The Government is aware that it is harder to pass

Trade unions and the left have had three months to dissect the pension reform bill and choose their angles of attack. They have focused their criticism on the central element of the reform: the rehabilitation of the two terminals of age to 62 and 67 years. Another horse of battle, taking into account of the arduous nature of certain careers. Other measures - increase the rate of assessment of civil servants, new levies on business and high income, particular calendar for special diets - remained in second place.

62 years: the pillar of the reform

The passage of the age of the entitlement to retirement from 60 to 62 years is the pillar of the reform. It is this measure that will reduce massive deficits since its entry into application next year. The recovery will be over seven years, at a rate of four months each year until 2018 to the generation born in 1956. By shifting this Terminal, it requires a majority of employees at work longer. The effect is massive, as 80 of employees who reach 60 years today contributed longer that it is necessary (40.5 years today, 41 years in 2012, 41.5 years in 2020). Soon, they will be forced to remain at work two years longer. Whatever the extent of the mobilization in the coming weeks, it is difficult the Government waive this measure which is also a political symbol, because it calls into question retirement at age 60, reform the first seven-year term of Mitterrand lighthouse.

67: a measure criticized in most

The age at which it could receive a pension calculated without haircut will increase from 65 to 67 years. The rate will be the same as for the first terminal of age, which is that it will begin to take effect in 2016 (year where the generation born in 1951 have 65 years and 4 months). The growing ends logically seven years later, in 2023 (year where the generation of 1956 will be 67 years).

The unions insist particularly on this second pillar of age when they want to emphasize the unfair side of reform. Employees who retire at age 65 are those who have had incomplete career, argue, and particularly women. 84 of those interviewed by Mediaprism equality laboratory disapprove this measure against "only" 62 for 62 years.

The Government is aware that it is harder to pass. Including in the electorate of right: in July, several UMP members have presented amendments now second pillar at 65 years for women. They were rejected in Committee, but the issue will return to debate. In an interview with the "world", yesterday, the UMP President of the Senate Gérard Larcher, even asked that are "sales" and on "analysis" the proposal of François Chérèque (CFDT), requesting that it blocks the cursor at age 65. Bend on this point would be a huge concession that the Government refuses to consider. Less than 62 years, the offset of the second pillar of age is still nearly EUR 4 billion of savings in the horizon of 2020, almost a fifth of the total of the measures of age. And a third of the savings by 2025.

Hardship: concessions on mobilization

Another angle of attack of the unions, it is taking account of the arduous nature of certain careers. The expected device is currently limited, since it would only involve 10,000 people per year, or less than 2 of departures. The Elysee has promised accommodation, without disclosing them to have a margin of manoeuvre on the extent of mobilization.