Early retirement feature is not so much a privilege as it is a refuge, resorted to by workers when working conditions tighten or their health and social priorities change. Yes, the pension salary might be less, and its holder might bear the consequences of his decision, but ultimately, it is a personal decision taken within a clear legal framework.
There is no doubt that the social security law contains many deformities that have accumulated over the years, however, addressing them should not be at the expense of the weaker party in this equation, namely the insured who has committed to the deductions for many years, and built his life plans based on stable texts.
True reform does not come by restricting options or excessively increasing service years, but rather by reconsidering the actual fault points. It would have been better to have long since paid attention to the contributions of non-Jordanians and mechanisms for their organization to reduce the burdens that have weighed down both the law and the fund, instead of loading subscribers with the consequences of previous organizational failures.
Let's stand with the amendment project concerning the organization of early retirement, provided that the organization does not turn into restriction, and the amendments do not touch the essence of the right or empty it of its content.
For the fair equation requires a balance between the sustainability of the fund and the protection of acquired rights.
As for the age of old age, it should be kept as it is.
Raising the age under difficult economic conditions and high unemployment rates may exacerbate challenges instead of addressing them, and create bottlenecks in the labor market that affect young generations.
Laws were created to achieve social justice, not to redistribute the burden on those who do not have the margin to maneuver. From here, any amendments must be based on a comprehensive reform vision, which considers sustainability without compromising fairness.
And we have more to discuss with this law…
