Extract from this column: “As a result of we don’t all begin working on the identical age, as a result of the arduousness will not be the identical for all in response to the trades, as a result of we don’t all endure the identical hazards of well being, household or careers, as a result of a few of us are uncovered to severe precariousness, as a result of life expectancy in good well being can have as much as a decade of distinction relying on the trades, as a result of the difficulties of employment on the finish of profession are usually not the identical for everybody, as a result of inequalities persist between women and men, the reference retirement age can’t be the identical for everybody. The pivotal age could be socially unjust. “
It’s this final sentence which summarizes the opinion of Jennifer de Temmerman: “The pivotal age is deeply unfair. It was not within the President's program. We made different proposals round hardship, careers … The reform agreed, however how we weight it in response to life expectancy … It’s a mathematical method that have to be discovered. I’m satisfied that these concepts will probably be taken up. I wish to consider that’s what the President prompt throughout his vows. “
Extra typically, the member considers the reform obscure: “You had been instructed one factor and after the alternative. That is what led the unions, together with probably the most reformist ones, to show. It’s unclear. We camp on a place after which lastly we withdraw it. Principally, in this system, the common weight loss plan, pointsn is excellent. However in the end, we don't actually know the place we're going. After greater than two years of labor … “
Jennifer de Temmerman presently sits with these not registered within the Nationwide Meeting. She is asking for extra dialogue throughout the LREM group (“We had been unable to work at 300”) and is reflecting on its positioning within the coming months.