The third day was intended to enable either an agreement to be reached--an agreement that was not necessarily signed or comprehensive--or, failing that, to continue the dialogue in order to move towards a compromise solution. In the end, we had neither an agreement--except on the point of admitting that the positions were too far apart to find one--nor a compromise, but "conclusions".

Conclusions? A synthesis of the positions of the various parties, resulting in corrections to the government texts already tabled on Sunday working, shop opening hours and the controversial draft reform of the pension system. Corrections that have given employers and unions reasons, if not to rejoice, at least not to feel like losers and to save face.

All winners, or almost all

There is a huge gap between an agreement and the conclusions. The press conference that followed the end of the day was all about big differences: the various parties highlighted the reasons for rejoicing, without dwelling too much on the sticking points. With a feeling of cacophony that made it impossible to bring out an overall vision and say who had won and who had lost.

And all the more so as the measures announced are for the most part broad principles for which we don't yet know how they will be applied. "The devil is in the detail", said OGBL General Secretary Nora Back. A case in point? The introduction of social assistance for people receiving an old-age or survivor's pension and living in a low-income domestic community, the introduction of phased retirement based on the arrangements in force in the civil service, or tax incentives to work longer.

Who won? After weeks of vacillation in the social dialogue, culminating in the trade union demonstration on 28 June, the Frieden government is back at the centre of the game and regaining the upper hand. Luc Frieden, who was criticised for a lack of social fibre, has established himself in the role of referee.

For their part, the unions, who had entered the negotiating room in the morning in full confidence, seemed stunned. They will now have to consult their governing bodies and their rank and file to decide what course of action to take. Leaving the Ministry of State, they showed themselves to be combative. But will they be able to repeat their feat of arms of 28 June if the government's conclusions are tinkered with too much by the CSV-DP majority in the Chamber of Deputies? It remains to be seen. For the time being, their aim is to "keep up the pressure", according to LCGB national president Patrick Dury. The only question is how.

The pensions problem remains unresolved

During the press conference, Luc Frieden refrained from any triumphalism. And could he afford to be? Because, fundamentally, the avenues chosen for pension reform do not seem likely to correct the imbalances caused by the ageing of the population and the structural decline in growth and progress in the labour market, which are the pillars of the current system. In a July 2024 report, the General Inspectorate of Social Security forecast that, under unchanged conditions, expenditure would increase by an average of 3.5% a year by 2070, the general system would run a deficit in 2033 and revenue would run out in 2047.

Will the measures announced be enough to reverse these trends? While contributions will be increased, nothing is said about spending. And the government will have to spend more if the plan to introduce social assistance for the lowest pensions goes ahead. Social assistance is a budgetary expense. It has a cost. Just like the increase in the annual tax deduction for third-pillar pension contributions from €3,200 to €4,500. These costs have not yet been quantified, and will be discovered when the draft budget and reform bill are submitted to the Chamber of Deputies.

The conclusions postpone the review of the pension system until 2030. 2030 will be exactly two years after the next general election scheduled for 2028. This should make pensions a key issue in the campaign.

This article was originally published in French.