Unions are advocating to lower the legal retirement age from 64, while employers are pushing for potential increases. As discussions on pension reform begin, ministers stress the need for fiscal stability. The controversial reform raised the age from 62 to 64, and future adjustments are being considered. The Court of Auditors warns of a concerning financial outlook, while unions and employer representatives express opposing views on the retirement age and funding for social protection.
Unions Demand Revisions to Retirement Age as Employers Advocate for Further Increases
The unions are pushing for concessions regarding the legal retirement age, while employers are advocating for an extension beyond the current threshold of 64 years. As negotiations commence this week to address the contentious pension reform of 2023, Labor and Foreign Trade ministers voiced their support for maintaining the retirement age at 64, emphasizing the importance of fiscal stability.
The controversial reform, initially enacted under pressure via Article 49.3 of the Constitution, raised the retirement age from 62 to 64 years. In mid-January, Prime Minister François Bayrou announced a plan to revisit this contentious legislation, declaring an intention to renegotiate without any restrictions.
For unions, the primary focus remains on reversing the retirement age to below 64. Conversely, employers are firmly opposed to any increase in their financial contributions to the pension system.
Minister for Foreign Trade, Laurent Saint-Martin, expressed concerns, stating, “If it is to further destabilize the pension system, it would be a grave mistake for our public finances and our debt refinancing.” He underscored the necessity for “brave fiscal decisions” that ensure the sustainability of the social protection system, emphasizing that reforms, particularly in pension insurance, should not regress.
Labor Minister Astrid Panosyan-Bouvet, during an appearance on franceinfo, supported the notion of “working longer.” When asked whether the legal retirement age should shift further than 64 years, she suggested examining all possible options, including adjustments to the age, contribution duration, and pension indexation relative to inflation. However, she acknowledged the need to address the realities of “difficult careers,” specifically jobs that are not viable for a full working life.
Should the Retirement Age Stay at 64 or Increase Further?
The Court of Auditors recently highlighted a “concerning” financial outlook, reviewing several strategies but refraining from endorsing a comprehensive reform or prioritizing specific choices in their assessment. This diagnosis will serve as a foundation for the unprecedented negotiations on pensions among social partners.
With the public deficit projected to reach 6.1% of the Gross Domestic Product in 2024—significantly exceeding the 3% threshold permitted by Brussels—the Foreign Trade Minister insists that “balancing a social protection model is fundamental” and believes that France should be capable of meeting this challenge.
On the employer side, Patrick Martin, president of Medef, stated in an interview with JDD that the retirement age should “at a minimum” remain at 64, or potentially “increase slightly.” He emphasized the necessity to “reinvent the funding” for social protection systems comprehensively.
In contrast, employee unions are focused on reversing the current retirement age. CGT leader Sophie Binet reiterated the union’s goal to “repeal this unjust and harsh reform,” which she claims could incur a cost of “10 billion euros,” a figure she deems entirely manageable.
CFDT leader Marylise Léon is advocating for “adjustments to the legal age,” the acknowledgment of challenging jobs, and enhancements to women’s rights.