Front Burner - Revolt as France forces more work before retirement

Episode Date: March 22, 2023

Thousands of protesters hit the streets of Paris with renewed anger this week, as an unpopular raise to France’s retirement age became law. President Emmanuel Macron’s government announced plans to shift the age from 62 to 64 in January. Since then, demonstrations across France have included strikes from rail workers and garbage collectors, leading to piles of trash growing in Paris. On Monday, his government survived a resulting no-confidence motion by only nine votes. Today, New York Times correspondent Catherine Porter joins us to explain France’s unique identity of work-life balance, and the globally relevant reasons Macron risked his future to delay the country’s retirement. For transcripts of this series, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. This week, thousands of protesters have returned to the streets of Paris with renewed anger. They've clashed with riot police and set fire to mounds of garbage piled in the streets because of strikes by collectors. Garbage workers and street cleaners in Paris have been on strike for more than a week, and it shows. The city council says thousands of tons of rubbish hasn't been collected.

These protests started two months ago, when President Emmanuel Macron's government announced plans to increase France's retirement age from 62 to 64. From the 1st of September, the legal age of retirement will be gradually increased plans to increase France's retirement age from 62 to 64. From the 1st of September, the legal age of retirement will be gradually increased by three months every year to reach 64 years in 2013. It was a deeply unpopular change on its own. But then last week, Macron's prime minister said they'd be forcing it through without a vote by the country's National Assembly.

In the end, the Assembly did vote, but it was on two non-confidence motions that would topple the government under Macron. On Monday, this government survived by just nine votes in an assembly of almost 600. The narrow victory means the retirement reforms have now become law, and that protesters across France are vowing to fight the changes they're calling undemocratic. So today I'm joined by Catherine Porter. She was a longtime colleague of mine at the Toronto Star, and she's now a New York Times correspondent based in Paris.

France's retirement age is a lot lower than many rich countries, as is Canada's standard age at 65, after the Liberals canceled an increase to 67. So we're going to talk about the globally relevant reasons Macron risked his future to make people work longer. Catherine, hi, good to have you. Hi, Jamie. It's so nice to be here. It's really nice to hear your voice. I know we haven't gotten to talk in a while, so I'm so pleased to have you here.

You just came from a protest on the streets of Paris, and what are protesters saying about why they're so upset with Macron? I came from a sort of classic protest. You know, what's happened over the last few nights here is that there have been classic protests, which are like the ones that have been going on since January, where there's lots of unions and there's speakers and signs. unions and there's speakers and signs. But there's also been something that the French have been calling les manifestations sauvages, these spontaneous protests, which are mostly younger people playing cat and mouse with police.

Chanting to the streets late, late at night, forming, separating, reforming, setting fire, as you mentioned, to garbage, which in certain neighborhoods is as high as above your shoulder, piled up in disgusting mounds. So, you know, in both places, you hear the same thing, that this was undemocratic, unwanted. Most people didn't vote. Those who did voted certainly not for his program. He mustn't forget that democracy is to govern for the people.

And now the people are saying no. Certainly, polls really show that, that from the beginning, 60% at least of French people were opposed to changing the age of retirement. And that really has not come down over months and weeks and weeks. And they're opposed to this. And they also really feel that the way it was pushed in completely ignored the protests, was deaf to the wills of the people and didn't allow an actual democratic vote. So people feel like even though what happened was by the constitution legal, it was, many people say, unethical and certainly undemocratic. Catherine, the young people who you were just talking about who are protesting,

are they mostly riled up about the undemocratic nature of all this? It just seems like maybe an odd cause for young people to rally around something that is so far off in their future, right? To retire. Yeah, but it's super interesting. So, you know, even young people end up telling me more or less the same thing. And I've been going to protests for weeks and weeks, like on and off. And I mean, I've talked to many, many people and then called them back and checked in with them. And a lot of them, you know, have been in their 20s or their 30s. And I'll say, look, you have like another two lifetimes before this issue is going to hit you in the face. like another two lifetimes before this issue is going to hit you in the face. And many of them say the same thing. They say that, you know, it's the concept of changing this, that in France, there's this really, really deep belief in that life is not meant to be worked, you know, the whole time that there should be lots of space for enjoyment and retirement is that you've put in your time and you should enjoy. And it's really kind of a symbol of the life work balance that French people take very, very dearly. But also, it's a symbol of their

social support system that was put in place after World War Two. And many people feel like that, was put in place after World War II. And many people feel like that if you attack this, you're kind of attacking a core part of the French way of being around equality, protecting others, taking care of one another, solidarity. Most people, by 60, they are already sick. They have health problems. And the government encourages them to work more and work for a long period of time. They shouldn't take money away from the poor and from labourers who spent all their lives doing difficult physical work.

