Presented as a justice reform » rebalancing the current gaps, in particular by providing for the end of special schemes and a set of safety nets for certain households (change in early departure schemes for “difficult” jobs and long careers, introduction of a minimum pension for full careers, measures intended to fight against unemployment among seniors, relaxation of the combination of employment and retirement, etc.), the government’s project comes up against a major flaw: that of disadvantaging ultimately women, by extending their contribution period even further compared to that of men…
On paper, the gradual postponement of the retirement age – to 63, then to 64 from 2030 – and the lengthening of the contribution period to 43 annuities from the generation born in 1965 (an acceleration of the Touraine reform of 2014) – of course invariably apply to women and men.
Up to nine months of additional work depending on the generations
But in reality, the former will be more strongly impacted than the latter. Because with choppy careers (mainly due to maternity leave), a higher proportion of part-time jobs, lower wages and a level of retirement pensions on average still more than 40% lower than that of men*, the consequences of the extension of the retirement age will be more difficult for them to bear.
The government’s own impact study of the bill shows it: if, taken as a whole, the reform should raise the age AVERAGE retirement age of French women and men at 64 and a half, the gradual increase in the retirement age will lead to notorious disparities according to “generations” and gender.
Thus, on average, with the reform, for the 1966 generation, women will have to work seven months longer, and men five months. For that of 1972, the extension of the contribution period will always be five months for men, but will increase to nine months for women. Finally, for the generation of 1980, it will be necessary to count eight months of additional work for women against only four months more for men.
Additional terms per child: no general reinforcement of the system
The Minister responsible for relations with Parliament, Franck Riester recalled on Public Senate that ” women, to reach their contribution period, use in particular quarters validated by child**. Obviously, if you postpone the legal age, they are a little penalized. We absolutely disagree “, he recognized while the executive has been struggling for a fortnight to praise the dimension of social justice of its reform.
Question of logic: Many women should have all their trimesters at the legal age of 62, since the law grants them [des] additional quarters per child beyond those validated for the career. These women, who could until now claim their full rate at age 62, will still have to work two more years, until age 64. »deciphers Valérie Batigne, president of Sapiendo-Retraite, in a column published this Wednesday on Money and You.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister again repeated, in front of the National Assembly, that women with incomplete and choppy careers will be protected, like ” women who started working early » and those ” who have small pensions » and that the reform « will contribute to reducing the pension gap between men and women “.
I would protect women. At ! ??We protect chopped incomplete careers, ??The ones started early, ??Women who have small pensions. pic.twitter.com/DJHdvLwssS — Elisabeth BORNE (@Elisabeth_Borne), through Twitter
Because in fact, by increasing on the one hand their contribution period, and on the other hand by revaluing the minimum pension for more modest pensioners (subject to full career), of which 52% are women, the reform should revalue more those of women, at +2.2%, against 0.9% for those of men, assesses the impact study. The revaluation of the minimum pension will affect 30% of women (+€460 per year on average) and 17% of men (+€300 per year on average).
However, with the current pension gaps, it will still take many years before these differences are significantly reduced: in 2070, still according to the government study, the reform should still maintain an average pension gap of 7% between the two gender…
Parental leave and long careers, an anecdotal device?
As for the other compensatory measures planned by the executive (taking into account parental leave for long careers allowing up to four additional quarters to be obtained, integration of this leave in the calculation of the minimum old age for those who have worked at least 30 years), these should only benefit a limited number of women (more than 3,000 per year according to the government, for approximately 640,000 to 650,000 new retirees each year).
Between career breaks, part-time work and lower wages, an extension of the contribution period, applied invariably to “classic” careers without additional protection provided for women, can only result quite logically in situations more contrasted between the sexes.
*Source: Insee, report Women and men, equality in question, 2022 edition. The difference in the level of pension concerns the year 2019. The gap is reduced to 28% by including survivors’ pensions.
**Eight quarters are automatically allocated to the biological or adoptive mother, in compensation for the cost of a child, for those born or adopted before 2010; four terms are allocated for those born or adopted after 2010.