There should be justice for pensioners who were wrongly paid the minimum NIS pension
Dear Editor, A few weeks ago the NIS published some statistical facts about pensions and the number of pensioners.
I recall some years ago I learnt a saying; “Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive. What they conceal is vital.”
According to the NIS, at least seventy-five percent of all pensioners are paid at the minimum rate.
What has not been disclosed is the demographics of those minimum pensioners!! Let me explain my concerns. In 2002 I had some written correspondence with the NIS about pension payments to my wife and I, who both qualified in 2001.
We both joined the NIS at inception. We went along parallel lines working for the Government Services.
My wife Marjorie was a Nurse, a Dispenser, a Pharmacist, an Inspector of Pharmacies and the Registrar of Pharmacies. She resigned in 1984.
In 1990 I obtained her contribution record, (errors aside) she had 790 contributions, including about 350 at level five and the last 325 at level 10
I was a Postman, a P and T Clerk, a Postmaster, IRO, SPO/ PIRM and APMG. I took early retirement in 1991.
When I obtained my contribution record in 1990 (errors aside) I had 1030 contributions, including 380 at level 5, 76 at level 9 and the last 490 at level ten. I had more to be credited for 1990/1991.
My last three (of five) years average salary was higher than my wife’s last three years.
Incidentally why has NIS persisted with that formula, rather than just the highest three years average?
I was shocked when my wife and I both obtained the same NIS pension, and that correspondence from me which sought explanations as to why when I contributed more at higher levels ended with the GM of NIS’ letter to me explaining that we were both placed at the minimum because of the regulations. (I think the figure was $10000 monthly.)
I did a little research then and found out that we (two) were not peculiar and everyone else similar had been bunched in the same morally incorrect boat. I later found out that someone recognised that morally indefensible position (when they were coming up for pension?) and took steps to correct the injustice. No one decided to do so retroactively.
This means that persons in similar positions qualifying as they do with those high contribution levels now get as much as two and three times the minimum as their (correct) NIS pensions.
The question now is how many of pensioners contributed at lower levels; as against how many of us contributed at those high levels and (were it not for the sake of making the regulations sooner) would have not been bunched at the minimum. That is the missing vital statistic!
Now that we are talking of giving oil money to Guyanese, would it not be appropriate to correct that injustice and pay to those who contributed and served what is morally imperative. We have several formulas floating around like the seven-eights which is the law. Or use the same NIS formula.
And we don’t have to wait for the oil to flow. There are formulas out there to pay now or provide bonds etc.
My wife died before getting her just benefit and I am not allowed (her) survivor’s benefit. I wish to enjoy mine. I too want a good life as a reward for my service! As Boney told me “You gat fo live lang fo get ole”.
On the same pensioners situation I wish to raise three other topical issues:
My first point has to do with pensioners paid under the Pension Act.
Every year my Minister of Finance would announce an increase for minimum pay, as he will announce a percentage increase for public sector workers.
Please Mr Minister remember those workers who served and include a line item at that time to announce the percent increase for pensioners paid under the Act.
It will save my friends running around to the Treasury and other Corporations asking ‘where is the warrant/increase’!
My second point is a plea for those so called Old Age Pensioners who were handed a five hundred dollar increase last time. Please Mr Minister, just think what that money means to the majority of recipients and pay them more. Start perhaps with the same base percentage as NIS. Not perfect but a start!! Yes some of us can do without it, but remember we turn around and make regular ‘donations’ to some others!
Finally back to the case as my third point.
NIS proudly announced that the minimum pension payable is fifty percent of the minimum wage. The Minister always announces the minimum wage increase with retroactivity to one year, say 2017. Workers receive their back pay.
But the NIS uses that minimum wage rate for the ensuing year (say 2018) and pays no arrears to past workers/contributors.
Don’t tell us that ‘we don’t have cash flow’. We are not the ones charged with management of the scheme and should not be penalised when investments go awry. Please follow the correct principles and pay us what is due.
Remember that pensioners served and contributed to our development, and they too deserve to benefit from the good life.
Don’t penalise them ‘fo live lang’. Yours faithfully, L A Camacho