2024-02-02 05:04:25
The general secretary of the CFDT, Marylise Léon, comments on the general policy declaration delivered on January 30 by the Prime Minister, Gabriel Attal. In terms of salaries, “There is nothing really new”according to her.
How do you judge the announcements of Gabriel Attal, who says he wants to “discard” France?
Beyond the slogan, we share the Prime Minister’s objective which is to ensure that private and public workers have real career development prospects. The minimum wage constitutes the entry salary into working life for people without qualifications, but it must only be a first step, lasting as short as possible. That being said, in the avenues mentioned on Tuesday by Mr. Attal, there is nothing very new. It is part of the followingmath of the social conference in October 2023.
A positive point: insisting on the responsibility of employers. For the CFDT, contribution exemptions must be suspended for branches which do not play the negotiation game. There remains a blind spot: the question of equal pay between men and women. Work must continue on the overhaul of the index, which aims to reduce pay gaps, and on the transposition of the European directive on pay transparency.
What do you think of Mr. Attal’s speech according to which those who work must earn a better living than those who do not work?
He is unfair. I say it once more and once more: it is impossible to earn more by not working compared to the situation in which you work. The rules of unemployment insurance are such that a job seeker receives an allowance lower than the salary received when he was working.
So why is the Prime Minister making this statement?
It’s the old principle of “where there is a will, there is a way”. It implies that some of the unemployed or RSA people [revenu de solidarité active] made a deliberate choice to be in this situation. It is a vision deeply anchored within representatives of the executive, since Emmanuel Macron came to power. We have been at odds with them since 2017.
To better pay for work compared to inactivity, is the government choosing to pay less for inactivity?
He seems to suggest that inactivity is partly chosen and therefore should not benefit from national solidarity. Its philosophy also follows extremely budgetary concerns: it is regarding saving money. And it is not very costly, politically speaking, to say that we are going to reduce the rights of the unemployed or tighten the rules for RSA recipients.
You have 75% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
1706985834
#Lowering #level #unemployment #benefits #encourage #people #find #work
