Paradoxical mindsets

By Uriel C. Quilinguing

IT would be just a matter of time, the optional retirement age for salaried workers in public and private sectors will be at 56 from 60 years old today.

House Bill No. 8683, which was filed by Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) party-list, got overwhelming approval with 206 affirmative votes in the House of Representatives.  It’s the legislative measure pushing for early retirement for those in the labor force.

While there are those who dislike ACT party-list because of unpopular yet legitimate causes the group has been pushing, this proposal hit the most sensitive cord of employees in government as well as in the private companies. And who, in the right mind, would reject the principal author’s explanation that the law is intended for teachers to enjoy retirement years and the benefits.

While teachers admittedly render the most hours of work among professionals, ACT party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio should broaden his perspective that the proposed law would affect all those in the labor force, not only those of his kind.

Admittedly, 60 is still the most preferred optional retirement age in most countries worldwide. Once this bill becomes a law, the Philippines’ 56 years old will be second to the lowest in the world, just behind the 55 years of age in Sri Lanka. Workers in Australia retire at 57, those in Nepal and Indonesia at 58 while those in Bangladesh at 59.

But Australia and Spain intend to adjust their optional retirement age to 67 by 2023 and those in Britain and Ireland they intend stop working at 68.

The improvement of life expectancies due to medical advances, adequate health services, healthy lifestyle and wellness are determinants in the setting the optional age of retirement, notwithstanding  the lack of competent workers.

The Philippine situation, when it comes to improvement in life expectancy, is no different.

But there’s a wide disparity in the latest life expectancy figures between female and males in the Philippines which the Philippine Statistics Authority released: 72.6 years for females 66.2 for males. Combined, Filipinos are expected to live for 69.3 years. 

Previous life expectancy figures in the past were lower: 64.48 in 1987 and 69.09 in 2016. There appears a correlation between higher life expectancy to labor participation rate which, as of July 2019, was 62.1% which was 60% last year. Current labor participation, for 15 years old and above, is 73.1 million.

Lowering the retirement age would have huge impact on labor force participation rates. Unemployment figures may remain unchanged since positions left vacant due to retirement would be replaced by new entrants to the labor force.

Admittedly, retirements are always associated with senior citizens discount privileges. Sheer number of retirees, once this 56-year-old-retirement-age proposal becomes a law, would send headaches to all who are into actuarial. This law may also mean that at 56, one becomes a senior citizen and would be availing of mandated discounts.

Reducing the retirement age to 56 also means restructuring all insurance coverage, adjusting amounts for annual premiums and salary deductions from regular employees in government and in private companies.  

While every Filipino would wish to be an asset rather than a liability by getting employed, yet once he has the needed competence, required experience and state of maturity in decision-making and managerial acumen, he would start wishing of early retirement. In effect, he prefers to be unemployed and just enjoy the rest of one’s lifetime. It’s paradoxical in its entirety!

(Uriel C. Quilinguing is a former president of the Cagayan de Oro Press Club who, for more than three decades, had been editor in chief of Cagayan de Oro-based newspapers, including this paper. For reactions, email them to uriel.quilinguing@yahoo.com.)