There is optimism, especially following today’s meeting of the Labor Advisory Council on pension reform, that “we will be able to move forward and deliver the results that the public expects from all of us (employers, employees, and the government), so as to provide a better quality of life for current and future retirees,” said Minister of Labor and Social Insurance Marinos Mousiouttas. From the labor unions’ perspective, concerns were raised primarily regarding specific provisions affecting future generations.

In remarks following the Labor Advisory Council meeting—which lasted over three hours and included a comprehensive presentation of all proposals from both sides— Mr. Mousiouttas described today’s session of the Council as a “marathon” and “extremely constructive.”

He added that, based on the discussions that have taken place since the bill was introduced—and “especially after today’s session”—he could say that they are in a much better position to determine whether there are elements that could be modified.

He noted that today’s meeting was “very useful” and expressed confidence that next Monday’s meeting, as well as those to follow, will continue in the same spirit because it is clear to all sides, as he said, “that we all want this pension reform to move forward as quickly as possible.”

Specifically, the Minister of Labor said that, as he had requested, during today’s session, the social partners presented their proposals, and each organization expressed its own suggestions—either verbally or in writing—which were analyzed.

He added that “on the part of the Ministry, we listened and promised that we would begin reviewing everything that has been submitted to us right away”—that is, everything we have not already reviewed in previous sessions of the Assembly.

“Our intention is, by Monday—which is the Council’s next session—if possible, to address all the proposals so that we can provide answers.”

Otherwise, as he said, the discussion will continue on Monday and Thursday in the Labor Advisory Council, “so that we can address everything that was mentioned today.”

He noted that in some cases there may be changes to the proposals included in the bill, while in others there may not be.

“However, there will be a justification for everything—why something can be amended and why something cannot—always keeping in mind the philosophy of the legislation we have established, as well as the sustainability of the Social Security Fund and public finances,” he added.

Mr. Mousiouttas said that “there are different ways of addressing these issues, which is reasonable and respectable,” but “in the end, we must reach a conclusion so that when the House of Representatives discusses this in the relevant committee, it will have all the facts before it.”

“That is where we will present our case, and ‘the final debate on the issue will take place, with the ultimate goal of passing the bill and implementing it starting next year,’” he added.

When asked what changes would be made to the bill during the upcoming sessions, Mr. Mousiouttas said he was not in a position to say at this time what would change, adding that starting Monday there would be a discussion “on which points we can reach a compromise and on which we believe we cannot.”

“We are awaiting the final legal review of the bill, which I hope will be completed within the next few days, so that, with the legal review in hand, to bring it before the Cabinet,” he added.

He noted that the next meeting of the Cabinet is scheduled for next Tuesday, followed by another on Wednesday, October 20.

“We want to be able to submit the bill to Parliament as soon as possible,” he said, adding that “the dialogue in the Labor Advisory Council will be able to continue until the debate begins in Parliament, as well as during the debate in Parliament.”

“It may be unorthodox, some might say, but it’s not something that hasn’t been done before,” he added.

According to the Minister, “if it is something that will benefit the overall effort, I don’t see why it can’t be done.”

Responding to a question about the sustainability of the TKA, Mr. Mousiouttas said that sustainability must apply to today, tomorrow, and the next 40 years, which are covered by the actuarial study.

“The conditions for current and future retirees are being examined, being analyzed, and we will have our final positions, because some of the suggestions raised by various parties concerned future retirees,” he added.

When asked about the biggest sticking point in the social dialogue, Mr. Mousiouttas said he couldn’t speak of a specific sticking point, but he could say that “there are some differing philosophies on certain issues, which is logical and respectable.”

“However, taking all factors into account, we arrived at the proposal we presented to our partners on August 19,” he added.

When asked if there are indications that the bill will be submitted with as much consensus as possible, the Minister of Labor said that “it is certain that the bill to be submitted to the Cabinet will contain more compromises than the one presented to the social partners one and a half to two months ago.”

