[ad_1]
The pension reform announced by Emmanuel Macron for 2019 calls into question family rights, which mainly benefit women, such as survivors' pensions, but which the unions themselves sometimes dispute.
How much is a child? This is, in essence, the question asked to the social partners by Jean-Paul Delevoye. The High Commissioner for the Reform of Pensions receives from Friday unions and employers for a series of interviews on the theme of family rights.
The various benefits granted to pensioners having had at least one child accounted in 2012 for nearly 18 billion, probably no more than 20 billion currently, given the steady rise in so-called "old-age" expenses.
A large quarter of this amount is linked to the increase in the term of insurance ( MDA), which benefits almost all women, in the form of trimesters of contribution offered for the maternity and the education of the children.
In the future system wanted by the head of the State, this bonus will have to however, it should be calculated in points or in euros because "the increase of duration will not mean anything more, but one does not imagine that they suppress it", indicates Philippe Pihet, of Force ouvrière.
The reform will also be the occasi to put on an equal footing all the contributors, civil servants who only benefit from two quarters per child, to the employees of the private sector who receive eight.
An "incredible" disparity, judge Dominique Corona, of the Unsa, for whom "it would be in bad taste to align from below."
"The system must have a universal base", says Frédéric Sève, CFDT, which does not exclude that a company or a profession can "contribute more to provide a child-related bonus."
– "Times have changed" –
Unions, on the other hand, are much less attached to the markup for large families, which translates into a premium 10 per cent on the pensions of retired persons who have had 3 or more children.
This benefit, which accounts for nearly half of the total amount of family rights, is paid without discrimination to women and men, and without resources. In fact, this device "benefits men and the richest more", says Mr. Sève.
"At the time when it was created, it was a cheap birth rate policy", but "if l goal is to compensate for career loss for women, so it's not effective, "he says.
" Times have changed, families need help from the first child, "says Mr Corona, who calls for "a global policy" with a transfer to family allowances
"If we increase family benefits, we do not solve the problem of women's pensions, we will be in the same situation today "Hui", tempers Pascale Coton, CFTC
His organization, which will also "ask that the increase be given from the first child", prefers "to stay on a percentage at the time of retirement", explains she, recognizing that "if we give equal to men and women, we will not solve anything."
P for M. Sève (CFDT), if this increase were "calculated in points, it would have less effects than a percentage" on the inequalities between men and women.
The reform of family rights is also hampered by a constraint legal: French and European rights prevent in principle to reserve a privilege related to bad. This does not preclude technical adjustments.
Increases could be "fixed", says another connoisseur of the file, which considers that each child is entitled to an identical monthly bonus for all retirees, "with a share maternity for the mother and a share of education shared by both parents. "
" Like this, we fit within the framework of jurisprudence and we make redistribution for women ". Two birds with one stone
[ad_2]
Source link
