In a world full of crisises – wars, inflation, political cri­sises – it is essential to find a safe way to secure old-age pensions. There are two methods of financing pension systems – pay-as-you-go and capital method. The pay-as-you-go method is safer, because it is resistant to inflation due to the fact that the contribution is immediately being spent on pensions and there is no time that could diminish money’s value. The pay-as-you-go method is also immune to wars and political crisises, because there is no real as­set that could be transfered by the government out of the pension system. The pay-as-you-go method is vulnerable to demographical crisises. But the capital method may also be affected by demographical crisises if the assets are being invested in a country with poor demographic condi­tions, which could lead to lower return rates. A safe retire­ment system should be based mainly on the pay-as-you-go method.

We can observe a worldwide, lately in France, debate on the pension age of women and men. Poland had amendments which increased the pension age to 67 years for both sexes and after that lowered the pension age to 60 years for women and 65 years for men. In my opinion a lower pension age for women is a form of sex discrimination, because men, due to genetical, objective factors, live shorter than women. Because of that men spend many years less during their retirement than women. This pension privilege to women is outdated, unconstitutional and unique in EU. It is necessary to enforce an equal pension age of 65 years for women and men.

This paper is an analysis of the consequences of augmentation of the claim of employee for reinstatement to work due to the amendment of Labour Code, that came into effect on April 26th 2023. Every employee employed on a contract of employment on specified time may now claim for reinstatement. Because of many negative premises of the claim for reinstatement the parties to the lawsuit have more uncertainty of the court's sentence. The claim for reinstatement is inadequate to a contract of employment on specified time, because even if a worker is reinstated to work, the employer may not be forced to conclude the contract of employment, when the period of the contract expires. So even if an employee is reinstated to work, in principle, the employer has the right no to extend the contract of employment, which is contrary to one of the rules of labour law – the protection of security of an employment contract – and to the essence of the claim for reinstatement to work. Furthermore, this claim is a strong interference into the employer's human resources policy. There are legal systems among European Union's member states that do not even include the claim for reinstatement to work. Problems connected to this claim were also observed by the Codification Commission, that produced a project of the Labour Code that implemented a right for employers to redeem themselves from the reinstatement of an employer by paying a fixed amount.