Nation

NATIONAL PENSION FOR ALL
To K. Kokkaliari	24. 12. 2001

The MEP of PASOK, Anna Karamanu, proposes the establishment of a national pension that will be granted to all Greeks, even those who have never worked. In an interview with “Ethnos,” the MEP of the ruling party suggests implementing uniform retirement age limits for men and women, while calling for special measures to protect motherhood. Additionally, she supports the establishment of a “flexible pension system” that would allow insured individuals to choose whether they want to remain in the labor market. She makes particular reference to the social security system, which she characterizes as “illogical,” and calls for an end to the fragmentation of the funds, which results in insured individuals being divided into “fortunate” and “unfortunate.”

Anna Karamanu strongly criticizes the trade union movement, accusing it of ostracizing women, and adds: “The trade union space is the harshest and most hostile for women.”

Anna Karamanu’s interview with “Ethnos” is as follows:

• A few days ago, at a seminar organized by the PASOK MEPs, you supported the abolition of favorable provisions for women’s retirement, emphasizing that “the implementation of protective legislation (fifteen-year period, early retirement) is responsible for the degraded position of women in the labor market.” Do you believe there should be uniform retirement age limits for men and women?

There must be absolutely uniform regulations for both genders, and any decisions made within the framework of pension reform should apply to both men and women. Motherhood should be treated as a separate chapter. Unfortunately, the dialogue about social security, which is currently taking place informally in Greece, has focused only on one element: the age limits. However, there are much more important issues that need regulation, as the rationalization of an illogical system is required.

There is a multitude of funds that do not communicate with each other, leading to significant injustices, with insured individuals being divided into the fortunate and the unfortunate—those who fall under the so-called privileged funds and those who are included in the others. I believe it is in women’s interest to receive the same treatment as men.

• In other words, do you support retirement for both genders at the age of 65, along with the abolition of all favorable provisions for women with children?

The retirement age will be a subject of social dialogue regarding social security. I would support a flexible pension system that allows insured individuals to choose whether they want to remain in the labor market. In any case, any regulations must have a uniform character for both genders. It is in women’s interest to support motherhood in a timely manner. At the seminar we organized, we talked about the need for childcare centers and the provision of parental leave, as is done in other European countries. Sweden is the best example, as parental leave with pay is granted for four years.

Emphasis was placed at the seminar organized by the PASOK MEPs on supporting motherhood, but this was ignored by the media. I believe it is time to open the dialogue in Greece on a range of issues. Today in our country, there is an unequal distribution; women bear the greatest burden of raising children and unpaid domestic work. This must end. After all, retirement ages have largely been regulated by the 1993 reform. We are talking about a very small number of women, mainly those in the so-called privileged funds, for whom transitional provisions should exist. However, it is criminal to tell young women that if they have children, they will retire five or ten years earlier, as this reduces their competitiveness.

I will give you a personal example that shows the irrationality of the system. I left OTE after 23 years at the age of 44, and I exercised my legal right; I did not ask for a special favor. I left to do other things; I did not remain inactive. I still work hard and will continue to work for many years.

• At the center of the dialogue about social security will also be the issue of the three “pillars” of the system, namely the main, supplementary, and private insurance. What do you propose regarding this issue?

We are talking about a system with three components. Firstly, there should be a national pension, meaning a minimum pension that will be granted to all Greeks, even to those who have never worked. Now, the age at which the pension will be granted is a matter that must be negotiated by the unions. The second pension will be contributory, meaning that the insured will receive a pension based on their contributions. The third component relates to the personal savings of each worker.

For example, a woman today with two children who does not work will be entitled to receive a national pension at 60 or 65. In the contributory system, she will receive two years of notional insurance time for each child, so she will also get part of her pension from that. In the third component, she may have made personal savings or taken out private insurance. This means a woman, or even a man who has not worked, will still be able to receive some pension. Of course, there must be individualization of insurance rights; this story of indirect insurance cannot continue. These dramas, where women abandon their careers, dedicate themselves to family, and then after thirty years find themselves divorced and uninsured, cannot continue.

• The trade union movement sets as a necessary condition for coming to the negotiation table the non-increase of the retirement age limits. Do you believe that the unions’ stance on the issue of pension reform so far has been mistaken?

Behind the dispute over the age limits lies the desire of many to maintain the status quo and the position of women in Greece. They try to convince us that equality does not benefit women. I advocate for equality and full support for motherhood, with childcare centers, paid parental leave, and incentives for employees to remain in the labor market. Unfortunately, women do not participate in pension reform because they are absent from decision-making centers. The unionists, who shout for women’s rights, have effectively ostracized them from decision-making. For example, in the administration of GSEE, out of 45 members, there is only one woman, and none in the Executive Committee. Additionally, all 17 members of the Executive Committee of ADEDY are men.

• I wonder how women accept this. There will be a reform of the pension system; shouldn’t the voices of women be heard?

Currently, 40% of the workforce is made up of women, yet they have no representation either through GSEE or ADEDY. There is an indirect exclusion, as women themselves do not have time to engage in activities outside their professional and family responsibilities. There is an unequal distribution of family burdens, but I have not seen the unions address this issue or encourage women to get involved in union activities. On the contrary, they have managed to exclude the few women who were part of the union movement. The union space is the most hostile and harshest for women.

• You mentioned the need to avoid having “fortunate” and “unfortunate” insured individuals. Essentially, are you in favor of creating a social security system with uniform retirement age limits and a common method for calculating pensions for all workers?

Structural changes are needed in the social security system, not quick fixes. We need a fair system that does not divide workers into fortunate and unfortunate based on whether they belong to privileged or non-privileged funds. A system that treats workers equally is required. The fairest approach would be for all workers to have the same insurance regime. It may be necessary to have one, two, or even three funds, but this variety that exists today must not be maintained. Finally, we must put an end to these inequalities and discriminations.