With reference to the various articles that have appeared in the media on pensions reform, I would like to suggest that the government could give incentives to those who do not abuse the social services system and the national insurance scheme. This suggested pension reform also takes into account the number of days or hours worked, i.e. workers would be compensated for not utilising all their yearly sick leave entitlement when they reach pensionable age by deducting the amount of sick leave accumulated from the time left for retirement. In this way not only is the sick leave added to the amount of pre-retirement leave, but also helps to reduce the retirement age by, let’s say, 15 months.

With this scheme, the government would be killing two birds with one stone. It would curb sick leave abuse and also reduce the financial burden by having employees retire earlier. This system should also help to create new work / employment opportunities for the new generation and promotions in government service, thus adding work motivation and possibly more prospects for job satisfaction in the junior grades.

The new proposed pension system clearly discriminates against the younger workforce, particularly those under 40. The way we draw the line as to what age group can retire before or after a certain age, has to be calculated bearing social justice in mind. There should be three categories of workers: those who work more than a 40-hour week and who have no overtime rights, those workers who should retire after 27 years, and those who, like the majority, work equivalent to 40 hours a week; these should retire at say 62. But those who work less than 40 hours a week should retire later, say at 64.

Another category of workers is the self-employed. These people have no leave and hardly take any sick leave, and are paid by the hour for their work. Thus they are not robbing the nation! So they should automatically fall in the 40-hour week workers’ category, irrelevant of the number of hours worked, as these persons do high value added work and pay the necessary N.I. contributions / benefits and taxes. We could debate if these persons are overcharging us for a service they provide, but that is a different story; as long as they pay “Caesar” what is fairly due.

Technically speaking, the self-employed are not robbing the nation, as they are only paid for the work they do by the hour. We could argue that they charge high rates in comparison with the time taken to complete a particular job. For example, a self-employed earns what is equivalent to government labourer employee’s day’s wage in just one or two hours. But these people’s job is calculated as high value added. So they (self-employed) automatically fall within the 40 hours a week workers’ category.

Some work eight hours a day, others more, and others less, but as long as they pay their income tax and full N.I. contributions according to the minimum hours worked, they are entitled to retire and receive a pension like all other workers. According to the social security act, if a person works a minimum of 20 hours per week, he is considered a full time worker.

There must be minimum criteria of requirements; for people to retire and receive a pension, a stipulated total number of hours’ work must be reached, together with a minimum amount of N.I contributions of say 30 to 40 years, thus workers should be allowed to retire earlier than the proposed age of 65.

Jonathan Debono

Msida