Marylise Léon, general secretary of the CFDT, a major French trade union, spoke at a conference on September 3 about the differing ways basic and complementary pension systems might be revalued. She pointed out that the Agirc-Arrco complementary pension system has a substantial reserve of 91.2 billion euros, in contrast to a 6.6 billion euro deficit in the basic pension system. These systems operate separately: basic pensions are funded by the state and cover a minimum level of income for retirees, while complementary pensions are funded by employers and employees and provide additional income. The National Interprofessional Agreement (ANI), signed in October 2023, sets the rule that complementary pensions should be revalued based on the evolution of consumer prices (excluding tobacco), as measured by Insee, France’s national statistics office. However, this rate is reduced by 0.4 percentage points. The board of directors of the complementary pension system has the option each November 1 to either increase the rate by 0.4 points or further reduce it by the same amount. Last year, no change was made because unions and employers had an equal number of votes, leading to a stalemate. The CFDT argues that even without consensus, the revaluation should have occurred based on the baseline rule outlined in the ANI. As the current agreement expires, social partners—unions and employer groups—will renegotiate the rules for the period 2027-2030. The CFDT is pushing for indexing complementary pensions to inflation but is more cautious about basic pensions, citing the financial challenges of the basic system, which has a 6.6 billion euro deficit. Agirc-Arrco, however, has reported a surplus of 1.4 billion euros in 2025. The Retirement Orientation Council has raised its forecast for the basic pension system’s deficit to 2.4% of GDP by 2070. The Court of Audit also noted a 6.6 billion euro deficit for the pension system in 2025. While Sébastien Lecornu, a French minister, is considering entrusting the management of the basic pension regime to trade unions and employer organizations, Marylise Léon warns against turning pension governance into a divisive issue among social partners.