The PIT-CNT, along with other organizations, presented its strong defense of the social security plebiscite that they promoted and managed to call, with a press conference one day after the opposition declared by President Luis Lacalle Pou towards said proposal. In a critical tone, the president of the PIT-CNT, Marcelo Abdala, described the presidential speech as “false” and “manipulative.”
Abdala alluded to the 1996 reform as a “dismal failure” for citizens. He stated that President Lacalle Pou is insensitive towards retirees and accused the ruling party of using fear as a means to influence public opinion.
The union leader interpreted the presidential speech as “threatening,” arguing that the legal certainty defended favors capital and not citizens. According to Abdala, appealing to fear points more to the president’s fear and political weakness.
Abdala criticized the AFAP and its numbers
Abdala highlighted a “difference” between the current annuities of the AFAP and those that would have been administered by the BPS. This difference represents an annual loss of US$216 million for the beneficiaries, involving 75,205 people with an average monthly loss of $10,000.
Likewise, he pointed out that the 90% of these people receive an average of $5,053 per monthremembering that the AFAP originally promised a doubling of pensions, a promise that is not reflected in practice.
Another point highlighted by Abdala was the transfer of US$1,467 million to the AFAP in 2023an amount that is expected to continue in 2024 with $924 million. According to him, the cut in these transfers would alleviate the deficit covered by General Revenues.
Alternative arguments and positions
During the conference, the controversial issue of the alleged “confiscation” of resources was also discussed. Sergio Somaruga, representative of private education unions, responded to these concerns regarding how the plebiscite would affect workers’ finances.
Somaruga argued that, under the proposed model, workers would not lose income by migrating their funds to BPS, since it would be guaranteed that the amount received would not be less than that paid by the mixed regime.
He says: “Where is the harm? Where is the confiscation?”suggesting that the suggested change would not result in tangible losses to individuals’ savings in the social security system.
