The thorniest topics have been saved for the end. Started a month and a half ago, the consultation on the pension reform is entering its final phase, with a third and final ” cycle “ discussions dedicated to ” the balance “ funding for pension schemes. The meetings between the Ministry of Labor and the social partners must take place from the week of Monday, November 28 – according to a timetable which is not precisely known, at this stage. On the agenda, one of Emmanuel Macron’s most controversial campaign promises: raising the legal retirement age from 62 to 65.
This measure is vigorously contested by all the unions. There is ” no need “ to take it, said, Monday morning, on the set of RTL, Laurent Berger. The secretary general of the CFDT has again indicated that his organization will oppose it. According to the leader of the cededist central, such a provision would create “lots of conflict”while the social climate is already characterized by a strong “incandescence”. “Does the government really want to set the country on fire and does it want to make a deeply unjust reform for the most modest workers? »he launched.
A position shared by Philippe Martinez. In a daily interview Humanity of Monday, the number one of the CGT affirms that a very clear majority of the population is hostile to parametric modifications having the consequence of pushing back to 65 years the age of opening of the rights or to increase the duration of contribution required in order to receive a full pension. “It presumes powerful mobilizations if the government persists”he warns.
Anti-redistributive effects
To support their criticisms, employee organizations rely on INSEE surveys which show that life expectancy at age 65 is much lower among the most modest people. It was, for example, 15.8 years for the 5% of men with the lowest standard of living and 21.8 years for the most advantaged 5%, over the period 2012-2016.
The unions also have in mind the 2010 reform, which shifted the legal age of departure from 60 to 62 years. It had anti-redistributive effects, according to a note from the directorate of research, studies, evaluation and statistics – a service attached to the social ministries. Thus, the passage to the rule of 62 years would make winners, among the 1980 generation: the 25% of the best paid people. Over their entire period spent in retirement, they would receive a higher overall amount of pensions compared to the situation where the law would have remained unchanged. Such an improvement is due to the fact that they would retire later, with more comfortable end-of-career salaries, which would generate more rights to old-age insurance. On the other hand, half of the individuals at the bottom of the income scale would be losers, as well as those who are “out of work”.
You have 38.55% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.