Why do some units allow retirees to give up their retirement salary and let the unit arrange for their children to work?

I have worked in the party and government agencies for nearly 30 years. Let me share my personal views on the issues raised by the subject.

We can say without hesitation and certainty: Under the current circumstances, the kind of thing mentioned by the subject is simply impossible to exist, and policy will never allow such things to happen.

To be honest, in the 1980s and 1990s, this kind of thing did happen to a certain extent and scope. Let the children take over the work of the parents. The specific method at that time was: Generally, the elderly who have not yet reached the retirement age go through the retirement procedures and receive pensions according to the policy at that time; at the same time, a son/daughter will replace the position vacated by his/her father/parent due to retirement. The labor or personnel department of the local government will uniformly arrange the children/daughters to work in local agencies, institutions, and enterprise units. Because at that time, the urban employment population was uniformly controlled by the government. At the same time, this method also has the issue of household registration. The specific method is to transfer retirees from urban household registration to rural household registration. If the children/daughters who replace the employed people have agricultural household registration, they will also be transferred to urban household registration. From then on, retired elderly people no longer enjoyed the affordable supply of grain and oil provided by urban workers, but were replaced by their employed children. This was the famous "grain-household relationship" back then. The replacement son/daughter has since become a "working public servant". People who were employed in this way at that time were the envy, jealousy and hatred of those of us who came from peasant families.

On the other hand, in the 1970s and 1980s, residents with urban household registration at that time did enjoy certain special care policies in terms of labor and employment. For example, high school graduates with urban household registration can enjoy preferential conditions when recruiting workers in agencies, institutions, and enterprises, and can officially join the workforce after approval. There is no doubt that urban household registration at this time is such an enviable existence!

Since the resumption of college entrance examination enrollment in our country, batches of college graduates have gradually been assigned to different jobs by unified work arrangements by the state. After that, the job positions in government agencies, institutions, and enterprises gradually became saturated, and the prerequisite for unified work arrangements by the state no longer existed. Now, no matter what your status is—undergraduate, graduate, doctoral student, junior high school student, or high school student—you have a two-way choice, either through open recruitment, to get a job, or to work through corporate recruitment, or to join a private enterprise. It is possible to work, or to find flexible employment through your own efforts. All these employment methods are based on the fact that our country has established a complete set of social insurance. As long as you participate in social insurance and reach the legal retirement age, you can receive retirement benefits or pensions in accordance with the law. Of course, different employment positions, methods of participating in social insurance and pension benefits after retirement are still very different.

At the same time, we do not deny that in some vertically managed state-owned enterprises and institutions or systems, such as banks, insurance, tobacco, railways, salt industry, and two-barrel oil systems, at certain times and in certain situations Under such circumstances, there are still some explicit or covert special care measures for the children of employees in the system. But to be honest, there are very few. The reason is simple: national policy does not allow it.

It must be admitted that in the past few decades, my country's society has undergone tremendous changes in all aspects of politics, economy, life, and even people's ideology. It is true that this moment is the same as that moment. The social basis for children to take over the work of their parents is gone. Nowadays, the question "Why do some units allow retirees to give up their retirement salary and let the unit arrange for their children to work?" This question is firstly impossible: no one would be willing to give up their retirement salary; secondly, it is not allowed by policy: the state does not Management functions will be given up and certain industries will become completely family-owned. Even if it occurs occasionally and sporadically in very special industries, it is basically certain that it is an illegal act that violates national policies. Once discovered by the government management department, it will be severely investigated and dealt with, and the relevant leaders will definitely bear legal responsibility for this.

Therefore, this subject makes people feel as if they are still living in paradise, and they don’t know the Han Dynasty, regardless of the Wei and Jin Dynasties. Surprising!

——————

Just a personal opinion. Friends are welcome to leave a message, express your views, leave your wonderful comments, and start discussions and exchanges.

The child of a relative of mine was only 15 years old in the 1990s and had not yet graduated from junior high school. Suddenly one day, my relative's factory (Pangang Factory) issued a notice saying that any child who is over 16 years old and has graduated from junior high school can take over the job.

So my relatives used various means to change the age of his child, and then asked an acquaintance to apply for a junior high school diploma, so that his child could successfully replace him in the Panzhihua Iron and Steel Factory. work.

To be honest, this was really enviable and enviable in the countryside at that time. After all, this was an "iron rice bowl" and a life that many rural people had dreamed of for their ancestors.

Because the country had such a policy at the time, children could take over the job as long as they met the conditions. Moreover, those who were replaced by their children were treated as early retirement and could still enjoy retirement pay.

About ten years ago, in order to take care of the children of employees, some industries adopted so-called "internal recruitment", such as banking, electric power, tobacco and other industries. A nephew of mine entered a rural commercial bank through "internal recruitment" and is now the person in charge of a township branch. However, this "internal recruitment" method was quickly canceled later!

