French National Transit Strike Enters 8th Day

[Ice]

French Strike Is a Referendum on Sarkozy, Unions

President's Agenda
Threatens Pensions
Of Transit Workers
By DAVID GAUTHIER-VILLARS
November 21, 2007; Page A9



PARIS -- As France's national transit strike enters its eighth day, the standoff is shaping up as a contest over whom French people detest more: their new president or the entrenched labor unions that have ground the country to a near halt.

Railway, bus and metro workers are protesting a government plan to curtail special pension benefits that allow them to retire at ages from 50 to 55 rather than the minimum cutoff of 60 that applies to most other French people. Although some workers have resumed duties, key train and metro lines weren't running yesterday.

As people stayed home or walked, drove or cycled to work, and as the strikes were expected to last several more days, President Nicolas Sarkozy said he wouldn't back down.

"France needs reforms to meet the challenges imposed on it by the world," he said in a televised address to a group of French mayors. To sweeten the medicine, Mr. Sarkozy promised a series of measures centered on "spending power, economic growth and work."

Analysts said Mr. Sarkozy may propose cuts in labor taxes to boost the dented morale of consumers. "He is playing public opinion against the transport workers who prevent the population from going to work," said Maryse Pogodzinski, an economist with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Both sides are at a crossroad. For Mr. Sarkozy, whose plans for sweeping economic changes look less palatable than originally thought, winning the transit-strike tussle is crucial to making progress on the rest of his economic agenda. Mr. Sarkozy, won office in May with a promise he would jolt France's sluggish economy into action through tax cuts, changes in labor law and other measures aimed at making companies more competitive. He has the political legitimacy to push for the changes; he won the vote with a clear lead, and his ruling UMP party holds a strong majority in Parliament.

So far, tax cuts and other noneconomic bills Mr. Sarkozy has pushed through Parliament haven't raised much opposition among the population. Yet the proposed pension change is a litmus test for Mr. Sarkozy because, for the first time, he is hoping to extract concessions from a specific category of workers. When Mr. Sarkozy's immediate predecessor, Jacques Chirac, sought the same pension change in 1995, unions paralyzed the country for three weeks and Mr. Chirac backed down.

For the unions, this strike is part of a quest for survival. State-run transport operators that handle the rail, bus and metro systems across the country represent centers of power for the Confédération Générale du Travail union, or CGT, and other national, multisector labor unions. If unions back down on these pension changes, officials say, their clout with Mr. Sarkozy's administration could be compromised.

"We cannot give in easily because, otherwise, Mr. Sarkozy will have a free hand to do what he wants," Alain Guinot, a national delegate with the CGT, said in a recent interview.

Union officials also say that while their top brass might be interested in a compromise with Mr. Sarkozy, their workers are pushing them to stick to their hard-line approach.

Faced with chronic deficits of the nationwide pension system, the government would like to increase workers' retirement age, which currently stands at 60 for people who have worked 40 years. Before going ahead with its plans, however, the government wants to bring all the special retirement plans in line with the general 60-year-old retirement-age system. Railway workers, for example, would no longer be allowed to retire at 55.

The so-called special pension regimes of transport workers date to the middle of the 19th century, when train companies were struggling to lure skilled workers for their new business of driving steam locomotives. Other workers who have lower retirement ages for pension benefits include soldiers, coal miners and land-registry clerks.

Ballerinas can retire as early as 40, thanks to a legacy of perks granted by Louis XIV to members of his Academy of Dance in 1698. Performers and staff of the Paris Opera are among the workers who have been striking over the past week, forcing cancellations of several performances. Giacomo Puccini's "Tosca" in Paris was expected to take place last night with no set.

Interesting. I'm waiting to see if Sarkozy or the rail workers fold.

50-55 for retirement though? I thought 62 was early here.

[HoreTore]

I fully support the unions, except on a few cases; the retirement issue being one.

The other stuff I fully support. I think a compromise is in order.

[Fragony]

Economy is the upward pressure that make pink clouds float, retirement issue is just unfair to ask basta, why would they have the right to retire earlier then others.... it's about time that the unions stop blackmailing the state. Not against unions per se but in France they are too powerfull, about time someone flips the turtle over and goes for the belly, public opinion.

[HoreTore]

why would they have the right to retire earlier then others....

Because if they didn't, they wouldn't be able to recruit anyone into the profession?

Capitalism at it's rawest. It's not about fairness, it's about profits, supply and demand ~;)

[Fragony]

open up a can of poles if you can't find people, have a nice starvation :yes:

[Tristuskhan]

why would they have the right to retire earlier then others....


