Smer-SD Discusses Early Retirement of Women with Opposition

Seniors (stock photo by TASR)

Bratislava, October 16 (TASR) – The parliamentary social committee did not discuss the proposal for constitutional capping of the retirement age on Tuesday as it did not have a quorum, TASR learnt on Tuesday.
Opposition MPs and two MPs of the governing Smer-SD did not come to the meeting. Smer-SD chairman Robert Fico said on Friday (October 12) that an amendment would be tabled to allow women to retire earlier because they had raised children.
“It’s not very important because the final decision is made at the plenary session. Negotiations and discussions with Opposition parties are continuing,” Smer-SD MP Erik Tomas told TASR. At the end of last week, Fico announced that the Constitution should be amended in the case of women with the wording that “the state supports the family and parenthood by appropriately reducing the minimum age necessary for claiming adequate material provision in old age” with the details to be laid down by the law.
However, according to Tomas, this general formulation “is probably out of the game”. “We Are Family and [Ordinary People] OLaNO have rejected the general phrasing in the Constitution concerning women taking care of a child. I feel that all, including Smer-SD, [Slovak National Party] SNS, and the two movements want the same thing – reliefs or a reduction of the retirement age for women, or for a parent, taking care of a child. I still hope that if we all want the same thing, we should come to an agreement,” says Tomas. Therefore, he firmly believes that until this draft constitutional bill is discussed in Parliament, the parties will agree. “The 93 votes from the first reading gives me some optimism, but everything is in the hands of MPs,” added Tomas.
In the case of a discussion with the Opposition, Smer-SD will probably have to look for a different solution in favouring women, or the parent taking care of a child, to make the rules for early retirement more specific. But Smer-SD chairman also reiterated last week that if the amendment to the Constitution is not passed, his party will support the initiative of trade unionists who are collecting signatures for a referendum on introducing retirement age caps. We Are Family leader Boris Kollar confirmed that the current formulation presented by Smer-SD is written vaguely.
Smer-SD MPs propose to add to the Constitution that “the age required to claim adequate material provision in the old age must not exceed 64 years. In order to support the family and motherhood by the state, everyone who raised a child has the right to a reasonable reduction in the minimum age necessary to claim adequate material provision in the old age”.