Nowadays, all kinds of personnel recruitment have become more and more standardized and transparent. It should be difficult for a situation like the question mentioned by the question to exist. Even if it does exist, it can only be a "black" transaction under power. . Once exposed, not only the leading parties but also the handling staff will be dealt with and held accountable.

For those who are eligible for retirement, relevant retirement procedures should be handled and retirement wages should be paid on time. This is strictly implemented in accordance with relevant national regulations and cannot be modified in any way.

At this time, the unit actually allows retirees to give up their retirement wages. This behavior itself is not in compliance with the relevant regulations on retirement and is contrary to the spirit of the national retirement policy.

The leaders of the unit actually allow retirees to do this, which is a knowing and deliberate violation of the country's relevant retirement policies and laws and regulations.

This is also inconsistent with the relevant regulations on the entry and exit of personnel from relevant national units. Because the state clearly stipulates that the entry and exit of unit personnel must be recruited and admitted in accordance with policies, rather than relying on the unit's independent initiative.

Therefore, when an employer arranges the children of retirees in violation of regulations, it is an act that conflicts with the relevant laws, regulations and policies of the country. Moreover, strictly speaking, this kind of arrangement is invalid. Once it is found out, it will be punished. Cleared.

The above analysis is for reference only. If you are interested, you can pay attention to the workplace, which will bring you more workplace knowledge and help you solve workplace confusion. Welcome to leave a message in the comment area below to express your views and opinions!

This situation was indeed very common a few years ago, especially in some state-owned enterprises. The earliest one was called "succession". After some state-owned enterprise employees reached retirement age, they could arrange for one of their children to directly work in the company.

My father took over my grandfather's job and worked in our local medicinal company. However, the company later closed down due to poor management.

There is also the "placement of employees' children", which does not require waiting for retirement. The company will have a fixed quota for employees' children every year, and they will be directly arranged to work in the company.

A large number of people who entered state-owned enterprises at the same time as me were placed by the children of company employees. That was in 2012, and it was also the last group of people who were placed in the state-owned enterprises where I worked.

With the reform of enterprise management and employment systems, "succession" and "placement of employees' children" have been abolished successively, but it is not ruled out that there are still people who rely on connections to secretly infiltrate the company.

Because of the problem of no longer resettling the children of employees, many state-owned enterprises have had group interviews by employees, but in the end they all ended up being nothing.

What the questioner said about giving up retirement salary in exchange for arranging jobs for children is probably false, but arranging jobs for children is true.

Nowadays, the country has strict selection standards for the employment system of administrative units and state-owned enterprises.

All kinds of "internal recruitment" no longer exist, and candidates need to meet the employer's rigid standards before they can be considered.

Under such a strict management system, those who can arrange for their children to work must not be ordinary people. They either have strong connections or hold the power in their own hands.

So it is very possible that giving up retirement salary is just a cover-up for outsiders. Although it sounds unconvincing, it is better than directly arranging it. At least it sounds like there are sacrifices to arrange work for the children. of.

Retirement salary benefits are uniformly managed by the national pension insurance system. No enterprise or individual can cancel them without reason. It is not only the rights and interests enjoyed by retirees, but also the national social security system.

From this point of view, it is very likely that the retirement salary is officially cancelled, but in fact it is still paid every month, and the children's jobs are also arranged.

It is because of this shady recruitment method that many companies have poor personnel quality, later operational problems, and ultimately lead to bankruptcy. This unreasonable method should be completely abolished, and those who operate in secret cannot escape sanctions.

As the poster said, this situation does not exist at all. Let’s analyze it below:

1. When employees retire, the Social Security Bureau will determine the retirement time and pension. It cannot influence the retirement of employees. If the company does not handle retirement procedures for employees, it is illegal.

2. The situation mentioned by the poster should be the so-called job replacement. This happened in the past when state-owned enterprises did not implement labor contracts for all employees. At that time, when employees retired, the company paid pensions. In 1994, the retirement reform Afterwards, this situation basically does not exist.

This matter needs to focus on several key issues. The first is to explain the importance of children’s work. It can be solved that children’s work is more important than anything else to the elderly who are about to retire. With this opportunity, of course as a parent They will give up their retirement benefits and let their employer arrange for their children to work. Second, retirement wages are now paid by government social security agencies and have nothing to do with the company. Giving up retirement benefits in the company is nothing more than continuing to work without retiring and contributing to the company. This shows that the employee has skills and the company is willing to keep you. This skill is technology and ability. Nowadays, no matter what position the job is in, it is mechanized, electrically powered, and programmed. Therefore, on-the-job operations are related to skills and have nothing to do with age. There are many talented people who are still working in their 70s and 80s, but this shows that young people should Take advantage of the great time of your youth and learn some skills honestly. Now someone asks what is the biggest career in life? It’s about educating children. No matter how big your career is or how much money you make, if your children don’t live up to expectations, your work in this life will be in vain. This third point must be warned to young people. Don’t be playful and greedy when you are young. Don’t be afraid of hardship and loss. Be honest and learn something. You can only rely on your parents for half your life, not your whole life. In the future, your children will still have to rely on you. If you don’t have the ability, it’s useless for your parents to give you their position. You can’t occupy this position. Life does not depend on heaven, earth, gods, emperors, or parents. It can only depend on yourself.

