REACTIONS. The Prime minister has just announced to the social partners the contours of the reform of the account painfulness. The device will be largely alleviated, especially for the CONSTRUCTION sector, and will “account of prevention”. If the employers are pleased to have been heard, the CFDT sees in this simplification a “scandal”.
A “simplification to the axe”. It is as well that the lawyer Michel Ledoux, specialised in social law, qualified to Batiactu the reform project announced by Prime minister Edouard Philippe to the social partners on July 8, 2017. The device, much decried by the employers ‘ organisations in the CONSTRUCTION industry since its launch in the quinquennium of Francois Hollande, is expected to be considerably reduced. To the point of withdrawing a very large number of workers in the CONSTRUCTION industry in the field of the device.
Thus, the term “hardness” is abandoned, and the mechanism will take the name of “account of prevention” (which had been promised by Emmanuel Macron in front of the Medef). Four factors of difficulty (out of ten total) are out of its field of application, and these are precisely the four criteria which relate in the first place building & CONSTRUCTION : handling heavy loads, postures, mechanical vibrations and chemical risk. For the employers, the exposure of employees to these four risk professionals was very difficult to assess precisely.
Deletion of the two contributions
The six criteria of hardness remaining are those that are easier to calculate : night work, repetitive work, working schedules, job trainees, working in the middle hyperbaric, noise, extreme temperatures. On the basis of these six variables, the employees will be eligible for early retirement if an occupational disease is recognized or if it is found to a rate of permanent disability in excess of 10%.
Finally, as for funding, the First minister announced the cancellation of the two contributions, basic and further, linked to the account painfulness. The scheme will be funded by the branch AT/MP.
For the employers, a decision “pragmatic”
Not surprisingly, this announcement has been applauded by the employers ‘ organisations. For the French Federation of the building, it is a “relief”. “Reforming extensively with a device of a complexity and a cost exceptional was an absolute necessity”, says Jacques Chanut, president of the organization, in a press release. “In the Face of this never-ending question, that the FFB has denounced with constancy and firmness, the common sense and pragmatism seems to have prevailed.” However, the FFB note not having been heard “in part”, firstly because of the risk of”noise” in the scope of application of the new device, on the other hand, because the account was not simply deleted.
For the U2P (the Union of the enterprises of the vicinity), “pragmatism trumps dogmatism”. “The U2P takes note of the deletion of current contributions and of the financing of the new device within the branch-work accidents-occupational diseases-ATMP”, adds the orgnisation by the employer in a press release. The U2P request that the “funding is organized within the framework of national solidarity” and that “this new device is made universal to cover the self-employed, in the same way that the employees”.
For its part, the CPME, while regretting also that the criterion noise is still affected by the device, was pleased with the announcements of the Prime minister. “In accordance with the wishes of the CPME, it will not be the responsibility of the business manager to assign or not a drudgery, and the financing of the arrangement should, we are assured, be “mutualised”. The bosses feared that social conflicts are increasing in the business, as a result of disagreements between employers and employees on the assessment of their exposure to the strain.
An account of prevention that does not value prevention ?
The sound of a bell is very different from the side of the CFDT Construction and wood. “The Prime minister’s announcements are absolutely scandalous”, ton Jean-Marc Candille, national secretary, from Batiactu. “The personal account of prevention of the drudgery was a lot of hope for the employees of the sector. However, with this new device, it is expected that the employees are worn out and sick before allowing them to retire early : it is, therefore, not prevention !” The trade unionist also points to the funding of the account deprévention. “These are the employers who use employees, but this will be the community who will pay ! It is outrageous that the government has succumbed to the sirens of the employers. They have done everything to not apply this account difficulty, in particular by not opening any negotiations for the drafting of the repositories drudgery.”
These repositories had been proposed by the public authorities so as to simplify the implementation of the C3P. But some employers ‘ organisations, such as the FFB, had reported that they were too complex to write. Many organizations paronales have also “played the clock”, not applying the device in the meantime that the future president of the Republic simplifies or even removes the account. A bet that is now won. Anyway, the CFDT Construction and wood provides that, “if necessary”, it will work.
“This account of prevention will compensate workers sick”, Michel Ledoux, lawyer
The lawyer Michel Ledoux, specialised in social law, sharing some of the findings of Jean-Marc Candille. “There’s a paradox to call this account “account of prevention”, so that it will compensate workers sick”, he observes and from Batiactu. Another reason for the account of prevention values may not be the prevention, that of the funding. “An incentive system of bonus-malus will he be introduced, such as in the calculation of contribution rates the AT/MP ?”, questions Michel Ledoux.
The question also arises as to the lawyer, of a possible double punishment for employers who have an employee suffering from an occupational disease. “If the device is financed by all employers, they will pay twice : once for the occupational disease of their employee, and once as the employer of the branch. This deserves clarification from the government.”