elpais.com
CNTE Strike: Teachers Protest Pension Cuts Due to UMA Calculation
Mexican teachers are on indefinite strike, demanding that their pensions be calculated using the minimum wage instead of the UMA, which they claim significantly reduces their retirement income. A UNAM study supports this claim, showing the UMA's lower adjustment compared to the minimum wage.
- What is the Unidad de Medida y Actualización (UMA), and why are the CNTE teachers protesting its use in calculating their pensions?
- The CNTE, a Mexican teachers' union, is on indefinite strike, protesting the use of the Unidad de Medida y Actualización (UMA) instead of the minimum wage for calculating their pensions. They argue this results in significantly lower retirement payments. The UMA, an economic reference unit updated annually based on inflation, was mandated by the Supreme Court in 2021 for calculating their pensions.
- How does the annual adjustment of the UMA compare to the minimum wage increase, and what is the resulting financial impact on teachers' pensions?
- The CNTE's rejection of the UMA stems from its belief that using it for pension calculations leads to insufficient payments compared to using the minimum wage. A UNAM analysis shows that using the UMA instead of the minimum wage resulted in a lower pension increase (3.3% vs. 9.6%) in 2017, reducing the average pension by 293 pesos. This significantly impacts retirees' purchasing power.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of the discrepancy between the UMA and minimum wage adjustments for the Mexican pension system and its retirees?
- The CNTE's strike highlights a systemic issue within Mexico's pension system. The discrepancy between UMA and minimum wage adjustments reveals a potential need for reform to ensure adequate retirement income for public employees. Failure to address the issue risks continued unrest and challenges to the pension system's sustainability.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing is largely neutral, presenting the CNTE's demands and the explanation of the UMA mechanism without overtly favoring either side. The article presents both the CNTE's argument and the government's justification for using the UMA. While the article focuses on the CNTE's perspective, it does so in a manner that allows the reader to understand their grievances. However, additional context on the government's position would further strengthen neutrality.
Bias by Omission
The article presents a balanced view of the CNTE's position and the government's rationale for using UMA. However, it could benefit from including perspectives from the government or ISSSTE regarding the reasons behind the UMA's adoption for pension calculations and their response to the CNTE's claims of insufficient pensions. Additionally, it would be beneficial to include data comparing the actual pension amounts received by teachers under both the old (minimum wage-based) system and the current (UMA-based) system, to provide a more concrete illustration of the impact of the change.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights how the use of UMA instead of minimum wage for calculating teachers' pensions has resulted in lower pension amounts, negatively impacting their ability to escape poverty in retirement. The lower pensions, especially considering the rising cost of living, push retired teachers closer to poverty.