Recently the Federal Chamber of Social Security changed a criterion favorable to retirees which until recently was the majority regarding pension adjustments, but the change was against retirees.
The modification of the criteria has as its sole origin the renewal of the members of the Court of Appeal, mainly produced following the modification of the retirement and subrogation regime of the Judiciary: new Judges, new criteria.
These faults generate several problems, but can be summarized as: now the Chamber recognizes a lower index for the adjustment of a portion of the pension which causes some retirees to have an improvement in the courts and others not, breaking the principle of equality.
All pensions awarded in the last 28 years have a component that unrelated to salary or working hours. It is the so-called “Universal Basic Advantage”.
The value of the PBU was frozen by Cavallo in 1997, and did not receive increases until 2009, the year in which only the increases given by decree that the Supreme Court declared “insufficient” were recognized by law.
To counter this freeze, pensioners have gone to court, which were issued favorably, but with differences. In the Federal Chamber based in the City of Buenos Aires, two updating indexes were used: the ISBIC for two Chambers and the INDEC Salary Index for the rest.
In 2014, the Supreme Court of Justice revoked a ruling that applied the lowest rate, the one published by INDEC, and ordered that the reasons for choosing this index or another be justified. At that time, in the “Quiroga” sentence, the Supreme Court retraced the relationship that exists between wage variations and the PBU, which had been denied by ANSES.
In these almost 10 years the theme has focused on: What index do we use to update that part of the pension, the highest or the lowest? This is what has now changed, now the House uses the lower one for the PBU, and continues to use the other index to update the salaries, because there is an express criterion of the Supreme Court to correct that credit share.
So the -current- use of the INDEC IS gives a small adjustment to the legal claim, but this is not the most serious. PBU adjusted as -now- says the House gives $45,000 and as the House majority said, gave $80,000.
It should be borne in mind that the value of the PBU in 1997 was $200, when the minimum retirement income was set at just $150, ie those who retire under the then “new” system would always have a retirement above the minimum. keep the same ratio Today it would show a PBU of $78,000.
The most serious thing is that the Chamber has established with this amendment a ceiling that fixes the maximum amount of pensions to whom it will grant such adjustment. He says that if the change in the PBU does not significantly affect credit, it is not appropriate to acknowledge anything. It recognizes an adjustment for the lowest incomes and not for the media.
As an example of this inequity, let’s take a retiree who has worked for 35 years on an average salary (as published by the Ministry of Labor) and receives a pension of $140,000 in hand, he does not receive a PBU adjustment, however, whoever worked for The 33-year-old will receive an “adjusted” value from the PBU and raise $155,000. Less time at work, more retirement.
Taking that salary, only those who have worked another 7 years compensate for what the Chamber does not recognize. In other words, it breaks with the legal principle according to which a greater retirement is recognized to those who have made a greater effort.
The same happens with those with a higher salary, when both receive the adjustment judgmentthe logic is reversed again, Those who have had a higher salary and the same number of years will earn less in hand, despite having contributed more.
The law clearly establishes that the longer the working hours, the higher the pension increases. Obviously this new House does not consider merit.
We still have the word from the High Court outstanding.
NS
Source: Clarin
