“As EFKA employees, we want to serve citizens, but this cannot happen indiscriminately with open doors,” stated Dimitris Zisimos, president of EFKA employees in Attica, speaking to ERT. He called for an immediate review of security measures, arguing that yesterday’s incident exposed serious deficiencies. Referring to the 89-year-old who opened fire, Mr. Zisimos noted that he received a high pension from abroad, yet despite three rejective decisions, he persisted in claims regarding the correlation of insurance time between OGA and IKA, with approximately 400 stamps.
“Unfortunately, there is a policy from the administration and the ministry to let people in en masse for the purpose of being served. The daily number of appointments more than doubles due to the tendency to serve society. We want to serve, but there must be security conditions and a review of measures that are insufficient, since we’re talking about contracts with security companies that have underpaid employees without adequate training. We serve even without appointments for people with disabilities and elderly cases. However, EFKA employees are currently in a state of shock, fear and disappointment. They feel expendable, that they don’t have security to be able to work and support public social insurance. They work in understaffed services, without training, without the basics, and the doors are essentially open and they are at mercy,” emphasized the president of Attica employees.
Based on research, as Dimitris Zisimos said, the 89-year-old receives a large pension from America and a second one from Germany, but beyond that he has an obsession. “From what it appears, he believed, like many citizens who come to EFKA, that he would get something bigger than what the current provisions give them. He was not entitled to receive a pension from Greece. He had been rejected by the services. He then appealed to the Local Administrative Committee that insured persons have the right to do, was rejected there too and appealed to the courts. He was rejected there as well and subsequently at the Court of Appeals, where he did not appear and again the decision was rejective. He wanted to make a correlation between IKA and this is not permitted by the provisions.”
