Pensions: “A reform that wouldn’t be painful not real reform?”

Would the pension reform be a matter of testosterone? The dominant lexical field these days gives thought: not letting go of the street, braving the refusal of opinion, saving the country against itself … What “Technos” willingly describe as “mother of reforms” In reality the air of a “macho-reform”, according to the amused expression of a representative of employers.

A reform that wouldn’t be painful not a real reform? In 2017, elected macronists were readily mocked the “reforms” of their predecessors. “There is in France this idea that the harshness to conduct a reform will grow the image of the one who wears it,” sums up Bruno Cautrès, researcher at Cevipof. Do not fear unpopularity is the attribute of the leader. Ten years after carrying the legal retirement age from 60 to 62 years in 2012, former head of state Nicolas Sarkozy still makes a firm lesson. “There was nothing to negotiate, he sums up in an interview at the Figaro Magazine on February 3. We had to listen and inform, this is what we called” consult “.”

Reform in consensus: what other European countries manage to do – including for their retirement system – we would be condemned to be deprived of it. “There is not a government which leads a reform of pension of gays of heart. We know that it is difficult,” regretted the Minister of Labor, Olivier Dussopt, Wednesday 1 er February , on France 2. According to INSEE , the reform that reported the most in history was however carried out in general indifference to the hollow of summer 1993, by Edouard Balladur. By indexing pensions on inflation – then weak – and no longer on wages, it has considerably limited its progression. Admittedly, without any political benefit for the person concerned.

a part of brutality

The current government has nevertheless chosen the strong way. By postponing the legal age of 62 to 64 years the heart of its reform, even if it also includes an acceleration of that of Marisol Touraine, he assumes a part of brutality. The CFDT would have preferred a simple lengthening of the contribution duration, scenario deemed more fair by many experts, despite a more spread out of time. This would not have reported enough, explains the executive, who does not assess this scenario beyond 2030, while the financing problems arise rather after, according to the pension orientation council.

You have 18.06% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.