This Tuesday, January 31, nearly 500,000 people marched in the street against the pension reform, according to figures from trade unionists. The parallel interprofessional strike also paralyzed many sectors. The day before, on Monday January 30, the text of the reform made its entry into the Social Affairs Committee of the National Assembly, as reported by BFMTV. MPs have until Wednesday evening, February 1, to discuss the countless amendments tabled.

The work is daunting and it is already certain that not all the amendments will be put to the vote, or even debate: there are nearly 7,000 tabled, including about 6,000 by the New Union Popular, Ecological and Social. From next Monday, the text will continue on its way to be this time discussed by all parliamentarians in the hemicycle.

In the meantime, the anger of the French people rallied behind the trade union banner will most likely continue to rumble in the streets. Following the strike of January 31, new mobilization measures have already been announced by the trade unions. Indeed, Tuesday February 7 and Saturday February 11 will again see an interprofessional strike movement.

While the Opinion expresses its disagreement with the famous text, it undergoes timid changes in the form of a few adopted amendments. At the start of the week, the senior index was on the program.

At present, the discussions on this famous index are almost finalized.

The seniors index consists of obliging companies to declare the number of seniors they employ. This obligation will apply from 2023 for companies with more than 1,000 employees and from 2024 for those employing more than 300 people, as reported by 20 minutes.

Sanctions are provided for in the event of non-publication, but no constraint regarding the rate of senior employees or their number has been put on the carpet. However, it is not for lack of trying: in the end, the text was only slightly modified, but several opposition amendments aimed to make this article more coercive.

Indeed, many deputies deplore the uselessness of the form taken by this measure, which is largely insufficient in the eyes of some.

Indeed, NUPES MP Sébastien Peytavie described this measure as an “empty shell”, an opinion which seems representative of that of most members of the opposition. Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne justifies the merits of this article by the fact that it would “promote good practices and denounce bad ones”.

An approach that is above all symbolic therefore, given the fact that the percentage of the employment rate of seniors in a company cannot be truly representative of whether or not seniors are discriminated against in the said company. Indeed, everything depends in particular on the number of senior applications received and the way in which they are processed.