/2025/06/23/ferracci-2-685987ea03603970925509.jpg)
Unions and employers were gathered on Monday, June 23 in a room of the Ministry of Labor, avenue de Ségur in Paris on Monday, June 23, with regard to the conclusive meeting on pensions. Are they going to reach an agreement or not on what points? Pierre Ferracci, founding president of the Alpha group, a Consulting and social relations office attempts to answer this question.
Franceinfo: Earlier, the number of employers’ numbers, Patrick Martin for Medef and Amir Reza-Tofighi for the CPME, staged their rapprochement in front of their journalists with new text and common proposals. What has deeply annoyed the CFDT, is this the usual game of social dialogue or is the CFDT right to get angry?
Stone : I thought we got out of it, I think the CFDT is right. To simply discuss from a employers’ base, it is all the more surprising that there is a mediator in this operation, in this conclave. So I find it a little bit annoying. So, the CPME MEDEF rapprochement, we saw it coming with the very rigid position of the MEDEF. But it is true that the method is very astonishing and we could have done without it.
The union camp has made major concessions, starting with the principal on the legal retirement age, 64, who does not move. Is that still proof on the union side of a desire to negotiate and achieve an agreement?
In any case of those around the table. Since CGT and Force Ouvrière have left the conclave, with the U2P, moreover, for a few weeks, even for a few months. Those who are there want to conclude an agreement. I hope there will be one because it will at least have the merit of moving a few lines.
“It is not the debate without totem and without taboos that the Prime Minister wanted since he himself arbitrated immediately by saying that the 64 years, it was not necessary to touch it.”
Stoneon franceinfo
And by also giving a strict framework: financial balance, by 2030, which is still complicated too?
Suddenly, it caused the start of the three organizations I mentioned. But it would be good that there is an agreement, I think, for the government as for the social partners. For the social partners, vis-à-vis the government, to show their autonomy and their ability to find a crossing route, even if it is not a systemic reform. But you cannot make a systemic reform in three or four months. The President of the Republic, with his Prime Minister at the time, missed the first walk with his points system that has never seen the light of day. So asking the unions for the impossible, we can see that the result could not be anything other than that. If we could move forward on the question of women, on the question of arduousness and on a claim carried out by the CFTC but supported by the other two, namely the passage from 67 to 66 years …
We will come back to detail …. Let’s start with arduousness: reintegration of three criteria that are vibrations, heavy loads and painful postures. What should the reinstatement of these criteria be used for?
First, it should be noted that these criteria, there were four, moreover, were withdrawn at the time of the government orders, which was a very bad thing. Unions today are right. Why are they right? Because the work offered by employers, that is to say to avoid departures because we work on the question of working conditions, precisely, you have to do it well upstream. I always remind you that in Finland, before shifting the retirement age, the social partners worked precisely on the living environment of seniors, those who are affected by painful trades or which are affected by the disease. So it’s a long -term job. At the last moment like that, it is true that the unions can consider that it is not credible and it is better to give the chance to those who make these painful professions to leave a little earlier.
4 million people may be affected according to the CFDT.
Perhaps in a second step, if we work upstream on prevention, the question of seeing them continue their activity with retraining on less painful professions or by lightening the arduousness of their profession, would be credible. Today, I think it is not. And the three unions are right to pose the problems in these terms.
Regarding the discount, today, if you don’t have all its quarters, you have to wait 67 before leaving with a full -rate retirement pension. The CFTC wants to advance this age of six months or a year. We will see if they find a consensus. Is it a good idea ?
It is clear that unions are trying to attack by different channels a subject of the same type which concerns women or painful trades, chopped careers. Yes, that would be a little gesture to do. I think that employers will no doubt offer to go to 66 and a half years so as not to fully accept the claim of the CFTC. But going in this direction, it costs a little expensive. But, for me, this is the essential problem, there are areas for improving the productivity of the system that are not addressed today. I think it would take another conclave, or at least another meeting of the social partners, to deal with a key question for me, which is that of productivity that has been weakening in France for a few years for two essential reasons. The rise in skills with new strategic changes, environmental transitions, AI that is coming, training is not sufficient and investment in the search for business development, the public and the private sector is not sufficient and especially in the private sector to go in the direction of improving productivity without intensifying the work of employees who are in office.
The unions are right to hang on to these two points: the arduousness and advance the age of the discount. Must the employers have to give up on these two points?
He must move on these two points and ask the unions, in companies, in branches, in the sectors and even at the interprofessional level, to reflect on this way of creating wealth other than by eternally asking the question of the cost of labor, without asking this question of productivity which should bring together the different partners.
From the moment this conclave does not lead to the repeal of the pension reform, the rebellious said that they would deposit a motion of censorship. We know that the political future of François Bayrou is linked to the success or not of this conclave. Is it a poisoned gift for the social partners or is it ultimately a golden opportunity ?
Quite frankly, I do not think that the question of dissolution arises until the end of this conclave, whether it ends with an agreement or without an agreement. There will be other opportunities to endanger it.
But, concerning the conclusion of an agreement?
No, I think it will not be played on it.
“I believe that if the Prime Minister’s goal is simply to save time, it is a bad choice for the future and it is a way that the social partners will not appreciate. We have the impression that the dice were piped from the start.”
Stoneon franceinfo
I want there to be an agreement, not necessarily to save the government. There are other issues that concern him today than this conclave. And anyway it will be a relatively modest agreement. But there will be other questions that will ask the government. I believe that the real question that arises today is not to drag until 2027 by not making reforms, by not arguing. The country is facing major economic challenges. The international situation has not been brilliant for a few days in particular. So this question for me of the creation of wealth and productivity is essential to, including, solve the problem of the financing of term pensions.
Do you agree with the CFDT when she says that the responsibility is in the employers’ camp today, concerning this conclave on pensions?
I think that the rigidity of the MEDEF is a bit surprising and that the CPME has shown a little more opening in the very last period.
