Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
“[…] The argument of the bankruptcy of NIS is empty fearmongering to justify their call for decreased liability to meet their workers’ NIS. The fact is NIB money is a pad for government programmes and a bed of questionable projects by NIPDEC.
“[…] Many workers stay in the workplace for some 35 years at age 60. It is punitive to have them work beyond 35 years unless it’s voluntary. Leisure time and voluntary work is a factor of humane societies…”
The following letter to the editor about extending the retirement age to 65 years was submitted to Wired868 by Cecil Paul, executive officer of the National Workers Union:
Workers again are being called to bear the burden of decreasing private sector and government revenues due to economic decline. Pension funds are a major source of finance capital, so by delaying workers’ pensions by 5 years, a larger pool of funds will be available to the ruling elites.
There are no significant benefits to workers by this extension of the retirement age to 65.
The increase in life expectancy is no justification for longer working years, which deny workers of retirement enjoyment. When the retirement age was 65 many workers died in a short time with a sizable portion of their pensions staying in the plan.
Reducing pensions will not extend the life of the fund and provide for future workers. Pensions are based on joint contributions and a factor of wages/salaries. In most cases, the employer has the larger contribution liability. The employer is looking at ways to reduce his liability or to either have harmonisation with NIS or insured plans, both of which will reduce their liability.
The argument of the bankruptcy of NIS is empty fearmongering to justify their call for decreased liability to meet their workers’ NIS. The fact is NIB money is a pad for government programmes and a bed of questionable projects by NIPDEC.
Recently, NIS contributions were increased. Does that not count for something? In any case, actuaries always predict a bad future and increased contributions to safeguard against bad projections.
Many workers stay in the workplace for some 35 years at age 60. It is punitive to have them work beyond 35 years unless it’s voluntary. Leisure time and voluntary work is a factor of humane societies. They argue that retirement at 60 years will facilitate the training of young workers. Why can’t this training begin when the trainer is 55 up to 60?
What most do is keep out the young worker and have the retiree work at lower rates. In the case of the young worker, a contract is given with no company pension, inferior wages/salaries and no job security. So the training argument does not hold. Extending the retirement age to 65 will delay and deny young workers job opportunities.
There are many corrections to be made to pensions in the country, but extending the retirement age is punitive without any benefits to workers and seeks to benefit the corporations and ruling elites.
“[…] In other countries where off-duty firearm carry is allowed, it is done with strict safeguards: ongoing psychological assessments, secure Read more
“[…] Cepep was designed as a springboard—a transitional system for those facing barriers to employment, a way to build dignity Read more
“[…] What kind of society are we building when the working class is always the first to feel the axe? Read more
It is usual for all attention to be put on Tubal Uriah Butler on Labour Day. This year, however, my Read more
“[…] The 10 years under the Dr Keith Rowley-led PNM saw a vicious attack on the trade union movement and Read more
“[…] Most carnival costumes (beads, bikinis, feathers, clothes, uniforms, caps, wire bending, etc) are now manufactured in China at reasonable costs—transport Read more
Want to share your thoughts with Wired868? Email us at editor@wired868.com.
Please keep your letter between 300 to 600 words and be sure to read it over first for typos and punctuation.
We don’t publish anonymously unless there is a good reason, such as an obvious threat of harassment or job loss.
This is but the tip of the iceberg. Where is the replacement population coming from if our population is declining while demands for penchant payments increase as life expectancy increases. I suspect this may be just a few of the motivations behind the call to increase the retirement age.