Unions say no to retirement age increase

The local trade union movement does not agree with the National Insurance Systems actuarial review’s recommendation, because of low income and high payment issues, to move the age of retirement from 60 to 65.

However, the Employers Consultative Association (ECA) sees no reason why the increase in the age of retirement cannot be made faster than is recommended in the actuarial review, of moving the retirement age to 65 over a 36-year period.

“We are saying it has to be much faster than that,” said chairman of the ECA Keston Nancoo. “We have examples right around us. We have Barbados, who moved from 60 to 67 over 12 years. St Lucia increased from 60 to 65 over 15 years.

“We find it very difficult to accept the proposed review for a gradual increase. We see no reason for this,”

Nancoo and several trade union leaders appeared yesterday before the Joint Select Committee (JSC) on Finance and Legal Affairs to discuss the National Insurance Systems actuarial review and the National Insurance Board (NIB) investment portfolio.

Watson Duke, president of the National Trade Union Centre, said the organisation had “serious concerns” about the issue and was against it. The movement of the age of retirement, he said, “is something of a collective agreement to do with employers.” One union, he said, had its retirement age dropped from 65 to 60, with a promissory note that its members would be given pensions. He said they were still awaiting the fulfilment of that agreement.

Trevor Johnson of the Joint Trade Union Movement (JTUM) said his group also had serious issues with increasing the retirement age and also disagreed with Nancoo, who gave no reason why the ECA would want to act quickly to increase the age. Apart from people wanting to retire early and live their retirement as they would want to, even returning to work in different capacities, Johnson said he did not believe that mathematically moving the age to 65 would solve the income issues that the NIS is experiencing.

Supposing the financial situation gets worse, he asked, would the NIB then consider moving the age higher, to 67 or even 71?