Advocates for maintaining the 'Retirement at 63' policy argue that it represents a fundamental social contract between the state and its most dedicated workers. For individuals who have spent 45 years in the workforce, often in physically demanding roles, this provision offers a necessary and earned transition into retirement. Removing this option would be seen by many as a breach of trust, potentially damaging the morale of the aging workforce and undermining the perceived value of long-term employment.
From this perspective, the policy is not a drain on the economy but a recognition of the physical toll that decades of labor take on the human body. Proponents emphasize that the number of people actually utilizing this option is manageable and that the focus should remain on the dignity of labor. They argue that forcing people to work longer against their will is not the most effective way to solve labor shortages, suggesting that companies should instead focus on better working conditions and flexible models to attract younger generations.
Furthermore, supporters point out that the pension system is designed to provide security after a lifetime of contributions. By allowing those who have contributed the most to retire slightly earlier, the state acknowledges their contribution to the national prosperity. Any attempt to abolish this benefit is viewed as a short-sighted fiscal measure that ignores the human element of the workforce and the social stability that a reliable pension system provides to the public.