Pension reform: you are a woman, you have children and have never stopped working? Too bad for you
One million people are expected to demonstrate on Tuesday against the pension reform bill. The text, which creates new inequalities between the sexes, would in particular penalize working mothers, forced to work longer or to suffer a reduction in their pension. Decryption.
The reform project arouses all fears – and anger, provokes monstrous demonstrations and obliges the government to multiply the text explanations. Ministers and members of the majority repeat it over and over again: the pension reform aims not only to save the system from “bankruptcy”, but also to achieve greater equality, including for women, who will be better protected after the reform. The planned measures “do not widen the inequalities between women and men”, they “restore a certain number of things”, even declared the Minister of Labour, Employment and Integration Olivier Dussopt at the end of the council. ministers.
Read alsoPensions: forced to work longer, will senior women be able to find a job?
In video, 7 good reasons to leave home to telecommute
A later retirement age for women
Really ? It would seem that the rebalancing in question is taking place, at least in part, to the detriment of women – as confirmed by the official impact study of the reform, published this Monday, January 23, the day of the presentation of the bill in council. ministers. This study, the content of which was first revealed by The echoesreveals in particular that, if the reform is adopted as it stands, with a postponement of the legal retirement age from 62 to 64, women will retire on average seven months later than today, compared to five months for men.
Read alsoMe too, I wanted to throw in the towel… don’t you?
This gap varies according to the generations but remains, in all scenarios, to the detriment of women. Those born in 1972 will therefore work nine months longer on average, compared to five for men; for the 1980 generation, the starting age will increase by eight months for women and four for men. For what ? Explanations with Valérie Batigne, founder of Sapiendo Retraites.
Madame Figaro.- Why is the contribution period for women longer than that for men?
Valerie Batigne.- To understand this, we must distinguish between two categories of women. First, those who have had children without a career break. In addition to their quarters worked, they can obtain up to eight per child. A mother of one child thus earns two years of contributions. It is thanks to this system, designed to compensate for gender inequalities at work – pay gap, choppy careers, part-time work, etc. – that these women currently reach the age of 62, ie the legal retirement age, having completed all their trimesters. With the raising of the legal age to 64, as provided for in the bill, these women will lose this advantage. It is therefore for them that the ax of the legal age will be the hardest, from a personal point of view, or the most effective, if we place ourselves on the side of public finances… Which is certain , is that the reform aims to draw women’s contribution period towards that of men.
Podcast Scandals : Jeff Bezos, the billionaire who wanted to rejuvenate at all costs
LISTEN TO THE EPISODE
What is the second category of women?
Those who, on the contrary, have interrupted their career for a few years, generally after having had one or more children. They reach the legal retirement age without having completed all their quarters, and must therefore continue to work or suffer a discount. Unlike the former, the reform should benefit them, because they will particularly benefit from the increase in the minimum retirement pension provided for.
52% of women receive a pension of less than €1,000, compared to 20% of men
Valérie Batigne, General Manager of Sapiendo Retraite
The impact study anticipates a “significantly more marked” increase in the amount of pensions for women, of 2.2 % for those born in 1972, for example, against 0.9 % for men of the same generation. So is that good news?
For those who wish to stop as soon as possible, yes. For the others, no: some could have decided on their own to work until the age of 64 to benefit from a bonus. Clearly, without the reform, they could have obtained even more. But this bill aims to redress public finances, not to relieve women. She is genderless, you might say.
Is it not also because women receive lower pensions that they will benefit from this increase?
They are in fact over-represented among small pensioners. 52% of them receive a pension of less than €1,000, compared to 20% of men, and women’s pensions are on average 40% lower than those of men. Can you imagine the gap between them? It is reducing, of course, but very slowly, and it is mainly due to career interruptions, the difficulties encountered by single mothers and the fact that women, in general, invest less in their careers than men. And receive, once retired, lower pensions.