!-- Start Popup -->

The adjustment to retirees remained in the hands of the Court

September 29, 2018 - By Joseph Taylor

The ANSeS pretends that, when dictating its favorable sentences to the retired ones for the readjustment of salaries, the Justice changes the index that it uses for 9 years for the update of the historical value of the remunerations, that is taken as base to estimate the first retirement

The problem is simple, to calculate the retirement takes the average salary of the last 10 years of contributions, if the average does not compensate for inflation, the first charge is not related to salaries in activity.

The index that the government seeks to impose was adulterated at the time when Amado Boudou was promoted as executive director of ANSeS. Now, these methods are useful to current officials who do not hesitate to fill the courts with papers and gadgets of all kinds to achieve their goal.

In 2007, Boudou presented a complex project in Congress, which included several modifications to the pension system and was presented by Néstor Kirchner as the option for the return to the pay-as-you-go system. In this framework and to close the accounts of the system, a wage index that had been created in the Social Security Secretariat was modified and until then it was not used at all: the RIPTE (Average Taxable Compensation of Stable Workers).

That was done because the Supreme Court had to decide what it would do with the lack of mobility of salaries between 2002 and 2006 and the Government then feared that the Tribunal would use that index to give mobility. Then, from the Government, the usual was done for the time: the index was manipulated. A bit as a consequence of keeping retirement pensions frozen and another bit, directly falsifying data that the RIPTE has a 47% reduction for that period. The novel thing is that the current Government tries to use it now to palliate the expense.

Mobility was decided in the “Badaro” case, following another index. And that is not at stake. The mobility was then routed by law.

There is, however, an important stock of lawsuits that began in recent years where it is decided primarily how the first credit is calculated. For months, the Executive Power has been talking about modifying privileged pensions. And one wonders if that is just a message for judges. In practice, it was decided to review the differential tasks, that is, those that are determinants of premature aging (unhealthy activities in general, drivers, embarked) and not special regimes (such as the Judiciary or teachers). Fortunately.

Imagine that a Chamber magistrate retired according to the common system: his retirement would become less than 25% of his salary, when the current special regime gives him 82% of the income in activity. So, without blunders: if the judges passed to the general regime, a chamberlain would go from collecting 82% of their salary to 25%.

It is dangerous for a judge to be concerned about this issue while administering justice. You can analyze a rise in the contribution, increase the required years or another measure to balance the regime. Justice will agree.

While the subject of judges’ pensions is in the air, they are asked to review the criteria used for retirees by common law.

The method that the ANSeS requests to be applied is that provided by the Law of Historical Reparation. These parameters resulted in only half of the 2.4 million cases analyzed actually receiving an increase. To the rest, nothing. And keep in mind that among those who received increases, a third of the retirees obtained increases below $ 600.

The consequence of a change of criterion on the part of the ministers of the Court regarding the index would be this: that the judgments already resolved during these 9 years will be doubled in comparison with the majority of cases in which the Court is still it did not resolve, when the workers charged the same in activity.

Note that of the 23 rooms of the Federal Appeals Chambers, 22 have rejected the arguments of the State. In recent months, in this instance, it was decided to maintain the favorable position for retirees, with strong pronouncements. The ANSeS maintains that its criterion is endorsed by the deputies who voted the Historical Reparation, so now everything depends on the five ministers of the Court.

Thus, after the rejection caused by the change in the Mobility Law in society in general, which will lose 15 points against inflation this year, the Executive Power intends to pass on the political cost to the judges, while threatening reforms to its system. of retirement.

How much is this change of criteria worth? For the Government, $ 70,000 million pesos, payable in 6 years – at the current rate of cancellation of sentences – are $ 12,000 million per year.

Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with our FREE daily email newsletter.