When asked whether he rejects the social partners’ claim that the reform, as it stands without any significant changes, will negatively affect the income of current retirees, Mr. Mousiouttas said that “we have never raised such an issue, so for us, it is not an issue.”

In her own remarks following the session, PEO Secretary-General Sotiroula Charalambous said that they had raised “very specific issues regarding the proposal submitted to us, which we consider problematic, starting from a basic premise.”

“Our first point of departure,” she continued, “is that this discussion on pensions began to address the problem of retirees who have low incomes and fall into what we call the category of ‘poor retirees.’”

He noted that “our second starting point—which for us is not merely a starting point but also an endpoint— is that the discussion about changes cannot lead to making the social security system more detrimental to current contributors and future retirees.”

“Therefore, the positions we have put forward are based on these two fundamental principles,” she added.

Regarding the issue of addressing the low incomes of poor retirees, the PEO Secretary-General said that “we have emphasized the need to review this system of paying pensions in five installments, and also to improve ‘Pillar Zero,’ that is, the scheme for low-income retirees based on the actual poverty line.”

He also noted that provisions have been included in the bill “that make the establishment of future entitlements more challenging.”

“We have pointed out specific provisions, and this is not merely our own assessment,” she said, adding that “the establishment of the right to a pension at age 63 is becoming more restrictive.”

Citing examples, Ms. Charalambous said that these include “the fact that credits for studies are carried over as notional credits and do not count toward establishing entitlement” and “make it more difficult to claim a pension at age 63, as well as to claim a disability pension and a survivor’s pension.”

“Pension reform cannot make the system more disadvantageous for future generations,” she added.

Regarding the pillar of provident funds, Ms. Charalambous said that PEO will submit its proposal in “very specific” terms, again based on a fundamental premise, as she put it, “that in order to provide adequate retirement income, especially for the future, pension funds must be something that all workers have throughout their working lives.”

She also noted that “it is positive that the creation of a real reserve is being discussed,” adding that “Significant safeguards must be put in place regarding transparency and accountability, as well as regarding the participation of those who will be part of this new mechanism that will be created.”

“Whether there will be consensus or agreement—from PEO’s perspective—will depend on what I have said previously,” he noted, adding that PEO did not enter “into discussions about changes that would make the system less favorable for future generations, which for us is a matter of principle.”

For his part, SEK Deputy General Secretary Panikos Argyrides said in his remarks following the session that it had been a constructive meeting on pension reform.

“As organizations, we collectively outlined our positions on all the points that have been raised and presented to date regarding what is changing in each pillar,” he added.

He noted that SEK highlighted “both the positive elements included in the proposal and the negative elements that raise concerns.”

He added that SEK submitted recommendations on how “the negative aspects can be improved, and we expect the Ministry of Labor to review our proposals and move forward with improving certain elements through the proposed reform so that they will be morefairly for both current and future retirees.”

Mr. Argyridis said that for SEK “it is important that this reform be a result that can be embraced by all social partners, as well as by society as a whole.”

In response to a remark that the General Secretary of PEO had outlined the union’s strong feelings on the matter, Mr. Argyridis said that “We must highlight and reiterate once again today the fundamental principles, for which we at SEK have a clear framework.”

“Within the framework of this reform, there can be no increase in contributions by the parties beyond those provided for in the existing bill; there must be no variation in the retirement age beyond the existing link to life expectancy, “under no circumstances should the long-term sustainability of the Social Security Fund be compromised,” he added.

He noted that this is the framework of the basic principles, and on this basis, we had identified in the proposed bill potential changes that would be detrimental to future beneficiaries, whether regarding disability pensions, survivor’s pensions, or the various short-term benefits provided through the TKA.”

The Deputy Secretary-General of SEK stated that the Fund has a clear philosophy and added that these proposals should be evaluated by the Ministry and technical experts to provide us with the appropriatethat they will not be adversely affected and will have no negative impact in the future.”

Source: CNA