Article 47-1 of the Constitution, grandfather clause… The examination of the pension reform is accompanied by a technical vocabulary, often obscure for the layman. After days of debate, do you know that a quarter of retirement has nothing to do with a quarter of the calendar? That the “grandfather clause” has its roots in brandy? That a joint committee is not always “conclusive”? However, these terms are of major importance, both in terms of the content and the legislative course of the text. L’Express offers you a small (non-exhaustive) glossary of the text expected on March 2 in the Senate. To your notebooks.
Quarters
It is not just the decline in the legal retirement age that is causing the unions to jump. The increase in the duration of contributions and therefore the number of “quarters” necessary to benefit from a full pension is also stirring debate. If the pension reform is adopted, it will be necessary to have contributed 43 annuities, or 172 quarters, from 2027, to benefit from a pension at the full rate, and no longer in 2037.
Except that in terms of retirement, a famous quarter does not have the same meaning as in the calendar. It is not the number of hours worked that makes it possible to validate a quarter but the amount of income received over a given period: you must receive in the year a salary subject to contributions representing 150 times the amount of the gross hourly minimum wage. Clearly, in 2023, it will be necessary to have earned in the year at least 1,690.50 euros to validate 1 quarter. Thus, the higher the remuneration, the faster the validation of the quarters. However, even with stratospheric remuneration, it is not possible to validate more than four terms per year. Phew…
grandfather clause
This is a campaign promise from candidate Macron: to put an end to special regimes, in particular those of the SNCF, the RATP and the electricity and gas industries (EDF, Engie). To pass the pill to the employees concerned, the government proposes that only new hires switch to the general system. Current employees will continue to benefit from more advantageous departure conditions. A system called “grandfather clause” in reference to the system set up in 1960 for distillers whose privilege – to distil eau-de-vie without paying tax – was no longer transferable in the ‘legacy.
Long careers
For the unions, the current text of the pension reform is unfair: by imposing both a minimum contribution period of 43 annuities and a legal retirement age of 64, the big bang Macron penalizes those who have started to work early since some would find themselves working forty-four or even forty-five years…The very people who often occupy the most difficult jobs in construction or restoration. Hence the adjustments concerning so-called long careers.
Except that the imagination of the architects of the reform is limitless. After many adjustments, they gave birth to a text of frightening complexity. One example among others: those who started working before the age of 14 will actually be able to leave at age 58 with 44 years of contributions. But those who started a year later (that is to say before the age of 15) can also leave from the age of 58, but they will only have contributed at the age of 43. For what ? Mystery and gumdrop…
Section 7
The text defended by the government comprises 20 articles. But it is its article 7 that focuses all the attention: it provides for the postponement of the legal retirement age from 62 to 64 years. This totem caused a strategic fracture within the Nupes. Should the examination of the first six articles be accelerated or not in order to arrive more quickly at the seventh? The rebels have practiced parliamentary obstruction in the National Assembly so that this article is not put to the vote. They feared that its adoption would affect social mobilization. Socialists and ecologists want this democratic confrontation. During the first visit to the Palais Bourbon, the first won.
Article 47-1 of the Constitution
The reform is being implemented through a social security amending financing bill (PLFRSS). Under article 47-1 of the Constitution, the debates are constrained in time: each assembly has a deadline to examine the project, before handing over. The executive is doing a double blow here. 1) It guards against filibuster. LFI tabled thousands of amendments, but the text went to the Senate before the end of their examination. 2) The PLFRSS is a budgetary text. The government is entitled to unlimited use of section 49.3 on these texts, whereas it can only use it once per ordinary session for other laws. The executive can therefore use this weapon without grilling his joker. Useful, in these times of relative majority.
Parliamentary shuttle
Our Constitution instituted bicameralism. Legislative power is exercised by the National Assembly and the Senate. The parliamentary shuttle is the successive examination of a text by the two chambers with a view to its adoption in the same terms. This objective is set out in Article 45.1 of the Constitution. The agreement between the two chambers can be “spontaneous” or after the intervention of a joint committee (CMP). This two-player game has limits. There is a pre-eminence of the National Assembly, elected by direct universal suffrage, over the Senate. In case of disagreement, she has the last word. Notable exception: the constitutional revisions, which grant the Assembly and the Senate the same powers.
The joint committee
In the event of disagreement between the two chambers, likely on the pension reform (the Senate is in favor of it but wants to make some changes), a conciliation procedure opens. A mixed parity commission (CMP) meets. This body has seven deputies and seven senators, which reflect the political composition of the chambers. These parliamentarians are responsible for drafting a common text. A vote is then organised. If a majority emerges on an essay, the CMP is “conclusive”. This hypothesis is highly probable on the pension file, given the convergences between the majority and the senatorial right. In this case, the text resulting from the CMP will be submitted to the vote of the two assemblies. Please note: no amendment will then be admissible “except with the agreement of the government”.