At the outset I wish to say that it is an Editor's Prerogative to publish a particular item or not. But it is not for the reader to say you publish this or omit that. That would be as bad as curtailment of editor's liberty by the jute press.
Matters relating to Pensions are important economic matters, they affect both the individual and the state. The state does not feel bad about increase in the number of billionaires, amending labour laws to suit the employers (both foreign and indian), Astronomical increase in NPAs of Banks all due to businessmen and industrialists etc. The parliamentarians also do not feel it bad to sanction increased
pay and perks for themselves. The state wants to curtail the meagre benefits that accrue to the working population be it provident fund, pension or other retiral benefits.
Is there any thing new or innovative in this economic decision to curtail retirement benefits by the state? This virus crept into our system alongwith the policy of L P G . At the macro level our government is only apeing the model of American economy.
In USA it was done in the name of " promoting an ownership society," implying that the risks that were shared by many workers and employers are now shifted on to the shoulders of individuals. So the defined benefit pension plans were replaced by Defined contribution plans. As everyone
knows in Defined contribution plan the employee saves a certain amount of money which is accumulated and invested by the EMPLOYER ( mind you, the employer does not contribute anything but only administers the fund.) There is no guarantee of returns and no guaranteed pension at retirement. THIS PLAN IS NOW PUT INTO PRACTICE BY OUR RULERS. SIMULTANEOUSLY PROPOGANDA IS UNLEASHED AGAINST THE EXISTING DEFINED BENEFIT CONTRACTS.
Anyway the number of persons who would receive defined benefit pension decreases year after year. If a small improvement is sought by this dwindling tribe powerful propaganda is unleashed as if this section of pensioners is looting the funds and assets of an institution.
In the present scenario you have to run to stay at the same spot. The nefarious design of government to keep our pensions as low as possible and deny any improvement means what? There are several ways of fighting back but for some reason or other, in LIC the legal fight appears to be the only fight that is being carried on.
We may win or lose. But we will have the satisfaction of dying while fighting. It is for all who choose to remain silent or indulge in mudslinging to understand the sentiments and aspirations of pensioners' community.
LICPC MUST PUBLISH AND GIVE SPACE TO ALL OPINIONS BE THEY FOR OR AGAINST UPGRADATION. LET THERE BE A DEBATE AND A THOUSAND VOICES HEARD. BUT IT IS ALL A QUESTION OF TIMING THE DEBATE. DO WE INDULGE IN DEBATE WHEN WE
HAVE TO STAND BEFORE THE BENCH?
Persons like Mr. Anonymous must have started their debate ( or tirade) a few months before. He is not talking about the cost of a benefit. He is championing the ideology behind the economic decision. That ideology needs to be defeated on all fora. I would like to say that there is no need to run away from debate but I would again say " at the time chosen by us and on the ground chosen by us." Was not this present scheme of pension in LIC the fruit of a powerful debate about 2nd and 3rd retirement benefits?