A mover since he was 23, Nicolas, now 36, wonders why his job is not considered heavy or arduous. His brother pushed the orange Alert Us button to highlight this situation: “My brother is a mover and this job is not considered a heavy job… Yet he drools every day. A postman is considered a heavy job. Where is the logic?”he asks himself.
Heavy work, what is it exactly?
But before getting to the heart of the matter, a little explanation is in order: what is a so-called heavy or painful job?
It is, in fact, a special status allowing to anticipate the retirement, today fixed at 67 years for the other categories of trades. Workers who are part of this special scheme can therefore either benefit from a higher pension or anticipate their retirement from 2 to 6 years, but never before the age of 60, explains Eric Slagmuylder, general adviser to the department right to pensions from the Federal Pensions Service.
In total, 4 criteria were retained, during the pension reform in 2018, to define a painful function, can we read on a specialized site:
Physical constraints;
Work organization;
security risks;
And finally, mental or emotional hardship.
The higher the arduousness coefficient, the greater the possibilities of early departure. In theory, the profession of mover meets these criteria. Nicolas, who has been a mover for 13 years, carries an average of 1 ton of furniture a day, he estimates. “When we deliver furniture, we sometimes have 50 cabinets of 120 kg each to carry! It goes very quickly”he tells us.
Mover, a painful job in practice, but not in the law
For him, the job of mover should therefore be considered a heavy or arduous job. “I think we are in the middle of a difficult job, we carry tons of furniture all day long, we work when it’s cold, when it’s hot, when it’s snowing or raining, in the drafts… We have to work all the time”.
If we might get more recognition that would be great.
And because of his job, Nicolas already has some health concerns. “We have sores every day, we get up very early in the morning, at 5 a.m. I’m up. We have constant back pain… We don’t have time to rest”, he laments. However, he loves his job and would not change for the world: “It’s a job that I love, you meet people all the time, it’s fun. But until you’re 67, carrying furniture… it’s going to be complicated, even impossible. We don’t have to other opportunities in the move than carrying“.
With 20 days off per year, Nicolas assures us that “it is impossible to recover from the work that is done”. He asks for more rest days, but also more recognition for his sector. “We meet a lot of painful criteria: time, weight, schedules… If we might have more recognition that would be good”he believes.
Which functions are affected by this status?
But then why are movers not part of the trades considered heavy or arduous? Who is affected by this special status? “In terms of pensions, only a few categories of the public service can be considered as difficult or heavy jobs. But in the scheme for salaried workers or the self-employed, it simply does not exist”explains Eric Slagmuylder.
In other words, only certain civil servants benefit from a special pension status linked to the regime for so-called heavy or arduous trades. Active military personnel, postmen, teachers, firefighters, police officers, and train drivers are concerned, he explains.
Why neither employees nor the self-employed can benefit from such a status?
Eric Slagmuylder explains to us that there was a blockage at the level of the previous government to find an agreement on the private sector: “It’s a subject that was discussed, of course, but the previous government did not find an agreement between all the parties”.
Today, the debate is therefore handed over to the social partners, who are responsible for finding an agreement on this subject almost 9 years following the first discussions. To find out more, we met Selena Carbonero of the FGTB union, who is in charge of the file.
A blockage on the private sector at the level of the previous government
And to understand the extent of the subject, you have to go back to the previous government, which worked between 2014 and 2019, and which notably implemented pension reform towards the end of its mandate. “At the time when the Michel government decided to increase the pension age to 67, a hardship system had to be put in place. The discussions fell apart, in particular due to a lack of budget. The government then fell some time following”, summarizes Selena Carbonero. The first discussions on the subject date back to 2014.
Since then, the social partners have been making every effort to ensure that a discussion takes place around these questions, she tells us. Then expand: “We know that in Belgium, life expectancy in good health is 64 years. Career durations are too long, 45 years is too much. We can see that the rate of long-term illness is increasing because these people are faced with difficult circumstances. Their work has an impact on their health”she believes.
Not a priority for the current government
For the FGTB, if the discussions take time, it is because “It’s not a priority for the authorities”. “But for us, it remains a priority. The workers we represent do not want to die at work!”she is indignant, then continues: “They want to be able, at some point, when work circumstances weigh too heavily on their health, to be able to leave earlier and enjoy a minimum of their life in good health”.
The FGTB therefore proposes to set up a system that would take into account postural constraints, flexibility such as night work, and also the psycho-social load, details Selena Carbonero. The goal is to reproduce the same pattern as in certain heavy jobs in the public service, she adds.
The social partners responsible for making a joint proposal to the government
Today, the FGTB is therefore working with the other social partners on a joint proposal to make to the current government, she explains to us. Discussions are underway and should soon lead to a potential agreement between all parties, namely employers, unions and government.
