Despite the tensions created by the poor management of the initiative and communication, the pension reform is, at least based on the current data, fundamentally correct.
The principle is truly prioritizing the contribution, value, and contribution period. It is flawlessly correct for a person who has continuously contributed for many years, over 30, to have a substantially higher pension than those who have benefited from all kinds of exemptions, assimilations, anticipations, etc.
And yes, I personally know retirees who, after many years of contributions, have seen significant jumps with this reform, some even remarkable, in strictly contributory pensions. For example, from 2,000 to 4,000 lei, from 6,000 to 10,000 lei, from 3,700 to 4,600 lei.
That minor or incomplete contribution periods have brought minimal increases or even none at all is not unfair.
Although not always are these short periods attributable to the pensioner. The '90s were turbulent, often early retirement or working off the books were the only alternatives to unemployment and hunger.
But legislation must follow principles and provide direction. And the correct direction, the only one that can guarantee that the pension system will not collapse and the collection base will increase, is rewarding constant contribution.
Electoral Greed and Lack of Understanding Ruin a Fundamentally Correct Initiative
Electoral greed has caused, as already shown, unrealistic amplification of pensioners' expectations, so that people, especially those with less education and more susceptibility to manipulation, believe that the recalculation will automatically mean an increase and abundance for everyone.
If the effort had not been to paint the future in pink, all communicators on this law would have explained that there will be pensions that will decrease or increase minimally, which ones, that no pension in payment will decrease regardless of the recalculation results because the Constitution does not allow it.
Consistently and as clear as possible, so that people know exactly what to expect and not be on the verge of apoplexy when reading the decision that established a substantially lower pension than the one in payment.
But the truth would have spoiled the electoral propaganda.
There were no truly problematic collateral effects anticipated. And it is primarily about those who worked in extremely difficult conditions.
These recalculated pensions have decreased massively, mainly because the contribution periods are legally shorter. It is understandable why they are shorter. I don't think in a uranium mine, for example, you can work for 35 years without illnesses that effectively deprive you of the right to a pension.
If in the case of those already receiving pensions they remain the same, in the case of those yet to retire, the principle is violated: equal work and contribution, equal pension.
Moreover, the constitutional principle of law predictability is at stake. Perhaps some of those who opted for these hard jobs did so also with pensions in mind that they will no longer receive.
Then, the recalculation of the recalculation began. Decisions requested back, decisions stopped in the mail, 5,000 just in Alba, factual errors that caused incorrect decreases (missing work years and income, misclassified activity), a mess that gives the impression of amateurism and only generates distrust even in the case of correctly calculated pensions.
They are only 1,090 out of 4.6 million, says the President of the Pensions House. But on one hand, each of these incorrect decisions means a pensioner whose heart stopped and who was then put on the road and in queues.
On the other hand, we do not know how many are truly incorrect, considering that many pensioners have no way to reach the Pensions House or anyone to send.
Plus populist maneuvering. Raising the non-taxable threshold to 3,000 lei for pensions was not initially planned. Was it correcting an error or raising the threshold a populist concession to soften the electoral scandal?
And this is just the first episode. The law on the salary of public employees is next, infinitely more complicated. The shiver is that these people in power, even when they want to do good, stumble over poorly tied shoelaces.