...well somehow because those workers pay more taxes every month in order to retire earlier... i don't fully agree with unions, but that's an issue important enough to go negociating. And that's the government who refuses to negociate.

[Geoffrey S]

...well somehow because those workers pay more taxes every month in order to retire earlier... i don't fully agree with unions, but that's an issue important enough to go negociating. And that's the government who refuses to negociate.
I thought people paid taxes for those who have already retired, in addition to saving to supplement their own retirement allowance?

[Fragony]

...well somehow because those workers pay more taxes every month in order to retire earlier...

Thought it went into an optional private trust my bad.

[Conradus]

I thought people paid taxes for those who have already retired, in addition to saving to supplement their own retirement allowance?
Didn't that depend on the system?

[Shahed]

I fully support the unions, but I absolutely do not support the vandalism.

And with that GLORIOUS speech of self expression and making myslf SO IMPORTANT to the world, I retire.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Because if they didn't, they wouldn't be able to recruit anyone into the profession?

Capitalism at it's rawest. It's not about fairness, it's about profits, supply and demand

Well, as I understand it, this was the raison d'etre behind the special pensions when they were first introduced, as the jobs were dangerous, smelly, unpleasant and reduced the lifespan of the people who did them. However, it's been one hundred and fifty years, there's not much shovelling coal involved in driving trains any more, and these privileged conditions are obsolete. The unions are being completely unreasonable, it's pure self-interest. I'm surprised that the population aren't backing Sarkozy to the hilt on this one.

[Vladimir]

Well, as I understand it, this was the raison d'etre behind the special pensions when they were first introduced, as the jobs were dangerous, smelly, unpleasant and reduced the lifespan of the people who did them. However, it's been fifty years, there's not much shovelling coal involved in driving trains any more, and these privileged conditions are obsolete. The unions are being completely unreasonable, it's pure self-interest. I'm surprised that the population aren't backing Sarkozy to the hilt on this one.

Didn't the article say that the union leadership is willing to negotiate while their members are not?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I hope Sarko doesn't budge an inch. I re-read the French election (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79815&page=7)election thread from this spring, for interests sake. My opinions haven't changed a bit since then:


The real contest between Sarkozy and his opposers will be fought in the autumn, between him and the unions. Now that's going to be interesting... :grin3:

:smg: :hmg:


Labour unions and strikes: Sarkozy. :smash:
While Royal wants to talk and talk and talk with the 'partenaires sociaux', Sarkozy might ensure I can finally catch a train for two days in a row...

This is about more than pensions. The credibility of Sarkozy's presidency is at stake. He set out with a program of reform, and was elected because of it. So did Chirac in 1995, but he lost to the streets. I hope Sarko wins.

It is all or nothing. Sarko wins all or loses all, right now. I may not necessarily want him for president for five years, but I fully support his shock therapy and endless provocations. Please give me two years of him, a good shake-up.

Sarko has his faults - he is, for example, a psychotic maniac with a father-killing syndrome - but he clearly laid out his plans and is going for them.

What I like about him, is both this clarity AND his egomaniac mind. France doesn't move by slowly evolving. Everything stays the same, until there is a major revolution, and then everything changes at once.

There is no revolution coming from below, none in the making either. So it must come from the top. That is why having a depraved egomaniac psycho for president is the only option. Who else could pull it off?

:knight:

[FactionHeir]

The more often I re-read Louis' post, the more Sarkozy seems comparable to Bush.

I do think that the unions seem to be too powerful and think they can force their will on others. Besides, retiring that early is ridiculous IMO unless there is a very good reason behind it, and even then, only on a by case basis.

[Geoffrey S]

I agree with Louis: France needs change, and the only way I see that happening is for Sarkozy to beat the unions. I'm not against unions in principle, but in this case their conservatism has been doing more harm than good for rather too long.

[Tribesman]

Besides, retiring that early is ridiculous IMO
Why ?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I think being able to retire at 55 is great, but you shouldn't be able to do it at the taxpayer's expense.

[Papewaio]

We have a special kind of inverted tax (which I assume a lot of countries do as well). Superannuation... you get paid an extra 9% on top of your income which goes to Super.

So for every extra $100 I earn... $42 in tax, $58 to the wife, and the employer puts in $9 straight to Super. It is a retirement tax which you don't have a choice over, but you can choose which fund it goes into (or if your work it right it will go into a self-managed one).

So in reality in the old system I would have earned $109 dollars and paid $51 in tax and $58 to the wife... it just makes people think they aren't paying an extra 9% in tax...

