A Dyke A Broad #112 The French Retirement Fight
The real scandals in the French battle over retirement reform--liar, liar, pants-on-fire unions, plus sex-based inequalities in which women receive 40% less benefits than men.
Hello from Paris, which will possibly come to a grinding halt this Thursday, January 19, thanks to protesters trying to thwart proposed reforms to the retirement system. Most hated change? Pushing the retirement age from 62 to 64, a move that at least one poll shows is “opposed by four in every five citizens.” Odoxa poll.
They might be right to protest. But maybe not.
Most protesters are egged on by the extreme left which cherry picks statistics declaring, for instance, that 64 is far too late to retire when a quarter of French people die by 62.
If that were true, of course, this change would be an awful idea. But it’s not. In fact, life expectancy in France generally is about 83 years. (Compared to 79 in the U.S.)
The dire “dead by 62” figure comes from a tiny slice of the population who have bigger problems than retirement age.
Who are they? Poor males (mostly of color) who work difficult, crap-paying, un-unionized jobs likely to lead to “accidents, illnesses, exposure to toxic products.” When problems arise, their modest budget (why not say poverty?), means even small co-pays and time off from work are daunting, and they rarely see the doctor when it might still do some good. They’re also much more likely to smoke.
These men actually benefit from the reform, at least a little, which, according to Le Monde’s “France's controversial pension reform, in detail” promises that “employees who have suffered an accident at work or an occupational disease will be able to retire two years earlier than the legal age, at least under certain conditions.”
I didn’t know that until I found the article. Sometimes I suspect none of the talking heads on TV have actually read the proposal, or even a summary. France’s eight main trade unions are united in firm opposition to every element of it, and are widely mobilizing, declaring how they speak for the masses when they count a scant 11% of the population as members. (Even the U.S. is better at 12%; Belgium’s unionization rate is quadruple that at nearly 50%. And Iceland, well, in Iceland, where people are among the most disgustingly happy in the world, it’s no surprise to find they’re unionized at over 90%).
It’s in their interest, presenting themselves as heroes, defenders. All their shouting obscuring the dirty French secret that because almost 90% of people are non-unionized, retirement ages are irrelevant to almost everyone except union workers.
A recent interview with le Monde, Pension reform: The French system 'amplifies inequalities', Sciences Po researcher Bruno Palier explains that:
In the private sector, it is employers who decide whether or not to hire older workers, keep them, get rid of them or train those aged 45 and beyond... It is not for the employee to decide whether to invest in the improvement of working conditions. In fact, it is the policies regarding human resources, training and working conditions decided by the companies which determine the effective retirement age for a large part.
As a result, only ⅓ of the French population over 60 is employed.
This means that 66% of French people are not even getting to the magic number of 62. Forget 64. So…? Why protest at all? And just who’s benefiting from the current retirement rules? The usual suspects, according to the researcher. Especially average or highly qualified male workers (like union stalwarts) who manage to work 9-5 their whole careers, no time off for injuries or childbearing or sick kids.
Women, meanwhile, who pay less into the system, have interrupted careers, earn fewer points, end up totally screwed. Palier reports:
Women's direct pensions, i.e. what their contributions entitle them to, are almost 40% lower than men's while the wage gap is between 17 and 20%. The difference doubles after retirement. As soon as someone is not in the typical career norm, generally, that of a rather qualified man who has always worked full time, the system multiplies inequalities.
Yikes.
If France cared about inequalities, they’d be fighting to address the sex-gap, not quibbling over retirement ages.
The new plan is a mixed bag for women. It increases
the minimum pension for low-income workers who have a full career to 85% of the net minimum wage, i.e. nearly €1,200 at present. A measure extended to current pensioners. "Nearly two million small pensions will be increased," said [PM] Elisabeth Borne.
On the other hand,
the minimum retirement age applies to people who have worked enough years to qualify. Those who do not fulfill the conditions, like many women who interrupt their careers to raise their children and people who did long studies and started their careers late, must work until 67 to retire without penalty.
Which, for the record, includes me. Who will never have enough points for anything. And hope there will still be a minimum retirement when I finally qualify for it.
That’s it for this time.
Dis and gruntledly yours,
xoxo K