French working week should increase to 36 hours to fund defence, says entrepreneur association
This would ‘save our pension system’ and ‘finance the war effort’, the group president says
An extra hour of work per week would save pensions and defence spending, one entrepreneur group claims
izzuanroslan/Shutterstock
Working one extra hour per week, for 36 hours instead of 35, would help to fund extra defence spending and “save our pension system” in France, an entrepreneur group has said.
The Confédération des petites et moyennes entreprises (CPME) has said that a 36-hour working week would help to finance the forthcoming capital-funded pension scheme, as well as spending on defence.
Its president Amir Reza-Tofighi made the proposal on BFMTV on Tuesday March 11.
“To be able to finance the war effort [in terms of aid to Ukraine], we just have to work harder,” he said. “We just need to produce more value.
“Today, we are in the process of leaving a debt to our grandchildren to finance our retirees, and I think this is immoral.” He also said that the country’s pension system was “out-of-control”.
Read also: Macron’s TV address: Key points on defence, Russia, the US and nuclear capacity
Read more: US media praises 'charmer' Macron over his meeting with Trump
Extra hour ‘best way to increase production’
He said that “there is no better way to increase production at a time when arms factories need to be running at full capacity”.
He explained that the pay for the extra hour would “not be paid immediately”, but “would be a deferred salary that would allow the employee to have a supplementary pension”.
The 36th hour would “save our pension system”, said Mr Reza-Tofighi, and mean that “people who will be retired in 30 or 40 years will have decent pensions”.
Read more: Profile of retirees in France and their pensions (with comparison to UK and US)
Criticism
However, workers’ union the CGT has hit back at the suggestion.
The union’s secretary general, Sophie Binet, who was also on the same BFMTV programme, said: “This is playing Russian roulette with our pensions.”
She said that funded pensions “cost more” than ‘pay-as-you-go’ pensions. “These are costly for employees and employers. The only beneficiaries are insurers and bankers,” she said.
