Work with no social security
Mudasser Wani
A few days ago, I met a man whom I have known for nearly twenty years. He was not a senior officer, a politician or a person of influence. He was an ordinary daily wager who spent the prime years of his life serving a government department. Throughout these two decades, I saw him perform his duties with dedication and sincerity.
I saw him working during harsh winters and scorching summers. I saw him reporting to duty in difficult circumstances when many others stayed away. I witnessed his commitment during emergencies, his willingness to shoulder responsibilities beyond his assigned tasks and his unwavering loyalty to the institution he served. Today he has crossed the age of sixty and has retired.
Yet his retirement is unlike the retirement that society often imagines. There was no pension order, no gratuity, no provident fund, no farewell package and no post-retirement security. There was no assurance that his future would be protected after years of service. The department he served for more than two decades no longer requires his labour but the realities of life still require food, medicine, shelter and dignity.
This encounter left me with a disturbing question, What does a welfare state truly mean if a man can devote twenty years of his life to public service and still retire without any social security?
The answer is not simple but the question deserves to be asked. The Invisible Workforce Behind Public Institutions. Every government institution depends not only on officers and policymakers but also on thousands of workers whose names rarely appear in official reports. These are daily wagers, casual labourers, temporary workers, contractual staff and other employees who perform essential functions that keep public services running.
They maintain infrastructure, assist in field operations, support administrative functions and often undertake physically demanding tasks that others may avoid. They are present in forests, roads, irrigation systems, municipal services, public works and numerous other sectors.
Yet despite their contribution many of them remain trapped in a cycle of uncertainty. For years, they report to work every morning without knowing whether tomorrow will bring regularization, security or recognition. They continue working because they hope that dedication and loyalty will eventually be rewarded. Unfortunately for many that hope remains unfulfilled.
The daily wager I met recently is one such example. His story is not unique. It represents the silent reality faced by countless workers who spend decades serving public institutions while remaining outside the protective umbrella of social security.
Retirement should symbolize dignity. It should represent society’s acknowledgment of years of hard work and contribution. It should provide a sense of security during old age. However, not all retirements are equal.
In many cases, a public representative who serves a limited tenure of five years may become entitled to lifetime pensions, allowances and other benefits that continue long after leaving office. Meanwhile a daily wager who spends twenty or thirty years working under difficult conditions may retire with nothing except memories of service and concerns about survival. This contrast raises important moral and social questions.
Why does society place a higher value on positions of power than on years of labour ? Why are benefits often linked more closely to status than to sacrifice ? Why does a worker who spent decades supporting public institutions remain vulnerable after retirement while those occupying influential positions enjoy lifelong security ?
These questions are not intended to diminish the role of elected representatives. Public service through political office carries responsibilities and deserves respect. However respect for one category of public service should not come at the cost of neglecting another. A welfare state must be capable of protecting both.
When discussions about pensions and retirement benefits take place, they often focus on financial calculations and administrative rules. Yet behind every policy is a human life. The absence of post-retirement security does not merely affect bank accounts, it affects dignity. Imagine reaching the age of sixty after spending decades in service and suddenly realizing that your income has stopped completely.
Imagine facing increasing medical expenses without any pension support.
Imagine watching younger family members struggle to meet household expenses while knowing that your years of labour have left you with no safety net.
For many retired daily wagers this is not a hypothetical situation. It is their reality. Old age should be a period of rest and reflection. Instead it often becomes a period of anxiety and uncertainty.
A society that depends on workers during their productive years cannot simply abandon them when age limits their ability to earn.
The term “welfare state” is frequently used in public discourse. Governments across the world describe themselves as committed to welfare and inclusive development. Policies are framed in the language of social justice, equality and protection of vulnerable sections. However the true test of a welfare state is not found in speeches or slogans. It is found in the lives of ordinary people. A welfare state succeeds when a worker does not fear destitution after retirement. It succeeds when decades of service are acknowledged through meaningful social security.
It succeeds when public policy protects those who possess neither wealth nor influence. Most importantly, it succeeds when human dignity is considered a right rather than a privilege. The treatment of retired daily wagers therefore becomes an important indicator of whether welfare principles are genuinely reflected in governance.
Throughout history, societies have progressed because of labour. Roads were built by workers. Forests were protected by workers. Public infrastructure was maintained by workers. Government services reached people because workers performed countless duties behind the scenes. Yet labour often receives less recognition than authority.
The person issuing instructions is remembered. The person carrying them out is forgotten. The individual signing documents is acknowledged. The worker implementing decisions remains invisible. This imbalance extends into retirement as well.
The dignity of labour cannot remain a slogan repeated during celebrations and forgotten during policymaking. If labour is truly valued then the people who devote their lives to it must receive protection when their working years come to an end.
Some may argue that retired daily wagers can be helped through welfare schemes, charitable assistance or occasional relief measures. But this issue is not about charity. It is about justice.
Charity depends on goodwill. Justice depends on rights. A worker who has contributed decades of service should not have to depend on sympathy. He should be able to rely on a system that recognizes his contribution and ensures a minimum level of security.
The question is not whether society feels sorry for retired daily wagers. The question is whether society believes they deserve protection as a matter of principle. If the answer is yes then meaningful policy discussions must follow.
Across many regions thousands of workers have spent substantial portions of their lives in temporary or daily-wage arrangements. As these workers grow older, governments will increasingly face questions regarding their welfare and retirement security. Ignoring the issue will not make it disappear. Each year, more workers reach retirement age. Each year, more families confront economic uncertainty after the loss of daily income.
Each year, the gap between rhetoric and reality becomes more visible. Addressing this challenge requires empathy, political will, administrative innovation and a commitment to fairness.
The issue should not be viewed through the narrow lens of expenditure alone. It should also be viewed through the broader lens of social justice.
The Question That Demands an Answer, As I parted ways with the retired daily wager, I could not help reflecting on the irony of his situation. For over twenty years, he gave his energy, strength and commitment to public service. He worked when he was needed. He reported for duty when called upon. He stood by the institution during difficult times. Yet when age finally compelled him to step aside, the system offered him little more than a goodbye.
His story raises a question that every citizen, policymaker and public institution should contemplate, can a society truly call itself just when those who spend decades serving it are left without security in old age ?
The answer to that question will determine not only the future of thousands of workers but also the moral character of our institutions. For in the end, the greatness of a society is not measured by the privileges it grants to the powerful. It is measured by the dignity it guarantees to the ordinary worker who spent a lifetime in service and asks for nothing more than security in his final years.
A welfare state worthy of its name must ensure that no worker who devoted decades to public service retires into uncertainty. Anything less leaves an uncomfortable truth staring back at us, that power may be rewarded but labour is too often forgotten.
When a five-year tenure can guarantee financial security for life, but twenty years of labour cannot guarantee security for old age, the disparity becomes difficult to justify in moral terms. Such a system may be legally valid but it inevitably raises questions about fairness, equity and the true meaning of a welfare state.
A society that values power more than labour risks sending a dangerous message, that status matters more than sacrifice, and authority matters more than hard work. Yet history teaches us that institutions are not sustained by authority alone, they are sustained by the countless workers whose names rarely appear in headlines but whose labour keeps the machinery of governance moving.
The real challenge before policymakers is therefore not whether legislators deserve pensions. The real challenge is whether the workers who devoted twenty years or more to public service deserve to retire with dignity as well.
(The Author can be reached at [email protected]. The views expressed are his own)
