A "rapid compromise" had launched, during his vows of December 31, Emmanuel Macron to Edouard Philippe and his government. Two words as a challenge by which the Head of State reaffirmed his will to carry out the pension reform.
Six days later, there is now an emergency! The week that opens promises, in fact, as that of all possibilities but also that of all dangers. Between the radical unions, CGT, FO and South at the head which continue to demand the withdrawal of the project of the government and the reforming organizations like Unsa and especially the CFDT, which reject the idea of a pivotal age, the margin of executive maneuver remains very narrow. How to concede without yielding and ensure that there is no loser in the negotiation?
This is what Richard Ferrand, the President of the National Assembly, who after a reservation of several weeks, has decided to reveal in our columns the tracks which, according to him, would allow to get out of this historic conflict. The key for this very close to Emmanuel Macron, would be to make that the discount provided before the pivotal age of 64 is no longer final but temporary. Like the Agirc-Arrco rules, supplementary pension plans managed by the social partners themselves ...
Richard Ferrand is one of the first grognards of macronie. He is also one of the elected officials most listened to by the President of the Republic. If Edouard Philippe has never renounced his Juppeist roots, Ferrand himself still claims his socialist culture. Aware of the absolute necessity to reconnect with the CFDT, the president of the national assembly hopes with his proposal to erase what has always been a "red line" for Laurent Berger, the leader cedetist.
As a decisive week begins, do you think it is still possible to get out of this crisis?
RICHARD FERRAND. It is right to keep and observe how the proposed reform is right. It corrects real inequalities against which we should have mobilized a long time ago. I am thinking of women, the unemployed, chopped careers, the revaluation of the minimum pension, farmers, artisans and the self-employed. I find it harmful for our democracy, our social democracy, certain remarks and attitudes of trade unionists as of politicians, which contribute to hysterize the debate. We are not in a trench war. Using a warrior vocabulary, as some trade union organizations do, is totally outrageous and irrelevant. We are not there to wage war, but to create justice. The challenge now is to find a compromise. Let the social partners who want to find a compromise say so clearly. The government and these trade union organizations must reconcile their positions in order to succeed, in mutual understanding, without prerequisites or red lines.
Political Newsletter
Every day, political news seen by Le ParisienI'm registering
Your email address is collected by Le Parisien to allow you to receive our news and commercial offers. Find out more
Do you have any thoughts that could lead to this compromise?
Only the Prime Minister, with the government, is responsible for leading the negotiations. But look at the system of supplementary pensions, that of Agirc-Arrco that everyone knows. It is nothing more than a points system with a pivotal age and a discount, which is stronger than that proposed by the government since it is 10%. But a discount of 3 years, so temporary! Consequently, since the social partners already manage such a system, it is undoubtedly a source of inspiration for setting up a general points scheme with pivot or equilibrium age. The will of the government on the one hand, the know-how and experience of the social partners on the other hand, should make it possible to find points of convergence. It is up to the negotiators to find ways of bringing them together by leaving the postures. With a little good faith, this does not seem insurmountable to me.
Could this compromise allow the executive and the social partners to emerge from the conflict without losing face?
Either way, a good negotiation is a negotiation where there is no loser. A good negotiation today would be one where the political will reaffirmed by the President of the Republic (he made a fundamental commitment to the country) would be embodied in a robust agreement made between the government and those who want it.
Isn't there also to be done in the negotiation of progress in the field of arduousness?
This is a very important issue and, moreover, the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that he intends to take this dimension into account. It is an element of justice which has a direct link with mortality, that is to say life expectancy after professional career. This element must be a central lever in the negotiations which must allow progress in the different professional branches to gradually converge the different situations. These negotiations, and this is a very good thing, will mechanically induce other broader reflections, in particular on working conditions and specifically on the prevention of professional risks and the quality of working life. The arduousness should not only be an element to take into account for retirement but its reduction should be an objective during the activity.
Christian Jacob, the boss of the Republicans believes that in view of the proliferation of specificities announced by the government, the special regimes will remain special…
It's militant reading. The Republicans' only proposal is to do what they are used to doing, that is, to increase the legal age, and in this case to increase it from 62 to 64 or 65 years. I do not think this proposal has the support of those who demonstrate today. I believe the government's proposal to be fairer and far more ambitious. Then, recognizing the arduousness of certain trades, I do not see how this would create, as Christian Jacob suggests, special regimes. The universality of rights should not be confused with the uniformity of situations.
On the left, Ségolène Royal considers that the French have not been respected ...
I do not comment on the statements of an acting ambassador.
Do you not think that the government could have avoided such a long conflict?
I think a lot has been put on the table. But some immediately took radicalized positions, in opposition, without discussion. Unions said right away, "Never point retirement!" ". Political organizations have spoken of a "declaration of war" after the intervention of the head of state. I repeat, these are perfectly excessive bellicose postures which have no place to be. Others are fortunately open to dialogue. The general interest, the interest of workers and young generations, is the result of an agreement.
