By now everyone has heard that various sectors of France’s working class are, once again, on strike, and that there have been several large-scale demonstrations and other smaller-scale but perhaps more effective strike actions for the last six weeks. The last week or so has witnessed a series of headlines screaming that “The French Strikes Escalate,” or “French Strikes Turn Violent,” or “France Paralyzed.” Such headlines are of course designed to sell newspapers, but also to sway public opinion. This latter is evident in many responses to the French strikes on various blogs and in the comment sections of articles in major media websites outside of France, which have tended to trade on popular stereotypes—aka misconceptions—about the French, their right to strike, and that horribly dangerous political formation known as “European socialism.” So what’s really going on? What’s at stake in this battle, and why do all French, not just the working class (72% of those polled support or strongly support the actions, according to the latest data) so strongly believe that this battle is worth fighting?
All of the actions have to do with pension and retirement reform, which the Sarkozy government says is an essential reform to save the generous and bloated pension system, which is currently 13 billion euros in debt, and could balloon to 123 billion euros by 2050. The all too simple explanation for the strikes proffered by the media is that Sarkozy and his government want to raise the minimum retirement age from 60 to 62 years of age. But this is far too facile, and neglects to mention several key details. Just about everybody, even the strikers, agrees that pension reform is necessary, and several key players on the left will even admit that raising the minimum retirement age to 62 is not so objectionable, not only because France currently enjoys the lowest minimum retirement age anywhere in Europe, and not only because the French are living longer than they used to, but also because of some basic mathematical calculations.
Currently, a worker has to contribute to social security—which is not at all the same as American social security, in that it also includes universal health coverage, unemployment insurance, and a whole host of other social benefits that constitute the social safety net for all citizens—for 40.5 years; under Sarkozy’s reform, a year would be added on to the contribution (and again, several members of the left agree that this may be necessary, and in itself is not so bad). If someone starts working in a public sector job, as for example a mechanic at the SNCF, at the age of 18, then even with the reforms, the absolute earliest they could retire would be 60. Of course, almost no one starts working at the age of 18 at such jobs, because (a) the unemployment rate among 18-to-26 year olds is the highest at 38%, and (b) such jobs require qualifications that you can get only after at least two years of training and apprenticeship. So a minimum retirement age at 62 is mathematically realistic and fiscally responsible, and everyone knows it. That’s not really the problem. The problem is that once you reach the minimum retirement age, you could retire only if you’ve been paying into social security for 41.5 years, an even then, you could retire only on a partial pension. You are currently not entitled to a full pension until you are 65, and under the proposed reforms, this would be raised to 67, which implies that you would not start working and contributing in full until you are 25.5, which, given unemployment rates, is by no means obvious. Any time off for disability or due to a period unemployment between jobs—i.e., when you are not earning a salary and thus not contributing to social security—would actually count against you, forcing you to work longer. If you do all the math, it soon becomes apparent that the real age at which you would be eligible to take your retirement would be approaching 65 or 66, while the age at which you could receive a full pension is approaching 70 or 71. So, it’s not at all a matter of adding just two years on to the minimum retirement age; in real practice, these reforms would add between 8 and 10 years onto the time you’d have to wait before you’d be eligible for retirement at full pension. You could retire just about the time you’re becoming decrepit and unable to enjoy life as fully as you might have: Great.
So far our math has been based on those soon entering their jobs, but what about those who’ve been in their jobs for a while now? A certain number of them-–those who have already contributed for 36.5 years at the date the reforms are adopted--would be “grandfathered” under the old law and could still take their retirement and partial pension at 60 (which means, in other words, those who are currently about 55 or older if the law is adopted later this week, which will not amount to a large number of people). Sarko also made a “concession” the other day that women who have had three or more children and have worked a minimum of 38 years excluding maternity leave would also be exempted, a concession that would affect approximately a mere 15,000 people (women who have had only two children are out of luck). Everyone else—i.e., the overwhelming majority of workers--would suddenly find that the retirement they were beginning to plan six or eight years from now has been delayed. If workers concede on this, what’s to say that the government won’t then propose a similar reform—and delay of retirement—a decade from now? And if the government finds that it can get away with this reform, what’s to stop it from trying similar reforms on other aspects of social security?
