The Chamber of Employees (Chambre des Salariés - CSL) has issued its opinion on the government’s proposed pension reform, stating that while it welcomes certain elements, it rejects what it describes as the core provisions of the reform package.
According to the CSL, its plenary assembly unanimously adopted its opinions on Tuesday 18 November 2025 regarding the draft laws on pension reform and the related fiscal measures. The chamber noted from the outset its “deep disappointment” with the consultation process, arguing that a long-established tripartite decision-making model had been set aside in favour of an approach that “does not respect the spirit or the requirements of balanced social dialogue”.
The CSL acknowledged several positive elements within the reform package, including the proposed increase in the contribution rate, which it said represents a direct financial contribution to the general pension scheme. It also welcomed the decision to maintain the year-end allowance despite the higher rate and noted positively the more flexible consideration of study periods, which it called a necessary adaptation to current education and training pathways. However, it added that alternative financing measures should still be explored in the long term.
At the same time, the chamber strongly criticised what it considers the most impactful elements of the draft law. The CSL firmly rejected the proposed extension of the insurance career required to access a pension, describing the measure as a “dangerous precedent” whose societal cost would significantly outweigh any expected financial benefit. The chamber argued that placing the burden solely on insured persons, combined with broad societal opposition and limited financial impact, makes the measure ineffective in securing the long-term sustainability of the system.
The CSL was equally critical of the proposed introduction of a so-called “progressive pension”, arguing that the mechanism bears little resemblance to the progressive retirement model it has long advocated. According to the chamber, the proposed measure is not a genuine right but a “burdensome mechanism” dependent on employer approval and therefore at high risk of being underused. In its current form, the CSL stated, the measure does not adequately address the needs of employees at the end of their careers.
The chamber also criticised the absence of improvements to the minimum pension and expressed strong reservations about the fiscal measures linked to the reform, namely the “professional life continuation allowance” and the higher tax-deductibility ceiling for private pension savings. According to its analysis, the continuation allowance would disproportionately benefit high-income earners, including liberal professions and white-collar workers who, it said, would in many cases have worked until 65 regardless of such an incentive. The increased ceiling for private pension savings, it added, reinforces an already “highly unequal” third pillar to the detriment of the public pay-as-you-go system. These measures, the CSL argued, are costly for society and do not contribute to the system’s sustainability, diverting resources that could instead strengthen solidarity within the first pillar.
The CSL further drew attention to financial uncertainties surrounding the overall reform package. It pointed to a lack of transparency in the financial report, discrepancies between projected critical dates and those previously communicated to social partners, and a risk that the National Pension Insurance Fund (CNAP) would face an unmanageable workload within the proposed deadlines. It stressed that guaranteeing sufficient human and financial resources for the administration is essential before any implementation can proceed.
In conclusion, the CSL stated that it supports the proposed increase in the contribution rate, the preservation of the year-end allowance and the more flexible recognition of study periods. However, it rejected all other provisions of the draft laws in their current form and called for the reform to be thoroughly reworked within the framework of “genuine, transparent and respectful” social dialogue.
