The Maltese population is aging. People live longer, remain healthier and are more active than ever before. Discussions about second-pillar pensions have been ongoing for years and were back in the news last week. Between all the political accusations and posturing, I could not make out what has been decided, if anything.
Any initiative to improve the financial position of older people is positive. For example, I agree with the proposal that people over 65 years old should be able to keep on working if they wish to, postponing their pension but receiving a better deal later.
Some people want to continue working because they need the money. Others might enjoy their work and still feel well and energetic after reaching statutory retirement age. All these reasons are important.
Retaining people in the workforce is essential, as the current pensions system is simply unsustainable. People who are ready to continue working, perhaps in a more flexible way, should not be obliged to stop and depend on the taxpayer to pay their bills.
Younger workers obviously cannot afford to support so many aging people in the future. The population census of 2011 recorded that 16 per cent were over 65 years old, and this figure is set to grow.
With increased longevity, it is inevitable that the pension age will rise over time. Policy initiatives will have to steer towards more self-financing of retirement.
It is also true, however, that older workers who are trying to keep up by staying in work can experience age-based discrimination.
It can be difficult for mature people, say over 50, to find new employment if they lose their job for any reason. Older applicants face so-called ‘ageism’ at job interviews, with their experience and abilities being undervalued.
An interesting Australian study, ‘Too old to work, too young to retire’, has shown that mature job-seekers react to this situation in different ways.
The research found that some responded to redundancy by giving work less priority. These tended to be women with intermittent work histories, as second-income earners in a household. On the other hand, another group, often highly educated workers, were strongly attached to their work and felt it was central to their self-identity.
A third set found it hard to be out of work after a long career and completely re-evaluated the role of work in their lives. Relatively secure financially, they turned their attention to other interests instead.
Early retirement schemes are undesirable, putting fit and experienced people out to graze far earlier than necessary
The fourth group had no choice but to seek work for financial reasons, feeling very insecure about their future. The bottom line is that all four groups of mature workers had problems finding employment due to their age.
With this in mind, it is important to consider financial incentives, educational campaigns or other measures which could provide support to mature people wishing to remain in employment. Just as specific schemes aim to help women get into work, other incentives could help mature workers retain suitable employment.
From this perspective, early retirement schemes are undesirable, putting fit and experienced people out to graze far earlier than necessary. These may benefit certain organisations or public entities but seem quite out of line with active aging policies.
• Last week, the deputy chief of staff at the Office of the Prime Minister, Alex Muscat, raised his head above the parapet and wrote an article in the Times of Malta. Until this point, I was not even aware that there was a deputy chief of staff at the OPM. It is usually the chief of staff himself who is in the news, although I believe he would rather not be.
He felt compelled to set the record straight about the so-called ‘American University of Malta’ at Żonqor. According to him “some critics have acted out of sheer ignorance, others out of spite”.
Harsh words. Is this an appropriate tone in which a senior public officer at the Auberge de Castille should defend a controversial project?
His underlying point seemed to be that although the project has only been awarded a licence to operate as a higher education institute, the intention is to progress to a fully-fledged university licence. Throughout the article, he therefore refers to the ‘university’.
The aspiration of the investors to achieve university status is, of course, fine, and good luck to them. Yet once the deputy chief of staff is insisting on this point, I will repeat that until it is awarded a university licence, it is wrong to refer to this higher education institute as a university.
Not to be fussy, but if you are a Ph.D. candidate you cannot actually refer to yourself as ‘Dr so-and-so’ until you have handed in your thesis and been awarded the degree. This also applies to star candidates with a great probability of success.
If you are a law student, even if you are the best in the country and most likely to pass your exams next year, you cannot promote or sell your services as a lawyer until you actually do pass your exams and obtain your warrant. No offence, but that’s just the way it is.
petracdingli@gmail.com