While the government wishes, with the 2021 Social Security financing bill, to make a new turn of the austerity screw, such as the emergency package of 18 euros, and to rely on the Covid-19 for structural reforms contrary to the solidarity ambition of Social Security, we are launching an appeal to defend and reconquer Social Security, our common good, and to open the site of its extension for a new social progress. It is neither for employees nor retirees to pay for the crisis!
Gathered in Saint-Étienne, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the ordinance of October 4, 1945 creating Social Security, we call for the creation of the conditions for broad mobilization, popular education actions, symbolic gestures, like naming streets Ambroise-Croizat, debates and common highlights.
We must create the necessary balance of power so that the financing of Social Security meets the needs of the population instead of aiming to achieve new savings.
Social security, designed by the National Council of Resistance (CNR), was set up under the responsibility of the Communist Minister of Labor Ambroise Croizat with one goal: to protect “Workers and their families against risks of any kind likely to reduce or eliminate their earning capacity, cover the maternity expenses and the family expenses they bear”.
Its principles are strikingly modern: uniqueness (single and compulsory institution), universality (covering all citizens), solidarity and democracy. Its financing is based on social contributions, a share levied on wealth produced outside any commercial sphere. Pooled to meet social needs, they embody a double principle of solidarity: “I contribute according to my means and receive according to my needs”; no link between the one who pays and the one who receives, unlike the insurance system. This is the principle of intra and intergenerational solidarity. Establishing a universal right to social protection makes society! These sums, which are greater than the State budget, escape the financial markets. Because of this, employers and many governments have continued to restrict the role of Social Security and take control of it. From 1967, the introduction of employer-employee parity opened the door to successive regressions. The Juppé plan of 1995, making the LFSS vote by Parliament and limiting public health expenditure by the national health insurance expenditure objective (Ondam), modifies the management of Social Security, by transferring to the State decision-making power.
The questioning of Social Security continues with the current government with one goal: to transform it into a simple safety net for the poorest, and giving free rein to private complementary insurance for those who have the means. , to capitalization, fueling the financial markets.
(…) Faced with this desire to destroy the solidarity institutions of 1945, we must find the springs of a new converging dynamic. We must also advance our society through the development of Social Security. There are proposals that we want to debate.
The “100% Safety” for the disease in connection with the refusal of excess fees and the requirement of a public pole of the drug at the time when laboratories are enriched on the back of the Sécu.
The necessary development of prevention presupposes other public policies on food, housing and the environment. Pensions must remain a socialized income from work with a defined benefit plan based on solidarity distribution and a set of high-level collective guarantees. A universal right to take into account the loss of autonomy must be instituted with 100% coverage by national solidarity within the framework of social security and public service. We reject the individual logic that leads to recourse to private insurance.As for illness or pensions, families, work accidents and occupational diseases, the ambition to ensure the well-being of all from birth to death must be developed.
This common good of the population must be managed democratically. Why shouldn’t the election of Social Security administrators become the rule again?
This must be associated with a new health and social democracy associating users, elected officials and employee representatives in all decision-making bodies and at all levels: the population must have a say in the definition of rights and needs and the choices to be made. make.
Shouldn’t the sustainability of its resources be guaranteed and therefore removed from the cyclical budgetary games by making them rest predominantly on contributions? The Liberals want to believe that social contributions would be “charges”, while spending for workers, for the financing of Social Security allows the creation of wealth. We call back to question the cost of capital. This cost explodes with the distribution of generous dividends to shareholders.
We are also debating new funding for Social Security. Shouldn’t we: – call into question the exemptions and exemptions from contributions (…)?
– provide new revenue by removing contribution ceilings, by subjecting income such as profit-sharing, stock options, (…) to companies’ financial income, by penalizing companies that reduce employment, wages, do not respect gender equality or the environment?
– increase the income from social contributions by creating jobs, increasing wages, applying equal pay between women and men, combating suffering at work and social fraud, mainly from employers?
Social Security is our common good. Neither regression of rights, nor openness to private funding! In the 21st century, new rights are necessary for the security of women and men and for human emancipation.
