THE GALLERY – With the momentary withdrawal of the pivotal age, is pension reform acceptable?
YVES VEYRIER – The query of the pivotal age is intrinsic to the only level system for the reason that State, as a final resort, can play on the worth of the purpose and its yield. If, with these parameters, the pension is just not on the stage which ensures an accurate retirement, individuals may have no alternative however to proceed working to build up extra factors. With this distinctive weight loss program per level, I’ve already mentioned that this age of 62 years was more likely to develop into digital. This method is nearly a everlasting pivotal age.
Why did the federal government wish to preserve this pivotal age in any respect prices for weeks regardless of the a number of oppositions?
The federal government has added a pivotal age as a result of it desires to go sooner on financial savings than the only level system will enable. What the federal government was proposing was the entry into power of the pivotal age as early as 2022, together with within the present system. For the federal government, this can be a approach to act extra shortly on the financial savings to be made by forcing staff, both to endure a penalty on their pension, or to remain in employment. The withdrawal of the pivotal age implies that it will likely be much less violent instantly, however that doesn’t change the character of the only level scheme. In addition to, the Prime Minister in his letter confirms that there’ll certainly be an age of stability in superb!
What ought to have been the tactic for ending the disaster?
We might have averted this example of battle if we had taken the difficulty to sit down round a desk. The stability and the way forward for our pensions, together with by integrating the rise in life expectancy and the ratio between lively and contributors, requires in our view initially to make sure for everybody an actual full-time job and long-term from the beginning of working life till retirement. This raises the query of the employment of younger individuals with the extension of the period of internships which aren’t taken into consideration within the calculation of pension rights. There may be additionally the difficulty of low wages, which impacts girls extra usually. The employment of seniors can be decisive. How can firms be certain that staff are stored employed past the age of 55? There are lots of development websites.
As well as, the federal government continues to brandish the 14 proportion factors of GDP represented by spending on pensions. I want to remind you that public assist for firms, that are supposed to advertise employment, represents 140 billion euros annually. I believe that one might work on the analysis and the conditionning, and generally is a reorientation of those public aids and reliefs of contributions which may very well be simpler, particularly once they concern the multinational firms quoted on inventory alternate. They may very well be redirected in favor of the stability of social safety methods within the type of a rise in contributions.
Are you in favor of the convention for the financing proposed by the CFDT?
It’s a method for the CFDT to search out a substitute for the query of the pivotal age. I already mentioned that I used to be not fooled. If it’s a query of constructing us settle for the only level system, such a negotiation may very well be an unbelievable activity. The query of funding is already raised beneath the present system. I’ll ask the query of public assist to companies and the rise in contributions. One of many solutions of the Retirement Orientation Council (COR) is that an extra 1% of contributions would restore the stability of the plan by 2030.
What was your response to studying the federal government's pension invoice?
Once we discovered concerning the invoice on Friday, January 10, we had a extra exact thought of the implementation methods and the implications of this invoice. We weren’t shocked on the basic structure and the implications of the federal government mission with which we disagree. We found quite a lot of particulars that we didn’t but know sufficient about. Though our place on the precept of the only level system doesn’t differ, the consideration given to social dialogue and in direction of commerce unions should enhance. I formally requested the Prime Minister to take this consideration into consideration.
What did you particularly ask the Prime Minister?
I requested him to press the “pause” button within the strategy of adopting the invoice in order that we now have time to alternate views and make our analyzes of the implications of the measures extra exact. We weren’t heard once more on this level. The Prime Minister replied that he didn’t intend to pause on the mission and the adoption course of.
Due to this fact, we now have determined to not take a break. As the federal government doesn’t supply us the chance to look at and make our reactions identified, this lack of ample consideration has strengthened our dedication and our conviction to stay mobilized. Even when the federal government needed to bear in mind a sure variety of alerts, we’re satisfied of the explanations for our problem.
How have discussions advanced on pension reform?
What’s placing is that, from the outset, Power Ouvrière expressed its opposition to the precept of the only level system. We tried to play the sport by means of consultations regardless that the federal government had made its determination to implement this single level system from the beginning. From the consultations, we defined intimately and exactly our analyzes whether or not on the structure of pension rights, piloting the plan …
How did such opposition come about?