[AntiochusIII]

So, like, if you can't go to work or school in time "because the trains are on strike," do you get a free pass...? :beam:

[Louis VI the Fat]

So, like, if you can't go to work or school in time "because the trains are on strike," do you get a free pass...? :beam:Don't be silly. This is France. The schools are on a solidarity strike. :smash: :beam:

The teachers have announced they will join the strikes. The student unions are already protesting. The Britanny fishermen are too. So is the Opéra. And Air France, and EDF (energy), and GDF, (gas). And the hospital workers union. The postal and telecommunications sector joined yesterday. And so will the judges. And the lawyers.

(yes, really. I'm not being sarcastic...)

Edit: Even better, just to shock our Capitalistic American friends: the latest strike was announced by...bankers.

[Papewaio]

Does the EU then have to supply funds to make up for the shortfall of productivity?

Also does making the older guys retire later make economic sense?

Could the younger guys do a better job for less pay? Or at least more productive per unit of pay. So you could retire a 55 year old and hire 2 impoverished youths on a third of the pay to do the same job... lower the unemployment rate and increase profitability/quality...

[Tribesman]

I think being able to retire at 55 is great, but you shouldn't be able to do it at the taxpayer's expense.

At what age can your countries soldiers and sailors take retirement , what about the police , politicians ?
They can all retire long before 55 at tax payers expense can't they , they cannot however retire and get the state pension at tax payers expense until they are 65 just like everyone else , they get the work related pension that they are due under contract , thats all these transport workers are getting isn't it .
If the employer (in this case the French State) wants to alter that contract it can only do so with the agreement of the employees that are under contract , the strike is result of the employer attempting to breach the terms of its contract .


So you could retire a 55 year old and hire 2 impoverished youths on a third of the pay to do the same job... lower the unemployment rate and increase profitability/quality...

One of the things that is contributing to the spreading of the industrial unrest that Louis mentioned is hiring only 2 employees for every 3 vacancies created by retirement .

[AntiochusIII]

Don't be silly. This is France. The schools are on a solidarity strike. :smash: :beam: Why didn't you tell me when I was choosing college, oi! I'd show my solidarity with my beloved professors before sitting bored in their lectures any day. :furious3:

...

:sweatdrop:

[Louis VI the Fat]

It's not too late, but hurry up! Negotiations will start tomorrow. I think the unions will cave in. The polls are not in their favour, so they must opt for some sort of token compromise that gets thrown their way. Probably sometime next week after 'flexing their muscle' a bit longer.

The student protests over autonomy of universities could last a litle while longer. You can still join in. :balloon2:


One of the things that is contributing to the spreading of the industrial unrest that Louis mentioned is hiring only 2 employees for every 3 vacancies created by retirement .I think this is a bit blunt indeed. It reeks of populism - 'one in three civil servants are a waste of money!'.
Even worse, it protects the ones that are in, and makes it more difficult for the ones that are not. This is one of those rotten things, very exemplary. The harder it is too get in, the more fiercely the ones that are in will protect their prerogatives. While I would think that if the whole system is more flexible, there is less need for job protection, and less fear for losing attained positions.

[Lemur]

The more often I re-read Louis' post, the more Sarkozy seems comparable to Bush.
Disagree -- Sarkozy has not demonstrated the total lack of competence our President demonstrates daily. I think Thatcher is a much more accurate comparison.

[Vladimir]

Edit: Even better, just to shock our Capitalistic American friends: the latest strike was announced by...bankers.

How can they strike? Bankers don't work anyway.

[Brenus]

“This is about more than pensions”: Yep. Sarkozy in his typical behaviour go for the confrontation. I think he will win on this one as the French see the Railways as privileged in retiring earlier. But as said before they pay for it…

“There is no revolution coming from below”: No.:shame:

“the unions seem to be too powerful” Not at all, and here is the danger for Sarkozy. Contrary for what lot of people believe powerful Unions are benediction for managers and States. They know to negotiate; they know what they can obtain. I went few times on strike in France, and hat we called the “coordination” is nightmare for the other side. Once agree with the power, they go to present the motion in front of the assembly, the strikers disagreed, the Coordination is dismissed and return to the starting point. That doesn’t happen when the Unions are on control. ALL intelligent managers know that. Some are even subsidising Unions nowadays, and you know what: No strike, negotiations before explosion.
The danger in France is the unions are in danger to be overtaken by the workers. Especially if all the movements start to mix, all subjects in one big confused movement: from pay rise to protection for pension, through all kind of more or less legitimate demands…

“France needs change”: Yep. The only problem is Sarkozy’s solutions (and his movement) are to go towards the past… Ah, the good old 19th Century, with all this good old free market and exploitation of the poorest, this endless mass of poor workers and migrants who were so happy to get a job…:2thumbsup:

What a progress: We live longer so we have to work more. That is a social improvement. Well, for people working in office or in politic…
Now the real question is: Will YOU go in a TGV is the driver is 70 years old? 65? 60? In an Airbus or Boeing?

