By VICTOR AHIUMA-YOUNG

IN view of challenges facing your sector, how secure  is gratuity payment for your members at retirement?

I want to say that gratuity which is separated from pension is still on.  The gratuity is not a new phenomenon in the industry. However, there are moves by employers to discontinue it arising from the emergence of contributory pension scheme.

But at the moment I can tell you that there is mutual relationship between the employers and the workers in an attempt for each party to see the problem from the same perspective. I can assure you that yes, the gratuity still runs, not stopped and it is with tears that the employers are still sustaining it. We sympathise with them.

Since the Pension Reforms Act, PRA, 2004,  are your members fully registered under the contributory pension scheme, CPS,   and what is the level of remittance of deducted fund, any complaint?

*Comrade Kelly Ogbaloi

So far no complaint. Though like they  say, in every 12 you have a Judas. In that respect, there are likely to be some few developments that are not in consonance with the contributory pension system. But there is no report that has come to us in that regard at the secretariat.

I can assure you that as far as  I know, a good number has been registered and payment and transmission of fund deducted from workers salaries have always been paid to the Pension Fund Administrators, PFAs.

Since the emergence of  CPS, your members that have retired under the scheme, have they been able to access their funds?

Supposedly yes, because again no issue of not being able to access fund has been brought to us. To be more specific, they were cases where I was involved in ensuring that some few individuals were able to access the fund. In some cases  like where I  work, some of retirees who were registered they came to me for assistance I followed it up, have some of their documents witnessed and  they got the percentage payments.

The moves to amend Act PRA, 2004 are almost concluded. Taking your industry into consideration which areas do you think the amendment should focus?

I think that accessing the fund is cumbersome because when you want to access the fund there are myriad of questions and documents that may not be immediately reachable by the individual involved that will be requested for. So, I think that the amendment should focus on among others, making easy the assessment of the fund by either the contributor or beneficiary.

Again there is no total exposure of  investment carried out by PFAs that is known to contributors. So, something should be done in that respect that so, so and so have so far been contributed by this group of persons, and we are investing so, so and so into so, so and so venture. In which case, you have nothing to fear, but today it is not so.

That aspect is still shrouded in secrecy.  If we are involved in an issue, we should be able to know what is going on. We are contributors and if the whole lot of this money will be put in some investments it should be made clearer and the people made to understand that this particular investment . So, if there is any amendment, that aspect should be entirely opened to those who are contributing the fund.

The regulator and others have argued that the issue of cumbersome process is to avoid fraud and ensure that the right person accesses the fund either directly or the right next of kin.  Do you share this view?

I do not agree. I don’t see it as a very stringent and virile instrument to actually check fraud. We could as well have very simple machineries and fraud is still checked. To explain it on the basis of the fact that there is going to be fraudulent practices by others, that is why the legitimate person will come to ask for his or her fund and he or she is almost mistaken for  one  who is not due for it, is not right.

The whole essence of the safety that is being canvassed is defeated if the man cannot actually have easy access to his own money. So I think there are other things we could do. Yes, we must put safety valves but we are saying that the current safety valves look as if people are hindered, first of all not to even approach it.

For instance, my father was a civil servant who was a messenger perhaps or watch night and he registered with a PFA for instance and he is not very lettered and as of now his health is almost failing. The man was retired about a year or two ago, he has lost almost half of his memory and  does not even know where  these documents are kept.

He comes to say look, I may die  any moment, can I get this percentage of my money?   Then, you say, well he should go and bring this, and that because you are saving the money. It is  as good as money not saved for him.

Some have argued that the contribution ratio should be changed so that the employers would pay higher than the employees as against the current 7.5 both are contributing. Do you subscribe to that?

I subscribe to it because the wealth cannot be created except the workers are there too. The capitalist and his machines do not make money just like that except you put the workers to work. So, it is my opinion that employers should pay higher than the workers. Although discretionally, I am aware that in some sectors even though it is 7.5 percent, some employers definitely pay 10 or more while the workers in that arrangement pay less.

I encourage such. But, since that is based on the discretion of individual industry   something must be done to legalise it to say you must do this so that at the end of the day, you don’t turn around and say well, even this one we are doing for you is just that we are magnanimous therefore we could even reverse it if we so desire.

So, I agree with such advocacy that the employers should pay more. Again, you discover that employers’ profits  are not even quantified before the workers, but the workers’ salaries you can know. So, if you say workers pay 7.5%  and employers pay 7.5% from what amount of money are the employers paying the 7.5 percent ? So, it is not as a worker who earns N50,000 is paid for instance, Pay 7.5 and you also ask the employer to pay 7.5% too.

So, you must be looking at the weight of the employer to now determine what he should pay. But, when you make it 50,50 then that it is not well thought of.

Because gratuity is not explicitly stated in the Pension Refund Act of 2004 some employers are canvassing that gratuity be discarded, while others argue that it should be clearly stated in the amendment. What is your take?

In the reform act itself because it was not included it  has created confusion in some quarters. That is why some employers has been insisting  that gratuity is the same thing as pension. Of course, they are two different items. So, I accept the fact that  if the amendment is coming, gratuity should be succinctly supported by the law, that notwithstanding that you pay pension, it does not mean the same thing as gratuity. So, that the employers will understand what they are doing.

As of now, it is total confusion within the industry and it is has led to disagreements.  Some employers tried to muscle the workers to accept that pension and gratuity are same thing.