......our answer to all your banking needs

Why this fuss about a re-option for pension

Is there a need to share the burden of pension re-option (to those 2.60 lakh employees left out earlier), from the quantum of increase agreed for wage revision ? Is this demand of IBA just and reasonable and stands to scrutiny?

It requires examination.

1. For one thing pension, which is wages paid in the old age in consideration of the past service is an entitlement of every employee In a welfare state like ours it becomes a bounden duty of the employer to provide pension to its employees

2.Even when the pension as a welfare concept has gained wide acceptance and Govt strives hard to extent the coverage of pension to every sector including the un organized sector of the workers - is it right on the part of bank management (majority of whom are under public sector) to shirk that responsibility to part of its past employees who have, in the absence of full and correct information and under wrong advice, unfortunately opted for CPF ?

3.The option given to the employees in 1996 to choose between CPF and Pension was primarily intended to benefit the employees alone (and not the management at any cost) as the then prevailing milieu of high interest rate made CPF appear as a better option for employees.

4.The option was never to help the management in any way. Bank management was bound by the agreement to provide pension to all its employees. In a sense it was bound to keep that option alive at all times the alternative remained more beneficial or till the pension was made compulsory. Agreeing for limiting that option for a certain period was a folly on the part of UBF.

5.What the bank management would have done if all employees then in the rolls had opted for pension which was the intention of the settlement ?

6..It was only the short sighted view of the association of officers and their wrong advice that led to this situation leaving nearly 2.60 lakh employees out of the social security net of pension.

7. But that should not provide an opportunity to the bank management to benefit and add substantial sum to their coffers at the cost of hapless retired employees whose hope for a better choice has turned sour. Check who has benefited from the CPF option, the retired employees or the bank? Calculate the savings banks have made with holding the pension to them all these years vis-à-vis the additional cost.

8.By not opting for pension then and seeking a re option now do those retired employees cause any additional loss to the banks other than their earlier original entitlement.

9.Has UBF presented this sort of view and arguments before IBA.

Hence I suggest the following actions on the part of UBF.

Tell IBA that re-option is not a matter of negotiation. It is a right perse. De- link re-option from wage negotiation.
Settle the former first - negotiate wages with in agreed percentage of increase or more.