Regarding the practice of children taking the place of employment, the earliest example was in the "Draft of Amendments to the Implementation Rules of the Labor Insurance Regulations of the People's Republic of China" promulgated by the state in 1953, Chapter 6 "Provisions on Death Benefits" Article 24 is reflected:

However, the replacement employment of children during this period only applies to employees who have died in the line of duty or become disabled in the line of duty and have completely lost the ability to work. It can be regarded as a kind of state's treatment of these employees. There is nothing wrong with the care policy.

However, with the development of the times, this policy gradually began to be extended to the elderly, weak and disabled employees who had difficulties in family life, and then to all departments and all walks of life. Worker.

In the process of implementing the substitution policy, many problems that did not comply with relevant national regulations arose. Many local governments expanded the scope of substitution on their own. At the same time, a large number of frauds and malpractices for personal gain occurred during the operation. Condition.

The "Interim Regulations on the Recruitment of Workers by State-owned Enterprises" issued by the State Council in 1986 clearly stated:

However, in real life, it is still impossible to completely eliminate this kind of Condition. Of course, the practices of current units will not be so blatant. During the recruitment process, written tests and interviews will definitely be conducted, but there is still room for manipulation in recruitment.

In the recruitment of many companies, employees’ children are given extra points for taking care of them. Even as long as the employees’ children can enter the interview, they will definitely be recruited by the company. This can be regarded as a disguised form of children’s replacement employment. .

Of course, these employees do not need to give up their retirement salary, because retirement salary is not something you can get or give up if you want. Neither the individual nor the unit can make the decision. If you pay pension insurance for 15 years and retire after reaching the retirement age, you will naturally receive a pension every month.

Giving up a job before the retirement age for children to work was mostly called "replacing" in the 1970s and 1980s. In the original government agencies, public institutions, state-owned collective enterprises, the retirement of parents The (retired) pension is still there, but it is obviously lower than that of similar personnel. These powers reside with higher-level departments and are subject to procedures such as document issuance and approval.

However, the employer and the employee directly reached an agreement that "the employer will pay a lump sum compensation under the labor contract and leave the job; the employer will hire their children and sign a labor contract to arrange their work." I do understand that this situation happened before. From a dozen years ago to the past few years, private enterprises signed irregular contracts with their employees and did not pay social security. Employees no longer waited for their retirement wages to leave and let their children go to work. This was called resignation at the time. My cousin has worked in a private enterprise for 9 years, and his job is packaging line work. The contract is not a standardized version. The employer and I do not pay social security, and there is no deemed payment period. In 2012, the employer agreed that when my son graduated from high school, he signed a contract and the employer paid the three social insurances, and he left to work as a security guard in another employer. When I reach the age of 60 and catch up with the pension insurance to retire, the amount is more than 2,000 yuan, and the length of service in the original workplace is not calculated.

It is now illegal for an employer to fail to pay social insurance for employees or to pay in accordance with regulations. Paragraph 3 of Article 38 of the "Labor Contract Law" stipulates: An employer fails to pay social insurance for employees in accordance with the law. If you pay any fees, you must bear corresponding legal responsibilities. Therefore, in the past few years, some private units took advantage of loopholes to avoid responsibilities and replace them with fresh blood. Why not do this?

I have heard of people doing this before, but I don’t know how to do it specifically. Maybe it's gone now. I heard that those who retire also have their wages cancelled, and their children are asked to take over the work, and they are paid according to the wages of newcomers. Ordinarily, this is not in line with national policy, but this is a consensual thing done by Zhou Yu. Maybe this is the case in factories. No wonder. I am old and can no longer work, and my children have no jobs. It is also a good thing to have this opportunity to let my children work.

As for the factory, it would be a good thing if the old ones quit and no longer get paid, and a young man comes to work who is knowledgeable and capable.

This is shameless robbery. Pensions are retirement wages. Retirement wages are labor compensation from capital to workers before retirement. That is to say, capital does not pay all the labor remuneration to workers before retirement, but retains a part of it to be repaid after retirement as workers' pension expenses. Therefore, pension, that is, retirement salary, is originally the retiree's own money. Suspension of pensions, that is, old-age wages, and letting their children take over the work is a double exploitation of labor by capital. It is unreasonable, and it is really shameless to come up with this trick. This is obviously not feasible, but raising such a question is not groundless, right? We must pay attention to those wolfish ambitions that are enemies of the working people! Of course, this is by no means specific to the subject.