Once we discovered concerning the suggestions of Excessive Commissioner Jean-Paul Delevoye in July, we once more expressed ourselves very clearly and we weren’t contradicted. On the finish of this concertation, the federal government mission didn’t garner approval removed from it. Between September and December, throughout the second part of the citizen debate, we once more alerted the members of the federal government, the representatives of the bulk within the Nationwide Meeting. However nothing has moved the federal government on the perimeter of the mission. As early as August, we warned that if we weren’t heard, we might don’t have any different useful resource than to debate the decision for strike motion. As of September, we had mounted the date of December 5. However the authorities has not moved.
It took main strikes and demonstrations earlier than the federal government lastly understood that it had failed to elucidate or persuade. He ended up pushing again to the 1975 technology the date of efficient implementation of his mission when it was to enter into power for the 1963 technology. He shifted additional in sure sectors of exercise, in transport for instance. It has conceded a number of particular provisions for sailors, gendarmes, police, aircrew. He needed to acknowledge that there was an issue for the lecturers. The complete pretty lengthy first part of session didn’t transfer the federal government. It took strikes and demonstrations for the federal government to lastly hear.
What do you particularly criticize the federal government reform mission?
There are two main problematic factors. The procedures for constructing retirement rights tomorrow shall be degraded. At the moment, the calculation of pensions is predicated on the perfect years of working life. Sooner or later, individuals must purchase factors all through their working life. The intervals of early profession, low pay, part-time shall be built-in. Build up a proper to retirement by means of this capital of factors to be acquired all through the working life shall be harder than the calculation based mostly on annuities and the perfect 25 years. The present system is simplified. It permits you to reconstitute and liquidate retirement on the final affiliation scheme if you find yourself multi-pensioned. Everybody can at the moment have a reasonably exact thought of their retirement rights.
Tomorrow, this retirement shall be unsure as a result of it’ll rely on the system settings similar to the purpose worth at buy, the worth of the purpose service and the age of stability. What’s problematic is that it’s the State of final resort which can pilot the regime as a complete. When the federal government says that the social companions will be capable to participate in steering, the good issue is that the function of organizations shall be diluted on this governance proposed by the federal government. Across the desk will be capable to sit the representatives of the staff, the representatives of the employers, for a few of them like pensioners themselves of the mode, and by the power of the issues of the State. The general public system of civil servants shall be combined with that of the unbiased professions. It’s the State which can management within the final resort. The invoice additionally specifies golden rule shall be outlined by natural regulation. The plan's monetary administration framework shall be voted on throughout the framework of the finance legal guidelines proposed by the federal government. The federal government guarantees us a fairer and extra equitable system that corrects the inequalities of the present system. The manager has knowledgeable us that the simulators shall be out there as soon as the regulation is handed. We are going to know the parameters after the regulation is handed. These parameters might change over time, relying on the federal government.
What do you consider the purpose system?
The purpose system is just not a dogmatic query. The Agirc-Arrco scheme is a degree scheme. The large distinction in comparison with the federal government's plan is that it’s a complementary scheme which is predicated on the fundamental social safety scheme. It ensures a non-negligible a part of the pension for retirees from the final social safety scheme. When the federal government proclaims that it desires to abolish the particular regimes, it obtains the assent of a very good a part of public opinion, however the query that have to be requested with the only level system is that of the disappearance of the final regime and of the supplementary plan which ensures the retirement of 18 million contributing staff and 13 million pensioners.
On unemployment insurance coverage, how do you clarify the failure of negotiations between the social companions?
It was a predictable end result. The federal government requested us to reopen negotiations when in 2017 we had an settlement and a conference that went till 2020. In concept, all of this shouldn’t be renegotiated at the moment. There have been provisions which already supplied for financial savings on which an settlement had been reached with the employers. The federal government requested us to reopen negotiations so as to add financial savings with very harsh tips.
What had been the financial savings?
The federal government has requested us to avoid wasting three to 4 billion dollars over three years on the rights of job seekers. In parallel, there was a a lot much less clear demand on the query of the bonus-malus which was supposed to scale back abuses by way of hiring in brief contracts and in very quick contracts. The stability was completely unbalanced.
The federal government knew very effectively that no commerce union group might enter into negotiations resulting in financial savings on the rights of job seekers. It shouldn’t be forgotten that one in two job seekers, out of the 5.5 million registered at Pôle emploi in class A, B, C, is just not compensated. On the similar time, the chief knew very effectively that the employers weren’t asking for the bonus-malus, whereas the unions had had issue negotiating with them on this provision.
Was the federal government's ambition to regain management predictable?
In his 2018 needs, the President of the Republic introduced that he would reform the compensation guidelines. Within the context of the Nice Debate, he additionally defined, from his standpoint, that job seekers reload their rights too simply by circumventing the foundations of unemployment insurance coverage. In his public speech, he intervened on a number of events which is a type of interference or interference. The screenplay was written by the federal government. The measures carried out are, furthermore, very violent. They make entry into the precise to unemployment compensation harder. It will likely be essential to must work 6 months out of 24 towards four months out of 28. The reloading of the rights turned harder. On April 1, 2020, the change to the calculation of the reference day by day wage will come into power. It should result in a deterioration within the stage of compensation to which jobseekers are entitled. Essentially the most precarious and the youngest may very well be probably the most affected. The bonus-malus for companies, which is utilized on a really restricted scope and at zero value for companies, will solely come into power in 2021.
What do you consider the state taking on unemployment insurance coverage?
That is a part of an total logic on the a part of the federal government. The chance is the crowding out of autonomous collective bargaining between employers and commerce union organizations on social safety. When it comes to well being, it was the Juppé plan of 1995 that was carried out. Social safety is now the topic of a finance regulation handed in parliament. The State doesn’t hesitate to punctuate in line with its budgetary wants. With unemployment insurance coverage and the pension reform, we’re shifting in direction of a type of full nationalization of social safety, to the detriment of collective bargaining. This is likely one of the main causes for the disagreement between FO and the federal government. It’s an financial error. Tomorrow, governments shall be blackmailed and pressured by companies over the difficulty of employment each time it involves elevating wages or contributions.
How do you clarify the rethe power of unions on the street in the midst of this five-year interval once they had been seen apart by some observers on the time of the yellow vests disaster?
There has by no means been a “disappearance” of union exercise. Commerce union motion takes place day-after-day in firms and administrations on the negotiation of wages, well being, working time. Clearly, that doesn’t essentially make the entrance web page of the media.
The place is the institution of the social and financial committee (CSE) in firms obligatory since final January 1?
There are nonetheless many firms that haven’t carried out CSEs. We intervened with the federal government by asking it to postpone this date and by extending the mandates of present works councils to keep away from being in a state of affairs of lack of collective illustration of staff in firms, however we didn’t achieve trigger. I believe that the share of the economic system managed by collective bargaining on the stage of the enterprise, on the inter-professional stage or on the stage of the branches, is a crucial issue of democracy.
Is social democracy in danger right now?
The federal government is so satisfied of its financial and social coverage that it can’t hear what may be mentioned to it. We have now many proposals on the pension file. I believe it will not be illegitimate for the federal government to listen to what we’re saying.
Do you suppose that the autumn in unemployment will proceed as Emmanuel Macron promised?
Financial exercise creates jobs, and subsequently bends the unemployment curve. Nevertheless, we should query the character of the roles created. The query of job high quality, wages and job insecurity is a significant one. There are additionally vital coaching points. Many roles are usually not stuffed. I remorse that the federal government, throughout the framework of what it has arrange on vocational coaching, has seen match to not repeat what the social companions had proposed.
Do you’re feeling that the unions stay very divided over the reforms carried out by the federal government?
On the difficulty of pensions, two organizations have expressed their settlement on retirement by level and all of the others are opposed. I remorse that sure commerce union organizations quit on the flexibility to barter on the inter-professional stage this share of redistribution of wealth created by the economic system. On unemployment insurance coverage, all unions have famous the severity of the federal government on this space. I had proposed that every one the organizations agree on a joint response, and sadly this was not attainable.