Until the early 1990s nobody thought about populations getting older writes the Economist. Of all and sundry, it was our very own UN that had the foresight to organize a "world assembly on aging in 1982." Then silence, until the World Bank made a report out in 1994 on "Averting the Old Age Crisis", arguing that pension arrangements in most countries were unsustainable. However, the retirement age at the UN has remained at the same low levels and the UN pension fund has been sustainable ever since; but we don't know at what cost to all of us. However, the UN Pension Fund may get very expensive in the future unless the retirement age in the UN is dramatically increased.
The end of retirement from the Economist and the adjoining reports on aging is fabulous reading. Please also read (1) A slow burning fuse ; (2) Suffer the little children; (3) A world of Methuselahs; (4) The silver dollar; (5) Scrimp and save; (6) Work till you drop; (7) China's predicament; and (8) Into the unknown and see a full coverage on the impact of aging, especially when the human replacement ratio is negative in some countries. It is clear that in the future there will be a sea change in demographics of country populations and more rulings on immigration. The impact of aging surely must also impact our work at the UN, especially the social systems that governments must have in place to care for the elderly and the economic impacts of aging and dwindling populations (low birth rates). But UN staff are aging too, and living longer too. So why must we still maintain a hideous retirement age of 60 or 62 years of age when 80 is the new 65?
For some years now I have been a fervent supporter of the extension of the UN retirement age. It is hopelessly unfair to ask UN staff to retire at 60 or 62 years of age when life spans at birth have grown by more than two decades, and even by three decades in some unusual situations. Perhaps, it is a decade overdue that those UN retirement ages should have be upped to 65 or 67 years of age at least. And some retirement specialists think that even these ages (65-67) are yet too young to retire or retirement should be endless. Just look at some world leaders in their late 70's or early 80's, still in charge or making an endeavor to take charge.
The injection or booster to extend the UN retirement age must come from within the UN secretariat and its agencies. Global staff associations and local staff associations must start the process with their managements so that the UN secretariat will put in motion a resolution to extend the retirement age of UN personnel.
Extending the retirement age is also good for the UN Pension Fund. UNJSPF will have more cash inflow from longer pension contributions and help subsidize the cash outflows that now mandate longer pension payouts for longer lifespans. I hope UN staff who read this message will share the information with their staff associations (local and global) and HRM to put this process in motion. With extended retirement ages, UN organizations may be able to rehire young retirees for project oriented assignments.
When you read into the unknown you will see that the Economist mentions that rich governments accept that their pension and health-care promises will become unaffordable. Rich governments will have to rein in on increasing taxes or restrain pension spending, but politicians are holding back the push with an eye on the next election (you've heard this one before). Governments are fully aware that the only way to save public pension plans are by giving people the opportunity to work longer so that it increases tax revenues and reduces pension spending. Now how can we sit back and think that the United Nations Pension Fund will not face the same difficulty?
The UN Pension Fund will become unaffordable and very expensive unless the UN retirement age is extended without further delay. If this is not done, then pension annuities and lump-sums will become smaller or current staff will need to contribute higher ratios as pension accumulations pay out for longer durations. The only way that the UN Pension fund can be kept functioning is to spread the risk between current staff (the contributors) and the beneficiaries (UN retirees), and the easier and logical way is to have the UN administration increase the retirement age of UN staff.
Please note that extension of the UN retirement age is not a task for UNJSPF but a task for the UN secretariat and its controlling bodies. UNJSPF will of course have to introduce and manage the changes.
There was once upon a time an optional retirement age at the UN but I do not know what became of this petition. I tried e-mailing Amara Ward, but the e-mail address does not exist anymore.
UN retirees should note that although we have retired and some of us may not be rehired, extending the UN retirement age is good for the solvency of the UN Pension Fund. However, UN staff have the best opportunity to push for this change, as they are there in the middle of it all, ever day of the working week.
Comments