The announcement at the beginning of the week of the postponement to January 10 of the announcements on the pension reform should it be understood as an outstretched hand to the unions?
Francois Hommeril A lot of things have to be judged tactically. Two interpretations are possible. It may be a strategy that consists of saying: “We don’t master communication enough, the front is too united and we have to give ourselves time.” Another reason that popped into my head is that the president didn’t want to spoil the FIFA World Cup celebration with unpopular announcements! The only thing that is certain in this decision is that the arguments put forward are totally bogus. The idea that we have to give ourselves more time because there is a new boss at LR and a new national secretary at EELV is totally false. It does not mean anything. As always with Emmanuel Macron, it is necessary to analyze the missed acts. This way of giving a bogus explanation for not giving the real one reveals a lot about his way of governing.
How have the consultation cycles on pensions gone so far?
I am going to answer you by making a historical review and by taking a quick look at the cycles of consultation on work orders, professional training, the various pension and unemployment insurance reforms since 2017. They have never produced anything. . Each time, the project was already tied up in advance and each time, it passed without any modification. In reality, these consultations serve above all to amuse the gallery. What will change this time around? Nothing ! We had meetings at the Ministry of Labour. We go there each time with a technical working document, corresponding to the theme. We present our conclusions and then we leave. And none of that changes anything fundamentally.
On the hardship or the employment of seniors, you have not been heard ?
Have you heard of a major measure on the employment of seniors included in a bill from next January? Me no. On the other hand, I have heard of an amending Social Security finance bill for the start of the year in which there will be an age measurement. Where is the great consensual law in which we would have integrated trade union counterparts? There are not any. Words have supplanted deeds, evidence, documented arguments. Everything is in the discourse and the tactical maneuver to bring the country into a form of counter-reform, of deconstruction of the social model.
You talk about arguments and facts. Numerous reports, and in particular those of the Pensions Orientation Council, point to the persistence of significant deficits in the medium term. Hard to argue, right?
Of course yes. I dispute them. I am not afraid to face the necessary transparency on the subject. Let’s talk numbers since you’re going on this topic. Long-term projections are based on assumptions that are often highly questionable. I will give you two examples. The first is life expectancy. The Ministry has assumed that life expectancy over the next twenty years will follow the evolution that we experienced between 2015 and 2019. It is decisive. Life expectancy at age 65 has not changed since 2014. This is a real subject of controversy. Second example: the government foresees a fairly consensual evolution of long-term productivity but assumes that wages will not evolve in proportion, which has consequences on contribution receipts and therefore the financial equilibrium at the end of the chain. In fact, there are plenty of ambiguous indicators. Any items that are controversial are not discussed.
Would you say that parity is in a form of coma?
He is stricken and that is nothing new. But there is an acceleration of this deterioration under the candidate Macron which is illustrated by a sentence that the president pronounced: “The unions are in the company.” Admittedly, the social partners still have a few assets. But wherever the state expelled them, it turned the organizations into a debt-creating machine. Look at France skills! Contrary to what you might think, the track record of the social partners in their management and in their ability to commit to ensuring that the schemes remain robust and balanced is very good. The example of unemployment insurance is perfect for this. If we look at the evolution of the contributions received versus the allowances paid, the plan has always been in surplus. But when the State made the merger between the Assedic and the ANPE and created Pôle emploi, it imposed on the unemployment insurance financing obligations which were not indemnities. The current unemployment insurance debt is created by the state! The joint situation is very precarious and the house is dilapidated.