WORLD WORLDWIDE FRANCE News Journal Update - (en) France, OCL, CA #328: Pension reform: "concrete progress" for women (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

 On January 23, 2023, the High Council for Equality presented its annual report on

sexism in France, it was rather damning concerning the inequalities, prejudices
and violence suffered by women. In this context, we will not be surprised to
learn that with the pension bill, women "are somewhat penalized" (1). ---- Women
already harmed without the reform ---- According to the study available on the
INSEE website (2), if the activity rate of women continues to progress, their
remuneration remains on average 22% lower than that of men. The study attributes
almost 1/3 of this wage gap to the difference in working hours. There are indeed
3 times more women than men working part-time. For the rest, at an equivalent
level of qualification, the jobs they exercise, in care or social work in
particular, are often less well paid. Limited career development, interruption of
work when a child arrives, inequalities accumulate and, upon retirement, the
consequences are clear: women's pensions remain much lower than those of men.
According to the 2022 panorama of the DREES (3), the differential between the
direct pensions of women and men is currently around 40%. Women represent a
significant proportion of poor pensioners and for many if they avoid poverty it
is because they depend on their spouse's pension or his survivor's pension once
he or she dies. Thus, the pension gap between women and men ends up being
attenuated by the components of secondary law and is "only" 28%.

Remember that in the method of calculating retirement, it is the best 25 years
that are taken into account, it is often interesting for less well paid women to
continue working at the end of their career. Similarly, it is not enough to have
reached the starting age, but you must have all your semesters contributed, which
is not necessarily the case for women whose careers are often choppy. Thus, women
are already currently forced to continue working for an average of 7 months
longer than men before liquidating their rights(4). Despite this, today, more
women than men leave without having completed all their trimesters, with an
incomplete career (5).

With the reform, women will have to make more efforts
If everyone will have to work longer than currently with the reform, the
extension of working time is heavier for women. For one of the most disadvantaged
generations, that born in 1972, women will work on average 9 months longer with
the reform compared to 5 months longer for men. This is explained by the choppy
careers of women. With the increase in the necessary annuities, the discount will
be more marked for women. To have a decent income, more and more of them will
have to leave later, well after the age of 64, probably at the fateful 67 years
of cancellation of the discount (which in its great leniency the government did
not raise) . And beware, for those who will not obtain all the precious quarters
at age 67, this will mean reduced full-rate pensions because the proration
coefficient takes into account the ratio of the number of quarters validated to
that of quarters required.

Limoges a group of rosies © Marie-Julie Achard
When you work for Macron, there is always a way to present things in a positive
way: since we will force women to work longer, the increase in their pensions
will be greater than for men and the pension gap between men and women will
shrink! Supporting evidence presented by the cantor of parity, Olivier Dussopt,
Minister of Labour, according to the impact study, for the 1971 generation "The
average pension for women will be increased by 2.2% while that of men will be
0.9% by 2030". No one is fooled by the sums that this represents or by the
non-compensation of current disparities. Same for the 1200€, supposedly,
distributed at all costs. The majority of women will not have access to it since
these €1,200 gross only concern a full, full-time career paid at minimum wage,
which is absolutely not the case for the majority of women who are about to retire. .

For happy moms

The reform will cause many women who have had or adopted children to lose the
bonus of duration used to compensate for motherhood and the education of
children. This increase (up to 8 quarters of contributions per child in the
private sector and 4 in the public sector (7)), will continue to exist. But as it
will be combined with the postponement of the minimum legal age to 64, it will no
longer benefit women who managed to leave at 62. It is estimated that more than
120,000 mothers leave each year at the full rate at the age of 62, with the
reform, they would all be forced to wait for the legal minimum age of 64.
As for the taking into account of the 4 additional quarters of parental leave
thanks to the reform, it is like for the 1200€, almost no one will benefit from
it. This will only apply in the long career system, therefore for women who start
working before the age of 20 and subject to means, i.e. to around 3,000 people
per year according to the government's own impact study... figure to relate to
the 340,000 women who retire each year...

And the hardship?
As the minister said, everyone will have to make an effort: early departures for
hardship will also be postponed from 60 to 62 years old. Since the establishment
of the professional prevention account (C2P), the hardship criteria have been
reviewed: 4 of them have been excluded and the exposure thresholds raised. Thus
in the private sector, the number of people who can benefit from it is
drastically reduced (a few thousand employees per year) and in the feminized
professions the thresholds of hardship are not reached (75% of eligible people
are men).
We are thinking of home helps, housekeepers, nursery staff, all professions in
the field of care and personal assistance, which are physically and emotionally
exhausting (lifting people, noise, facing to death...). Interviewed on France
Inter, François Ruffin, Insoumis deputy, quoted figures from the Ministry of
Labor: "in 1984, there were 12% of employees who suffered 3 physical
constraints[...]we have gone to 34% today.[...]40 years ago, it was 6% of
employees who had strong psychological constraints[...]we went to 35%. ". Always
more cadences, always more policing, the intensity of the work has only increased.
According to the CGT, nurses, who with the reform will not be able to leave
before the age of 64, have a life expectancy seven years lower than the average
for women and 20% of nurses and 30% of nursing auxiliaries leave at the end of
their lives. incapacity retirement. The same is true in the personal care sector,
it is one of the most accident-prone.
Thus, while supporters of pension reform often point out the longer life
expectancy and the fact that that of women is much higher than that of men, they
never present the state of health of the aging population. Currently, women are
in the majority among the recipients of minimum pensions; however, if the main
cause is their incomplete career, it should not be forgotten that in these minima
the proportion of people with incapacity or disability is very important.(6)

