Rewritten Title: A Decade-Old Debate Resurfaces: Steel Pensioners Question Fund Transfer Plan
Article:
A long-standing and contentious proposal concerning the pension fund for Iran’s steel sector retirees has been reignited, drawing sharp criticism from retiree advocates who question the rationale behind the repeated initiative.
A Sense of Déjà Vu for Retirees
Ahmad Abazari, a representative for steel industry retirees, has publicly reacted to renewed discussions among officials regarding the potential merger or transfer of the specialized steel pension fund. He expressed a profound sense of frustration, stating, “It seems that every few years, the institutional memory of decision-makers is erased.” Abazari recalled that an almost identical proposal to merge the steel fund with the Social Security Organization was presented and subsequently abandoned in 2011 due to strong opposition from the pensioner community.
The core of the retirees’ concern, he emphasized, lies in the fundamental structural differences between the two systems regarding insurance and deductions. A merger, they argue, could severely compromise their pension benefits and insurance coverage.
Controversial Proposal Meets Firm Resistance
Abazari explained that after a decade, the plan has resurfaced, this time focusing on transferring the steel fund to the national retirement fund. This move has been met with significant protest, including demonstrations by retirees in front of the parliament building. The proposal has also faced scrutiny from within the legislature, with some parliamentarians evaluating it as contrary to existing law.
“It is genuinely unclear who is behind these decisions,” Abazari remarked, highlighting the opacity surrounding the driving force of the initiative.
Internal Disparities Compound Frustration
The representative further detailed additional layers of grievance within the retiree community. He explained that pensioners have been divided into two groups: those who retired before and after the privatization of steel companies. This classification has led to a stark disparity in pension adjustments. While the first group received only a 10% pension harmonization increase, the latter group saw their pensions rise by 30 to 40%.
“Such differential treatment has created division and a rift among the retirees,” Abazari stated, “even though the nature of their work was identical, and those from the earlier era often worked under even harsher conditions.”
A Fund Undermined by Policy Shifts?
Addressing official claims that the steel pension fund is facing bankruptcy, Abazari countered that this financial state is a direct consequence of past policy decisions. He noted that before the privatization of subsidiary companies, these entities regularly paid their insurance premiums, providing a stable financial base for the fund.
However, after being handed over to the private sector, their financial accounts were separated, and some companies ceased their contributions. Furthermore, deductions from new employees were directed to the Social Security Organization, drastically reducing the financial support flowing into the steel pension fund.
Abazari also referenced a previous solution where companies and shares were transferred to the pension fund to make it self-sufficient. He argued that this measure resulted in losses rather than revenue, as many of these companies required state-level investment, which the pension fund was not equipped to provide.
In conclusion, Abazari pointed to the major challenges the steel pension fund has faced in recent years, asserting, “The steel fund is the entity that has borne the brunt of more misguided management decisions than any other, and the costs have been directly imposed on the retirees. For the past 12 years, retirees have consistently sought to claim their rights, but no special attention has been paid to their requests.”