[Ice]

“France needs change”: Yep. The only problem is Sarkozy’s solutions (and his movement) are to go towards the past… Ah, the good old 19th Century, with all this good old free market and exploitation of the poorest, this endless mass of poor workers and migrants who were so happy to get a job…:2thumbsup:



Ahem, I hardly think lowering the wealthiest tax bracket from a 60%-50% and raising the retirement age for train/bus workers is going back to the 19 Century.

Now, I'm not French, and I don't follow French politics/news as much as you do, so please show me where Sarkozy said, mentioned, implied, dreamed, or thought about going back to the policies of the 19th century.

[HoreTore]

Ahem, I hardly think lowering the wealthiest tax bracket from a 60%-50% and raising the retirement age for train/bus workers is going back to the 19 Century.

Now, I'm not French, and I don't follow French politics/news as much as you do, so please show me where Sarkozy said, mentioned, implied, dreamed, or thought about going back to the policies of the 19th century.

Well he does seem to be a royalist... :smash:

[Geoffrey S]

“France needs change”: Yep. The only problem is Sarkozy’s solutions (and his movement) are to go towards the past… Ah, the good old 19th Century, with all this good old free market and exploitation of the poorest, this endless mass of poor workers and migrants who were so happy to get a job…:2thumbsup:
"Towards the past"... why is that always brought up as if it's always a bad thing? Perhaps approaches that didn't work before are a lot more viable now due to improved technology and changed forms of society...

[Pharnakes]

And prehaps the old things worked anyway. Change is not always for the better. Though it has to be said that I think it ussualy is. We seem to be very lucky in change, Oh well, I supose it is just eveolution, of a sort.

(not that I am trying to give the impresion that I advocate 19th cenntury factory working conditions, or anything)

[Shahed]

I agree with Louis: France needs change, and the only way I see that happening is for Sarkozy to beat the unions. I'm not against unions in principle, but in this case their conservatism has been doing more harm than good for rather too long.

Well there goes my early retirement from this thread...

I agree with Louis also, but I have to say it's not only France, all of EUROPE needs change. It's lagging and dragging.

I flew into Frankfurt after spending 3 months in Asia & the Middle East. Honestly when I looked out of the window at Frankfurt I felt like I was landing in a village (bit of an exageration but I hope you know what I mean).

[Husar]

I flew into Frankfurt after spending 3 months in Asia & the Middle East. Honestly when I looked out of the window at Frankfurt I felt like I was landing in a village (bit of an exageration but I hope you know what I mean).
I know very well what you mean, it's not really a village but in comparison with cities in other countries our cities here are rather small. But then one might say it's a matter of taste, Germany is the world's leading export nation AFAIK, hard to achieve with a bunch of villages. Doesn't mean everything's alright here or that everyone would like it here, I'm thinking of emigrating myself but in comparison to say, Angola, I'd say we're doing quite fine. :sweatdrop:

[Shahed]

Europe is doing fine, of course. But it can be much better, that's exactly one of the problems with Europe. People are waaaaaay too content, they don't even know they are not satisfied, and if they are they do nothing about it. Just look at the French, can't get jobs, social system is le suck, salaries are absolutely pathetic. You'd imagine everyone would leave the country by now or that there would be a lot of political movements. Nope, not the case really. The unemployed still sitting there in the HLMs, I don't see many demands, and worse still I don't see the French government changing things very quickly. It has improved but man 5 years, gimme a freakin break. Obviously this is a generalisation.

What I mean by village is not the physical size, but the mentality and the outlook of the city, also however the way the cities are structured. I LOVE European cities but there is a way forward, while preserving our historical heritage, culture and flavor. Way too much caution here, and not enough action.

Anyway OT.

[Peasant Phill]

And what would that way forward be?

Keep in mind that 'happiness' (for lack of a better word) should be the goal of a government. What good is having a country that becomes or is an economical, political, ... giant when a high percentage of it's inhabitants are impoverised, illiturate or abused. Remember that economy is a means to an end and not the end itself.

[Shahed]

Point taken.

[Pharnakes]

Yes, Europe is becoming some what buried in a sense of its own former glamour and power. We used to rule the world, in just about every way, between the various contries, but the world wars ended that really, and the cold war was the finnal blow, IMHO, and although we still have a lot of power, we need to realise that no longer does everyone look to us as "the best", and that there is still a place for europe, even if not at the very top.


