"The 'senior CDI' will not be able to trigger many hirings": three questions on the "experience recognition contract"

Google News Subscribe

How can we remove barriers to employment for older workers? Transposing agreements reached between social partners at the end of 2024, MPs approved several measures on Thursday, July 3, intended to contribute to this goal. Among the new features is an "experience recognition contract," a sort of "senior permanent contract," reserved for unemployed people over 60. This will be implemented on an experimental basis for five years once the law is enacted.

With this contract, originally supported by employers, employers will be able to decide whether to retire an employee when they reach the full retirement age (compared to 70 today), while benefiting from contribution exemptions at the time of retirement. Three questions for Annie Jolivet, economist at the Centre d'Etudes de l'Emploi and the CRTD of the Conservatoire national des Arts et Métiers and associate researcher at the Institute of Economic and Social Research.

Does this " experience recognition contract" seem to you to be an interesting avenue for improving the employment of seniors?

Annie Jolivet This will probably help very marginally, with a windfall effect. Unemployed people who could have signed a normal permanent contract risk being offered this contract. The incentive for the employer lies in an exemption from social security contributions on the retirement compensation of the person hired and the possibility of knowing in advance at what age they could retire this person. I don't see how this could trigger many hirings. If what prevents recruiting an older candidate is, for example, the supposed lack of skills, how could this incentive solve anything?

Also read

Decryption: Seniors, mistreated in employment: "What do you have to be like to be hired after 55?"

We can also question the merits of retiring as soon as possible employees who may have had interrupted careers, with periods of unemployment, and who will therefore have lower retirement pensions. I am also quite surprised that proof of one's full retirement age is required to conclude a contract. No other employee is obliged to reveal this information. This is also assuming that the person's situation will not change: what happens in the event of widowhood, if their financial situation becomes difficult, if they ultimately wish to leave later? Once this information is provided, would there no longer be any possibility of delaying their departure?

This "senior CDI" represents a step backwards from the retirement initiative given to employees: today, an employer can ask an employee who has reached the age of 63.5 if they wish to retire. If the employee refuses, they cannot be retired. If their contract is terminated, it is a dismissal. Here, this principle is reversed.

The employment rate of older workers has doubled since the end of the 1990s, driven by pension reforms, but not only that. The employment rate of 55-59 year-olds in France ( 77% in 2023 ) is higher than the European average. Attention has shifted and is mainly focused on the employment rate of 60-64 year-olds (38.9%), which is lower than the European average, even though it has also increased significantly.

The Swedish example is often highlighted. This is to forget that in Sweden, there are restrictions on the ability to lay off long-serving employees, who are often older. In France, no one wants to force employers to lay off employees anymore.

The obstacles to employment for older people include age-related stereotypes (past a certain age, people are less productive, less able to train, etc.), but also selection processes that lead to the voluntary or involuntary exclusion of candidates beyond a certain age, for example through criteria of mastery of new technologies. There is no miracle solution. We need to conduct in-depth reflection on these issues, as well as on the methods of training in the workplace. This is obviously less simple than proposing a structured system.

This is a good thing. I see a limitation: focusing discussions on "experienced employees" , in other words "seniors" , while depriving ourselves of a broader vision. We too often put in place specific measures based on age thresholds that do not make much sense. However, there is an inconsistency between saying "you are senior at 55" , for example, and the gradual lengthening of working life with the postponement of the retirement age. There is no age threshold that is relevant in all situations, for all sectors of activity and for all companies. This segmentation by age is very strong in France. The negotiations could be interesting provided that the actors are ready to question themselves on this point.