Thursday March 16, 2023 marked a day full of doubts and revolts. Indeed, after the agreement found in the mixed joint committee on Wednesday by ten elected officials out of the fourteen present, all the French were awaiting the verdict of the Senate and the Assembly.
After a favorable vote by the Senate, President Emmanuel Macron summoned the elected representatives of his group concerned by the reform. A surprise Council of Ministers ensued. A few minutes later, Elisabeth Borne took her place in the Hemicycle to announce the use of a 49.3, motivated by the fear of not obtaining a majority. This declaration provoked an untold anger from elected officials opposing the reform. The following hour, a demonstration was improvised on Place de la Concorde, in Paris, in protest under the initiative of the Solidaires union. According to figures from the Ministry of the Interior, nearly 10,000 people were gathered yesterday.
If the elected officials are already talking about a motion of censure, and the unions are planning future demonstrations, the magazine Capital is beginning to decipher certain subjects that have been the subject of debate in this reform.
If one of the government’s flagship measures concerned the postponement of the retirement age from 62 to 64, it is far from the only one to be debated. Indeed, discussed in a joint committee on Wednesday, the question of 43 years of contribution for long careers seems to be more complex than it seems.
Adeline Lorence, retirement and dependency journalist, returned to this device. What is this text about? Previously, it was a question of allowing workers who started their career before the age of 20 to be able to retire before the legal age set at 62. The only condition would be to be able to justify a minimum duration of insurance. Before this reform, nearly 150,000 people could benefit from it each year. Is this still the case ?
As our colleague from Capital reminds us, at the end of the joint joint commission, several elected officials from the Les Républicains party came out satisfied with this meeting behind closed doors. For good reason, they ensured that all beneficiaries of early retirement for a long career will not have to contribute more than 43 years. But, according to the information collected by Adeline Lorence, this is not quite fair.
Indeed, in his interview with Claude Wagner, retired member of the CFDT, not everyone can be included in this system. He explains that “if 43 years of contribution are required to leave for a long career, in fact, some assets will have to go beyond”.
But why ? In fact, it all depends on your date of birth and the age at which you started working. Thus, it depends on the number of quarters validated before the age limits that have been determined. As you will have understood, this situation entails a case-by-case examination.
Two examples are highlighted by the magazine. We find an employee who contributed 5 quarters before his 18th birthday. In this case, he is eligible for retirement at age 60. Moreover, according to the calculation of the quarters, if the latter has completed a full career, he will have contributed one quarter more than the necessary duration. However, he will still not be able to leave at 59. This is where your birth month comes into consideration.
Indeed, if you were born between January and September, it is necessary to have contributed 5 quarters before the age of 14, 16, 18, 20 or 21 to be able to obtain an early departure. If you were born between October and December, you must have validated 4 trimesters before these ages. But, concretely, what does that mean?
If we take our example, being born in November, he could have left after 43 years of contributions exactly. This situation is possible by the decision taken by the government. Initially, it would have taken one more year after age 60. The person born in November would therefore have left at 61 years old. With the discussions of the mixed parity commission, he can leave at 60 years old.
The way in which the duration of insurance is counted (by quarters) also weighs in the balance. Again, this is a case-by-case situation.
In addition, Claude Wagner specifies that “one thing is certain: if you started working between the ages of 20 and 21, you will not need to contribute more than 43 years old. The later you start, the better off you will be” .