It seems to me that Europe ATM is behaving rather like a sulky child, if we can't be the best, then we're damn well not going to admit that anyone else is, just continue to dream of the days when we were.

Some sort of reform is needed, and whilst life for us is certintly very good, it would be even better if we could just face up to our true postion in the world now.


We need another Napoleon!

Well maybe not quite that extreme.:embarassed:


TBH, there is no real urgency, but the longer we contiue like this, the more the world will come to view us as the outdated, snobish aristocrats of the globe, clinning to our last vestiges of dignity and pomp, despite the fact that we are no longer the leading nations of the world. Something will have to happen within the next 2 decades, IMO, and I think it probaly will. Wether or not Sarkozy has it in him to be a "peaceful Napoleon" remains to be seen. Frankly I doubt it, but who knows. :shrug:

[Papewaio]

ALL intelligent managers know that. Some are even subsidising Unions nowadays, and you know what: No strike, negotiations before explosion.


I'd prefer a powerful union that is there for its members then one thats leadership has been bought off by management. Corruption and lack of transparency are things to be feared.

Mind you I live in a country that every single state has the Premier from the Labor Party and possible tomorrow with the Federal Elections the Prime Minister will be from the Labor Party.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Why is it that whenever France gets in the news it's always about either A: Massive strikes or B: rioting, or C: a mixture of the two?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think Thatcher is a much more accurate comparison.Thatcher would be the best comparison, yes.

But I don't think Sarkozy will go as far as Thatcher. He doesn't need to either. France 2007 is not in as dire a position as Britain in 1981. France was booming in the 80's.
What we missed was the transition to modern social-democracy that so many other nations made in the 90's, like Scandinavia or the Netherlands. Or even like Blair and Clinton made in a more Anglosaxon context.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Why is it that whenever France gets in the news it's always about either A: Massive strikes or B: rioting, or C: a mixture of the two?Why is it that whenever I hear of major developments in other countries the people involved stay at home and watch it on the television?

Critical debate for a national sport + fiery temperament means France is ultimately ruled on the streets, with the governments in a perennial state of fear of the citizens.
Since there is also a tendency to elect corrupt, scheming and authoritarian leaders, it makes for an interesting democracy. Call the whole thing a system of 'checks and balances'. ~;)

But for other news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7105478.stm), try for example today's development:


Chirac formally probed over scam

French ex-President Chirac has been questioned for more than three hours over alleged embezzlement of public funds as Paris mayor, his lawyer says.
The case relates to a scheme whereby rightist sympathisers were allegedly given jobs by Paris city hall.

Last summer, Jacques Chirac was questioned by another judge over allegations in the same case.

He has consistently denied any wrongdoing while he was mayor of the capital between 1977 and 1995.

He lost immunity from investigation after he left the presidency in May.


It could be the first time in modern French history that a former president faces criminal charges.

[Vladimir]

And what would that way forward be?

Keep in mind that 'happiness' (for lack of a better word) should be the goal of a government. What good is having a country that becomes or is an economical, political, ... giant when a high percentage of it's inhabitants are impoverised, illiturate or abused. Remember that economy is a means to an end and not the end itself.

You certainly have interesting views on government. Happiness as the goal of government? How is government going to ensure that, maybe Holland has the answer. People should be free to pursue happiness, not line up to have it handed out by their government. And how can a country become an economic powerhouse with an illiterate, impoverished and subjugated population?

[Peasant Phill]

You certainly have interesting views on government. Happiness as the goal of government?

I agree that I have a rather philosophical (fuzzy and wooly are the terms I like to use for it) view on government, especially as I have a masters degree in public administration. But I stand by my opinion. What other goal should a government aim to adchieve than the greater good for the people it represents? Don't forget that people themselves seek happiness and elect representatives that, in their mind, have the best plans to achieve that for them.


How is government going to ensure that, maybe Holland has the answer.

By making sure that everybody has a job for instance. When everybody can support themselves people tend to be happier than when they are scraping to get by.


People should be free to pursue happiness, not line up to have it handed out by their government.

I totally agree. I'm all for emancipating citizens but whether the state just deals out money or it ensures that all citizens can provide for themselves, the idea stay the same: the government should make sure that the citizens can be 'happy'


And how can a country become an economic powerhouse with an illiterate, impoverished and subjugated population?

I give you China, a country that has the political and economical world in its iron fist while it's notorious for its infractions on the human rights and poverty outside the cities.

I give you India, a county that is being said to be the next economical powerhouse while poverty, malnutrition and illiteracy run rampant.

P.S. after rereading my post it occurs to me that it portrays a rather communist view. This was not my intention, rather my intention was my intention to keep everything very simple to explain.