Solutions?
In the immediate term, the simple solution is on the one hand to fight against
inequalities between men and women and on the other hand to improve working
conditions in general and precarious workers in particular.
Indeed, access to studies, the distribution of household chores, the weight of
parenthood, discrimination in hiring, salary differences, the glass ceiling, all
these factors have an impact on the way in which women access to work. In 2011, a
study by the national old-age insurance fund (CNAV) showed that if equal pay for
men and women was achieved, the additional contributions would bring in 5.5
billion euros more.
For the second point, raising the arduousness of work would impact feminized
professions, making part-timers contribute on the basis of a full rate,
increasing the minimum wage and wages would also bring in additional
contributions to pension funds.

In the long term, we must continue to fight for an anti-capitalist and
anti-patriarchal social project. We must continue to try different experiences of
joint organization. Clearly, the current childcare or dependent care system is
failing. Why not set up self-managed nurseries or pool care for dependent people?
In the meantime, women are mobilizing, we have for example seen the return of the
Rosies and their choreography in demonstration. Let's continue and be numerous
and numerous on strike and in the streets on March 8 for International Women's
Rights Day!

ELSA

Box 47-1 and PLFRSS

Innovative, the Council of Ministers presents for the first time in the Fifth
Republic a pension reform, in the form of a PLFRSS, i.e. a Social Security
Amending Financing Bill. Intended to be used in an "emergency", the PLFRSS makes
it possible to use article 47-1 of the constitution in order to considerably
reduce the duration of debates in the 2 chambers of Parliament. Indeed, the
National Assembly has 20 days to study the text in committee, debate it and
proceed to the vote. If time is short and the vote does not take place, too bad,
the text is sent as is to the Senate. He then has 15 days to vote for it (which
he will no doubt do because mostly on the right, it is support for Macron's
projects). If we dawdled or not voted, it is up to a joint committee of deputies
and senators to propose a compromise to be validated in 15 days of shuttle. The
whole procedure cannot thus exceed 50 days, (which in our case brings us back to
March 26), after this period, the government can legislate by ordinance or apply
its usual 49-3.
For the Macronist government, there is nothing surprising about this flash
schedule, for a long time the parliament has only served as a recording chamber.
When he requires deputies to study 14 articles in about twenty days, for Dussopt,
it is more than enough, it even leaves him time to play crosswords!
Remember that this special procedure exists to allow the government to quickly
pass budgets, particularly following an unforeseen situation. The PLFSS should
normally have a financial impact on the current year. Here the government clearly
gives the impression of diverting the law to its advantage by claiming that there
is an urgency to know how to finance our pensions. Admittedly, there are expenses
to be incurred (pensions paid) and revenues to be collected (contributions
deducted, therefore income from work and capital) ... but the subject of the
pension reform is not only financial. It already contains other measures (senior
index, hardship, etc.) but especially when we talk about pensions, it is a real
social project, the impacts on employment and the world of work are obvious.
Laurent Fabius, current President of the Constitutional Council, suggests that
there are "social riders", "outside financial fields" who could be censored.
As to whether there is an urgent need to have this bill accepted before the end
of the year, all the impact studies (for example those of the Conseil
d'Orientation des Retraites) indicate that the system is "globally balanced and
that the effects of previous reforms have yet to be felt. The urgency is only on
the side of the government, which wishes to act and above all to act alone
without having to debate with the opposition. For Elisabeth Borne, customary for
49-3, curbing parliamentary debates is a habit, and with 47-1, she did not have
to fear obstruction, RN like NUPES having ended up withdrawing their 20,000
amendments, in order to be able to arrive, without success, at the vote within
the time allowed.
Risk of unconstitutionality or not, for us, overthrowing the government and
rejecting its reforms will not happen in Parliament anyway, but in and through
the streets!

Ratings

1. Franck Riester, Minister for Relations with Parliament on Public Senate
Monday, January 23
2. "Women and men, equality in question" 2022 edition produced with figures from
2019 and 2020.
3. Department of Research, Studies, Evaluation and Statistics available here:
drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr
4. DREES for the year 2020 starting at 62 for men, but 62 years and 7 months for
women.
5. For the 1950 generation, Public Senate gives figures of 32% for men versus 40%
for women.
6. For children born after 2010, these trimesters can be shared between the 2
parents.
7. For the generation of 1950, women represent 63% of minimum pension recipients.
And 33% of these beneficiaries (men and women) are incapacitated or disabled
(compared to 8% for those without a minimum).

http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article3621
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca