Many years ago when I joined TEXACO Trinidad, one of my assignments was to interview
pensioners wherever I could find them. I met disgruntled, angry men because they could no longer support their life styles. A couple of them revelled in their stories about drinking premium whiskey and supporting multiple homes in their day while I observed that their homes needed repairs.
20+ years later our retired judges are making out the same case for enhanced pensions. The question is: Who is responsible for your pension? Salaries are payed in exchange for service – it is a simple transaction. Some employers arrange for part of that transaction to be allocated towards the payment of a pension in the future. But the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual to put away for the rainy day. Judges are persons of privilege in our society and they above all should understand the concept of “delayed gratification” so they “put things in place”.
I have no sympathy for the case of our retired judges because during employment their cash and non cash benefits were substantial including vacation travel, housing allowances and exemption from Income Taxes and taxes on the purchase of vehicles. If you want to travel first class and maintain a chauffeur as a pensioner, then save for it but do not expect the state to help you maintain that unreal life style.
If the case for the Judges is that retirement must be indexed to the cost of living, then indexation should happen across the Board retirees from all sectors. What is the difference between the Nurse and the Judge? Their contribution to the society is equally important but the judges are unequally rewarded. If your case is that you can’t pay your medical bills, then welcome to the real world, none of us can. It speaks to a necessary improvement across the health sector.
The big lesson that I took away from those interviews with Texaco retirees was that pensions as negotiated while employed are unlikely to be sufficient for retirement.
Retirement is a guarantee so we have personal responsibility to put aside a percentage of our current salaries as a pension for when we are no longer employed.
Dennise Demming 
There is one critical element missing from this proposition. Pretty much anyone who reaches retirement age and qualifies for a pension has the option of working at some level according to their qualifications after retirement. Justices are lawyers, but cannot practice their trade for a decade after leaving the bench.
That means that even after early retirement, say around 55, a judge cannot practice their chosen trade until they are 65 and generally likely to be in far less demand. For that reason, justices may have some sensible grounds for their concerns, since they are essentially professionally warded for ten years after serving their country in the nation’s courts.
Agreed! So there may be a need to change that 10 year limitation but the strategic use of their cash compensation will put them in a good position for the future. Their benefits are similar to CEOs in a medium sized corporation. Here is a partial list: Housing Allowance or Housing, Car Loan exempt from taxes, Chauffeur’s allowance, Subsistence allowance, entertainment allowance and their salaries are exempt from taxes.
I don’t think this is just an issue of money. Professional people are being denied the ability to practice in their fields (albeit for legitimate reasons) and that should have a cost beyond the recompense for their work on the bench, which is substantial for those who embrace their responsibility..