Perhaps this is a sign of a political class scalded by union resistance during pension reform, and the subject of special regimes seems to have faded in the course of the election debate.
→ RE-READ. Special diets, why so much stress?
True, Emmanuel Macron did not completely disarm, proposing “cancellation of certain special diets”. Referring to the RATP and the electricity and gas industry (in particular EDF), the presidential candidate indicates, however, that the possible cancellation will only affect new entrants, as is already the case in the case of the SNCF special regime: eventually the reform will therefore not bear fruit for several dozen years…
→ ANALYSIS. Presidential 2022: pensions, candidate programs under a magnifying glass
On the right, where the abolition of special regimes has long been carried like a banner, the discourse is more blurred this time around. If the republican program involves ” the end “, their candidate Valerie Pekress does not mention this in her project. Eric Zemmour, he explained at the LCI, wishing “movement towards alignment between private and public”not to mention the explicit removal.
“Special diets are off topic”
Some candidates who wanted to get into special diets in 2017 now seem less opinionated. This is the case of Jean Lassalle, who advocated their removal during the previous campaign but did not support the idea this year.
The same goes for Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, who announced in 2017 “small savings on some special diets”and this year is content with condemnation “bottomless complexity” French system with “more than 30 pension funds (basic and supplementary schemes combined), each with its own calculation rules (quarterly, by points), its own advantages”but without making any specific proposals.
On behalf of “impartiality”Marine Le Pen refuses to touch special diets. “Isn’t a special scheme for fishermen and sailors equal? Isn’t a special military regime justified? »she thus scored on the LKI, also defending the special regime for lawyers and refusing to “They beat the railway workers and civil servants”. “Special diets are off topic”she assures.
“The pension system needs a major overhaul”
On the left, where a significant part of the electorate benefits from these regimes, they are also out of the question. Against : “I’m all for a special diet”summarizes, for example, the Communist candidate Fabien Roussel.
→ FILE. Presidential 2022: compare candidate programs (immigration, education, family, etc.)
This silence on the left, however, confuses the reformist unions, who, like the CFDT or the CFTC, supported the idea of a universal pension scheme more capable, in their opinion, of correcting the inequalities of the system.
“We continue to believe that the pension system needs to be reviewed to make it more equitable, especially for those who work hard and should be able to leave early, for those who have interrupted their careers, for women whose pension is still 30 years. % lower than men’sCFDT general secretary Laurent Berger insisted on March 10 after listening to speeches by several candidates before union representatives.
“Totally versatile system”
Although Emmanuel Macron has postponed his major reform, however, he does not completely close the door to the evolution of the pension system. In addition to moving the retirement age, which he hopes to implement fairly quickly if he is elected, he is also considering subsequent reform.
From here “eight to ten years”he explained, presenting his program on March 17, can take shape, “while” as well as “by consultation”, “an absolutely universal system managed by social partners, which is self-regulating according to the Agirc-Arrco model”.
→ FIND the results of the 2022 presidential election as soon as they are officially released, municipality by municipality
This “simplified system” could, as he explained in December at TF1, be organized around “Three Great Regimes” (public service, private sector workers, self-employed), which allows “getting out of the so-called special diets”.
→ VIDEO. Presidential, they tell their campaign to endure violence (3/5)