Among the achievements of the French Resistance was the idea that trade unions should participate, in an advisory manner, in management in the arena of public service, and that they should ensure the management of social security. Since then, little has been changed with these principles. And paritarism is still law. In fact, so much so that when it is up to the executive and the legislature to take a decision relating to labor, successive governments and parliaments have become accustomed to simply photocopying in the law the texts that have been agreed upon by the employers and trade unions. For the most part, it is essentially how social peace has been maintained and ensured in France.
Today, this situation is no longer acceptable. On Sunday, March 4, the declaration of the President of the Medef (Movement of French Enterprises – an association of French employers, most of whom represent small and medium businesses), stating that it was not up to the unions and employers to be concerned about the training of the unemployed, is the final straw that broke the camel’s back—at least, for me.
In fact, today it should be clear that it does not suffice that labor unions and entrepreneurs should speak for the general interest. For example, they have demonstrated that they are unable to understand that it is in their interest to finance the training of the unemployed: trade unions because unemployment is a constant threat to their members; and bosses because they need to be able to recruit competent employees. Furthermore, in the current debate on the future of vocational training and lifelong learning, the government and parliament must not be intimidated by social actors. These actors are certainly respectable and essential for a functioning democracy, but they are not sole unitary actors. The unemployed, as well as students who are future employees and entrepreneurs are also stakeholders. So too are consumers, retirees and inhabitants of the territorial communes. Future generations are particularly key stakeholders as well.
Therefore it is time for Parliament to take ownership of the debate on vocational training, without limiting itself to the agreement of the social partners. Parliament must finally finance suitably the unemployed. The future of social cohesion depends on them. Moreover, more broadly, it is up to parliament to assert that matters of general interest no longer have to be negotiated between some of the stakeholders. Finally, it will be necessary to modify the definition of business enterprise in the Civil Code, so that it is not limited to the sole interest of the shareholders and does not become the place of confrontation of only two of the stakeholders—capital and labour.
These are very difficult decisions to take. And one can imagine that a skilful government would yield on this point in exchange for social peace on other points, in order to pass other reforms. It would be an illusory choice. To paraphrase a famous phrase of Winston Churchill, albeit in much more tragic circumstances, it would have us believe that we could avoid the strikes in exchange for humiliation, but in reality we would get both the strikes and the humiliation.
Here, as then, we must have the courage to face a difficult choice and to tell it as it is. We must tell it to the citizens, who, logically, should not accept to be stolen from by organizations, as respectable as they are, but who are neither in charge of the general interest nor the delicate task of deciding the future of the citizenry.
Pedagogy, once again, is the most powerful weapon in the service of truth and reason.
J@attali.com