is no compulsion to do so.

“Collective agreement negotiations are often negotiations about many different things. Keeping the lunch allowance could require giving up something else. I don’t think the total salary amount would increase,” says Syvärinen.

“The lunch allowance is not a general right, but it is actually a negotiated benefit and part of the salary.”

According to him, if the lunch benefit is changed, it would probably be more of a deterioration than an improvement for the majority of employees.

Now, thanks to the tax advantage, the benefit benefits both employees and employers, says Syvärinen.

The system according to him, it can always be improved, but the worst option would be to remove the lunch allowance and only then start thinking about whether something else would replace it.

Even now, the lunch allowance can be used, for example, to buy ready-made meals from a store or to order food at home from a restaurant.

Syvärinen understands that the increase in remote work has contributed to the fact that some workers feel that they do not benefit from the lunch allowance in the same way as before.

Otherwise, he sees the talks about the possible removal of the lunch allowance as part of weakening the position of employees, which, according to him, is part of the prime minister’s Petteri Orpon government policy.