It's outrageous. When you tell them about the kind of retirement system, program that exists in Canada, where you might have a pension with your work, and you certainly can have a small CPP, but you also would have RRSPs tucked aside. They are horrified. They're horrified that you would be saving all for yourself because the system here is, you know, the money that you put into the pension system that is taken out of your paycheck every month here doesn't go into a bank account to

accrue and save money for you for your own retirement. It goes directly to pay the pensions of people who are retired at the same time. And that's important to people. They think that's sharing and that's an intergenerational solidarity. It's so interesting to hear what they think about solidarity. It's so interesting to hear what they think about our system here. And I guess, obviously, I mean, you're from Toronto. You think the culture around it is a lot different too, right? Like the attitudes about work-life balance. Do you see a big difference? Oh, yeah. I mean, it's just, I see such a difference. I mean, I think in relation to work, I really have come to see how much Canadians are North Americans and that we identify ourselves, I would say, you know, obviously painting a very broad brush, but with our work. Our work is a really big part of people's identities, I think.

And that so retirement, you know, is this kind of idea that if you're lucky, you might get to go down to Florida and, you know, and crisp into bacon and enjoy some like a time, but it's not really a time of like self-fulfillment because you're supposed to get that in work. You know, it's not a time of like here, people talk about it, about profite, like really, really enjoying the time, but you using the time to do all the things you could not do, of taking up entirely new hobbies, becoming new people, taking up new causes. They don't identify as deeply with work. They identify much more with culture and pleasure and family. And all of that is mixed up, you know, with retirement. In fact, you know, there's a lot more vacations for kids and most kids, French kids, you know, on their weeks off when their parents are working,

they go and they spend the time with their grandparents who are retired, who take care of them for weeks and weeks and weeks of the year. So given all of this, why has Macron been so hellbent on making these changes? Like the consequences seem so huge, right? It's a really good question because this is not the first time there's been massive protests around retirement. Like basically you touch the retirement in France and people will go on the streets and fight you. Yeah, it feels like this is a big time third rail political nightmare. Yeah, and he brought it up in his recent re-election campaign. We are all aware of the necessity to push back the retirement age from 62 to 65.

That's the proposal of the candidate, Emmanuel Macron, because that's the best way of protecting our social model. And, you know, he brought it up before that, actually, in his first mandate. He, although at that time, he was planning on trying to basically sort through this very complicated, multi-tiered retirement program and make it more legible, almost from an accountant's perspective. And Macron comes from a banking background. You know, he is someone who's who was a minister of economy. He likes like numbers and figures and things to be clean. And maybe that's why he wanted to take this on. I mean, his government has done a really bad job of fully explaining why they want this now. But at the base, it really has to do with economics that, you know, French people like Canadians are living much, much longer than they were when this retirement system was built after World War Two. well into their 80s. And also, there's fewer workers, people are not having as many babies as they used to. So where there used to be four workers, active workers, they say for one retired

person, it's down to 1.7, I believe. So they're sort of facing this demographic cliff. And he said, you know, we need to fix this in order to save it. And that's what his prime minister repeated again this week after her government did not fall. We cannot gamble on the future of our pensions. This reform is necessary. The thing is, they didn't sell it well. And many people just don't believe it or buy it. Or they don't feel like it was discussed enough. That, you know, if we need to save the system system we should have a big discussion about how to do it and not necessarily just by changing

the age of retirement because president macron is not a reasonable person he don't want to negotiate he doesn't want to organize a true debate and he you know we could do it other ways some people think that it should be taxing the rich or that at the very least, like one person said to me today, sure, you could convince me of that, but let's have the discussion. Let's have a, you know, a fuls can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections.

Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo, 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. So I imagine what is exemplifying frustrations for people who feel like this didn't get a full public airing is the fact

that it was crammed through, right, without a vote in the National Assembly. And just tell me a little bit about what actually happened there. And then the no confidence vote that resulted from it. Yeah, I mean, first off, you know, it went through its regular process of going to the National Assembly and up the Senate, but it was a really curtailed debate. There was a timeline, a short deadline put on it. So it wasn't fulsomely debated in the lower house or even in the upper house. It happened really quickly. And then it came back and it was supposed to be a vote.

