It is interesting to see the argument that you should have out of the pensions what you pay in, and the ability to choose when you retire, and the choise of late retirement and low payments or early retirement and high payments as an argument against the reforms.

Because saying that you have a choice if you have a choice between a careen at EDF or a private company is not much of a choice. The pension-plan is not exactly the only thing that differs between those two careers. And is the lower salary in the state exactly compensated by the extra payments by SNCF? Because if it aren't fully compensated by, then they actually get payed less than they should, and if it costs more than the salary difference, maybe then they would have done a different choice.

In any case, it's bad for the SNCF workers.  

The only possibly conclusion of the argument that you should pay for what you get and that you should have a choice in pension-age and similar, is that the pension system as a whole should be replaced with a system based on private pension funds, where each person can choose his own pension-plan. I'd be rather surprised if I see people strike for THAT reform. :-)

And I'm quite staggered that people even do comparisons with a pension-age of 55. 55... Most people haven't even begun to reach the top of their career when they are 55. Why would anybody, unless they are sick, wanna retire when they are 55? I see the point with engine-drivers maybe not being at their best when they are 65, but shouldn't that then be a special deal for engine-drivers, not anybody who happens to work at SNCF of EDF?