DISCUSSION of a proposal to extend the retirement age of teachers voluntarily from 60 to 63 was yesterday postponed for 15 days by the House Education and Finance Committees in view of the fact that making retirement at 63 compulsory is one of the Finance Ministry’s proposed measures for reducing the rising public budget deficit.

House Education Committee chairman Nicos Tornaritis said that in view of the Ministry’s proposal, which will be discussed shortly by the government with the social partners and then at the Council of Ministers, “we will await the result of the dialogue in two week’s time, and will take a position accordingly”.

The main secondary school teachers’ union OELMEK had called on the House Education and Finance committees to accept their request for voluntary retirement at 63, rather than 60 as at present. In letters addressed to the two committee chairmen on Monday, the union asked that voluntary retirement at 63 “should be promoted and implemented for the whole of the civil service, thus removing the unfairness applied to the (education) sector”.

The Union of Secondary Education Teachers (SEDEK) is in favour of 63 as the official retirement age. They held a picket to support this demand outside the House of Representatives yesterday morning.

SEDEK was set up in November 2006 as a break-away from OELMEK by teachers who, among other things, were in favour of extending the retirement age to 63.

At the time, OELMEK angrily accused the “breakaway” teachers of trying to destroy them. It was only after a protracted legal action that the Education Ministry finally officially recognised SEDEK in February 2010.

The government has every incentive to make retirement at 63 compulsory rather than voluntary, as the net result would be to reduce the cost to the state of retirement by civil servants. An official retirement age of 63 would not prevent a public employee from retiring earlier, but doing so would reduce the size of the one-off tax-free lump sum and subsequent monthly pension payments compared to current levels.

Combined with the proposed introduction of some degree of employee contributions by civil servants – currently, civil servants’ pensions are completely funded by the state – and reducing the state payroll through natural wastage, extending the age of retirement should produce a tangible benefit for the state’s coffers.

A pointer as to how far these structural changes to the public sector might depend on changing popular expectations was provided by Tornaritis, who said that there are currently 30,000 people on the candidate-list for becoming a civil servant, “most of whom will never be taken on”.