The president of the party Block Pensioners Together (BUZ), Milivoj Špika, appeared on N1 television where he analyzed the burning problems of the living standard of the older population, with special emphasis on the legal frameworks regulating the work of pensioners full-time.

In a conversation with Tihomir Ladišić on N1 television, he warned about the illusion of unity among pensioner political options, pointing out that real consensus on key issues seems like an unattainable goal. According to him, the leaders of certain associations and parties too often give up principled struggle as soon as the Government offers them symbolic financial resources, thereby sweeping real structural problems under the rug and dividing the interest group.

In his sharp statement, the leader of BUZ emphasized that the ruling structure is deliberately diverting attention from the essence of the problem, creating the impression that the payment of half a pension when employed full-time is the only obstacle that should be discussed. Špika claims that the reality is much harsher and that through skillful financial gymnastics pensioners are actually being deprived of the entire amount of their pension, while the state simultaneously profits through collecting contributions from their work. He believes that the legal battle before the Constitutional Court, which he sees as an extended arm of politics, will not bring the desired results because the problem is primarily political in nature and requires a systemic change in approach toward citizens' acquired rights.

How does the work-with-pension model function?

To fully understand the essence of the criticism directed by Milivoj Špika, it is necessary to clarify the current and proposed work models for people in retirement. According to the existing rules, the system clearly distinguishes part-time work from full-time work. When a pensioner works up to four hours a day, the legislator allows them to keep their full pension alongside the salary they earn. This is a model that works because the state encourages remaining in the world of work, but on a reduced scale, treating the pension as a supplement to a smaller salary. However, the problem arises the moment the possibility of working a full eight hours is opened up, which many pensioners desire because of low income.

The new development being discussed and often presented as a benefit is the possibility that a pensioner works full-time while retaining the right to payment of 50% of their pension. At first glance, this sounds like a fair compromise because the worker receives a full salary and half a pension as well. But when you scratch beneath the surface and enter the sphere of gross and net calculations, the situation becomes significantly less favorable for the pensioner themselves. Namely, full-time work also implies paying full contributions to the state from that new salary, including allocations for pension insurance, which in part-time work is not the same financial burden in absolute amount.

This is precisely where the mathematical trap that Špika warns about lies. When a pensioner receives a gross salary for full-time work, the amount withheld from them for pension contributions is often equal to or even greater than the amount of half the pension that the state pays them. In simple terms, with one hand the state pays the pensioner half the pension, and with the other hand through salary contributions it takes that same, or greater, amount of money back into the budget. Ultimately, the pensioner lives exclusively from their current work, while their acquired pension during that period is effectively annulled, not merely halved.

The message that Milivoj Špika sends to those in power for N1 is unequivocal: 'No one should be allowed to take away your acquired right.' With this position, he clearly defines the pension not as social assistance that the state can arbitrarily dispense, but as property that the worker earned during their working life and which they should be able to dispose of regardless of their current employment status.

In conclusion, Špika believes that the whole story about half a pension is actually a political maneuver intended to obscure the real intention of the legislator to fill budget holes at the expense of the oldest citizens. His assessment of the situation in the country is harsh and leaves no room for double interpretations: 'The state is fleecing people in every possible way.' By all accounts, the battle for a fairer position of pensioners in the labor market is only just beginning, and the key question remains whether pensioners' associations will manage to unite around this problem or whether, as Špika predicts, partial interests will prevail once again.