There was supposed to be a vote last Thursday. Up until that moment, people in Macron's office and the prime minister's office were basically meeting and re-meeting and trying to see if they had enough votes to pass this. They had sweetened the deal in many ways to bring aboard the center-right party that is kind of like the Conservative Party of Canada here. It's called Les Républicains because, you know, this was something that they had been pushing for historically for a long time. It was kind of their bread and butter. And yet still there were fractures in that party. There are members, young members of it that

were completely revolting and refusing. At the very last minute, you know, I was there in the National Assembly in what they call the Hemi Circle waiting. And literally five minutes before the word spread that they were not going to have a vote because it was too risky. They believed it would be too tight. So instead, they use this constitutional tool that allows the government to push through something without a vote. But if you do that, you open yourself up to a non-confidence vote, which is what happened on Monday. There was two motions put forward of non-confidence against the government. And it was a second moment that members of the different opposition parties that had not had a time to vote on this, basically had not to vote on the

reform anymore, but to vote on whether the government should stand to punish the government for how it had pushed through the bill, this like really detested new law. And that happened yesterday, I believe, my God, the days are blurring into each other. It was a very long day and pretty exciting too. You know, there were websites here had sort of counters up almost like during like a full election on election night. There were people predicting it would be a difference of 30 votes of maybe 25 votes. In the end, it came down to nine, you know, it was really, really, really tight. And no one really expected that Macron would hold on to his government by just nine votes. What does that say to you? Well, I mean, it's not just me, I think it says to

talking to a lot of political analysts here sort of says that, you know, he'd put himself on a corner already, like by pushing through this reform, regardless of how people felt about it. It was like, you know, he's just started this new term. He's either got to push it forward, or he'd be a lame duck, you know, and if he repealed it was like he couldn't get anything through the parliament, which he doesn't have an absolute majority in anymore. And in the end, it's both. He appears as a form of a dictator, maybe that's too strong, but certainly a tone deaf leader that doesn't care about what people in the French think or feel. And he's also shown that he doesn't have the votes necessarily to pass the laws that he wants to. There's many other challenging things, including an immigration bill that's coming up that's going to be hard to get through. And so in some ways, it feels like

regardless, he pushed it through with strong arms, but he still seems a bit like a lame duck. still seems a bit like a lame duck. President Macron was said to consider the costs of losing a vote too great. But having to push the reforms through by decree is a political failure. The move outraged the opposition, both left and right. It's a question of preventing the expression of the will of the French people through the elected representatives. They didn't manage to find a majority because it's bad.

This reform was unfair, badly prepared, badly conceived, badly presented. I know he's giving a television address, right, at 1 p.m. your time, but 8 a.m. this morning. And what are you expecting from that? What do you think he needs to do? I don't know. I mean, I think it will be really interesting.

He's chosen a very odd time. why he would choose like a lunch hour TV, as opposed to, you know, 8pm when most of the mainstream news shows are on. People were joking today in the streets that he wanted to only talk to people who are already retired. And in fact, many were saying they were going to boycott it by not watching him that if you know, if he didn't listen to them, they wouldn't listen to him. You know, he is someone who traditionally, historically has believed that he will face a rough crowd. I've seen, you know, videos of him going into places where people wanted his skin, and he is, does not back down and listens, or appears to listen and talks for a long period of time, but is not, is not rattled.

He's already, you know, let leak that he's not planning on holding a time, but it's not rattled. He's already let leak that he's not planning on holding a referendum and he's not planning on changing his cabinet or asking his prime minister to resign. So up until now, it seems like he's indicating that he's going to hold this hard line and maybe he's planning on just bunkering down and seeing what happens. But I don't know. I mean, this might be his time of trying to explain why, you know, in a clear way, he thinks this is really important to happen now and how he sees a way forward. I think it will be really interesting to see how he navigates the fury and the anger that is coming at him. You know, I know Macron, he was reelected this time around for his second term

with a reduced minority government last year. And so is it possible for Macron that this is a crisis that leads to his downfall or the crisis that that leads him to step down as president? No, I don't think so. Look, the president is elected for a five year term directly, you know, by a direct electoral vote. So, you know, he picks his ministers and his prime minister who run the government, but he himself, you know, there's no real way of bringing down a president. He's going to be in place for four more years, you know, unless some tragedy happens, obviously. And then after that, he's done. He's a very young president. He doesn't really have a party that he's built up that he wants to leave in place. Like there's no obvious successor for him.

place. Like there's no obvious successor for him. You know, as much as people feel angry at him, I don't see any real way that he can be brought down other than being completely stilted and not able to really rule and push through changes that he thinks is important and that he wants to build as his legacy. I think that's really the weak spot right now that for him, he could be a president of a country which hates him and a parliament that does not allow him to implement new laws except for repeatedly by force in a way of, you know, the old king almost. Katherine, thank you so much for this. This was great. Thank you.

Thanks for having me, Jamie. It's so nice to talk to you again. That's all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow.