The consequences of the pension reform are beginning to appear, a few days after its validation by the Constitutional Council and its promulgation by Emmanuel Macron. While the French are ulcerated by this situation and the decisions taken by the executive, some employees are already seeing their effects on their future retirement. Indeed, as reported by France Bleu on April 26, employees born after 1961, the first generation concerned by the reform, have the need to resume a professional activity to avoid losing part of their pension. Decryption.

Early retirement is a system that offers the employee, under certain conditions, the opportunity to cease all professional activity before the legal retirement age. If the employee continues to receive his salary, however, this process should not be confused with phased retirement. Two main early retirement schemes have been put in place, in particular early retirement for hardship, which concerns people who have been exposed to asbestos, who are disabled or incapacitated. The performance of heavy work during a professional career also gives rise to this right.

Another early retirement scheme exists in parallel through the company where the employee works. This is managed by the employer, as part of a job protection plan (PSE). It should be noted that early retirement can be decided on the initiative of the employee or the employer. With the recent adoption of the pension reform, this early retirement system could indeed undergo changes and force a certain generation of employees to continue their work instead of leaving their professional activity.

The pension reform will, in fact, have consequences on the early retirement of certain employees. Recently, in the Drôme, employees of Orano, born after 1961, that is to say the first generation concerned by the pension reform, learned that, to receive a full pension, they were obliged to resume an activity. work or to accept a reduction in pension each month.

Just before the validation of the pension reform by the Constitutional Council, it was a registered letter which warned them that their legislative text added two quarters to the counter. The company then offered them different solutions, namely losing part of their salary each month, resuming a professional activity or choosing unpaid leave.

In this difficult context, the employees protested against this decision. A former employee thus claimed that he could no longer sell his house and raged against a “disgusting” situation, where “the rule was 42 years [and], after 41 and a half years, we exchange”.

The unions have not failed to firmly denounce this process and in particular to castigate the lack of clarity at a key moment when certain implementing decrees are essential to consult. Alain Pecherand, delegate of the Tricastin site, also specified that “if you call CARSAT today, no one can tell you how many additional quarters you will have to do”. A situation which should be clarified with decrees planned for the current of the spring.