French pensions
Life is about to get interesting in France as President Nicolas Sarkozy looks set to tackle the unions over the special pension arrangements for some of their members.
Train drivers get to not only retire at age 50, they immediately get to continue on with their full wage for life.
72% of the public back reform of the pensions, but in the past the unions have paralysed the country in their fight to keep them. It will be interesting to see if a compromise is achieved or whether there will be a full head on confrontation.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: International Politics
September 17th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I suspect the French public’s backing for pension reform will be a bit like support for public transport. It’s a good idea for other people but not really for them.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
sshhhh mr nevertrustahippy. you just summed up labour type voters in one and they might think the french pension system would work here – and for themselves this time given they are all on some sort of other persons tit.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Of course, there’s a world of difference between negotiating an employment agreement with a union and dictating what the terms will be then using the state to enforce them (as Sarkozy appears to be doing).
The article you’ve linked to is also incredibly biased. Take the second par:
Nicolas Sarkozy… is taking on the self-proclaimed defenders of the rights of the French worker – the unions.
Well, no. Self-proclaimed would be if I decided I was the defender of the rights of the French worker. To call the unions – that is, the democratic mass membership organisations that French workers have freely organised themselves into to protect their rights – ‘self-proclaimed’ reveals the writer is either stupid or prejudiced, or both.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
What’s the unemployment rate in France? If it’s high, then retiring people at 50 and making room for new workers seems eminently sensible (whether it’s affordable, I don’t have the information to judge). If, on the other hand, there’s a labour shortage it seems just as obviously stupid.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
For some reason the name of Jonathan Hunt, who resembles two or three French train drivers rolled into one, comes to mind when talking about those who retire after a lifetime of hard, tireless work.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Rex: The overall unemployment rate for 2007 is 7.3%. However the rate for under 25s is 22-23%. The railways might be trying to retire workers early to make way for young people. Paying a retiree a pension of say half the average wage at 50 could leave them poor. That might be why they are getting their full pay. I would like to know if full pay is provided until the end of their lives or only until normal pension age.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
I have no idea how this will ultimately play out.
One can be sure that at some stage the French Autoroute’s will grind to a halt when sympathetic lorry drivers park across 3 lanes for a few days.
I’ve experienced that. Nice scenery for the first few hours however the rural appeal is inversely correlated to the desire for a toilet!
September 17th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Tane
Do you really think the unions have done a good thing here by negotiating such a deal for the workers. Paid full salary for early retirement ?
How do you think it would go down in NZ ? Either Govt would need to fund it with tax payers money or the price of train fares would need to increase considerably. One way people who use the service pay for it from their hard earned tax paid dollars and the other it’s just part of what is taken from them.
Also do you think it’s fair that only train drivers get this opportunity. Surely it should apply to all employment in France and/or NZ?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Tane
I don’t know much about French labour law, but a quick scan of a few articles online suggets the unions in France can hardly claim to be the ‘defenders of the rights of French workers’. According to the OECD, union density is less than 10% in France – below even the US or NZ (please see http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/24/31781139.xls).
Similarly, French workers can hardly be said to have ‘freely organised themselves into [unions] to protect their rights’. For one, so few of them have, as noted above. Despite this, a large part of the workforce is under collective agreemeents, in part because collective agreements bind all applicable workers, even if they are not union members and bind any employer who withdraws from the confederation that signed the agreement. In addition, under French labour law – that upon the request of one of the signing parties, the Labour Minister may extend collective agreements beyond the scope of the signatories to include a sector or region – even including companies that are not members of an employers’ association. The National Commission for Collective Bargaining, made up of members appointed by the social partners, monitors and approves extensions. Is that freely organising? Hardly seems it to me.
Perhaps we should trust workers to defend their own rights, rather than unions, Sarkozy, the National Commission for Collective Bargaining, etc.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Funny isn’t it, when a Teresa Gatting negiotates herself millions of dollars in a payout no-one here says a word. Indeed if any of us complian we are told to reject the “politics of envy”
Yes when workers get together to get themselves a good deal suddenly the righties are foaming at the mouth.
And to think some people try and tell us the class war is dead.
Sarkozy, hopefully, will join the long list of Conservative presidents who tried to take on the French unions, and ended up on the scrap heap of history.
la lotta continua!
September 18th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Burt:
Yes, the unions did a good job for their members back when they negotiated it, but clearly there’s an argument that train drivers are no longer involved in the hard manual labour that gave rise to the current pension scheme. But the point is this is a contract between the workers and their employers and should be negotiated in good faith like any other contract rather than simply legislated away or smashed with the force of the state. That’s the Socialist Party’s line and it seems pretty reasonable to me.
Norman:
Be careful assuming that 10% union density across an economy means 10% density in each industry or worksite. For example in NZ private sector density is 12%, but in most unionised sites density is between 40-100%. The key point, however, is that union membership in France is voluntary, and as such the rail unions are the legitimate representatives of their membership and can speak with some authority for the interests of non-members as well. They are certainly not ‘self-appointed’.
Your suggestion that we should ‘trust’ workers to defend their own rights rather than unions is absurd. You know very well that an individual rail worker has no power to negotiate against the railways and the power of the French state. That’s why they organise collectively to redress that power imbalance. Why don’t you trust the workers to defend their rights collectively?
September 18th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Tane
I don’t assume that and don’t recall saying I did. That may be true in most unionised sites, but my point is that unions cannot claim to represent non unionised workers. They can certainly claim to represent their members (and indeed they should if they are worth their salt!) if those members freely elected to join.
I do trust them to defend their rights collectively, but they must be free to collectivise or not. Legislation that loads the dice in favour of collectivisation hardly amounts to trusting them to organise collectively. Indeed, it is the opposite – it seems to be premised on the belief that they cannot be trusted to do so or there would be no need to load the dice.
There has been little evidence produced to support the power imbalance argument, so I remain sceptical that there is such a thing – consistently anyway. At different times in different industries there might be.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
sonic
You almost understand this policies of envy thing.
People here don’t say anything about it because she negotiated it herself between herself and her employer. Helen Clark had a bit to say about it – and so did her unthinking followers. This is the poicies of envy.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Tane forgets that France is hardly an economic powerhouse anymore. It is generally accepted that the reason why the French are holding back so much is because of the unions and the amount of concessions made to not “upset” them.
We all know what happens over here when the French unions get upset….