Let’s dwell on that for a moment. Social security in France is a great thing, but it’s not free. Currently, 60% of your gross salary is paid into social security, and of that, you pay about 40% and your employer about 60%. That means that you pay about 25% of your gross salary into the social security system, in exchange for which you get universal health care, child care services, a nearly free primary, secondary, and university education, unemployment insurance, housing assistance, a pension, and a whole lot more. Employers find this a difficult burden, because for every employee they hire, they have pay a substantial chunk—about 35% of the gross salary—into the system, plus employment taxes. This is obviously a major disincentive to hire people, and partially accounts for the perennially high unemployment rate in France. Looked at from another angle, if your net income (what you take home) is 35,000 euros per year, the social cost of this take-home salary is actually about 85,000 euros, part of which you pay in withholdings and hence never really see (much like our FICA and social security exemptions), and more of which is paid by the employer, cutting into their profit margins. It makes operating a business very costly, and employers would love nothing more than to reduce these costs. In the past few years, Sarko (and Chirac before him) has tried to reform social security (and again, everyone recognizes that it needs to be reformed), and the proposed reforms (which largely failed because of strikes similar to those we see today) were all about shifting the costs of social security away from employers and to employees, i.e., increasing the rate of employee contributions. Sarko and company argue that such reforms would stimulate employment, but what such reforms would mean on a practical level is that each employee would be taking home even less in real net income. So once again, the strikes today are not just about raising the minimum retirement age; they are about protecting a broad ranger of employee benefits, which are rightly viewed as under threat. If these present reforms succeed, then Sarko and his government will have a strong hand (even if his approval rating is a dismal 26%) to pursue other reforms in social security that will be deleterious to workers, and the various social agents (unions, etc.) will be viewed as weak, ineffectual, and unable to protect les acquis, the rights and entitlements they have all fought for. And it wouldn’t be just the working-class that is affected; it would be everyone. And that’s why there is such strong support for the present actions.
Now, a couple of times I’ve mentioned that everyone agrees that reforms are necessary, but if not these reforms, then which? The Socialist Party and their allies on the left have proposed that the pension reforms be financed through taxes on capital gains, profits, and bonuses in the financial sector. In other words, imagine if Goldman Sachs and its employees and hedge-fund managers had to pay their fair share of taxes on the gazillions of dollars they extract through manipulations of derivatives, manipulations that have robbed ordinary people of their homes, life savings, jobs, and futures. France’s financial sector pulls off the same kinds of fiscally abusive shenanigans that we have seen in the U.S. (think Jerome Kerviel), and those responsible for such abuses have similarly found ways to make billions of euros while insulating themselves from high taxes (and blame). The Socialist Party proposal to impose a high tax on this activity could, according to some economists, generate about 15 billion dollars in the next five years, exactly enough to cover the current debt of the pension fund. Whether it could curtail the growth of that debt is a matter of debate, and of course, the capitalist and political classes on the right are adamantly opposed to it as unfriendly to business and as a disincentive to economic growth. But at least there is a proposal on the table, and at a very minimum, what the unions and the strikers want is for Sarko to slow down, step back, study the Socialist proposal, and compromise in some way, because clearly, there are alternatives. Sarko defiantly refuses to do this, in part because he has the votes necessary to achieve the outcome he desires. The Socialists in the Assemblée Nationale have been and will continue attempting to amend the current legistlation with their ideas, none of which will be adopted, but the strategy does achieve a slow-down of the passage of the bill, and may lead to a death by a thousand cuts. Meanwhile, the strikers have no choice but to increase the pressure in the hopes that it may force Sarko into a compromise.
As the movement enters its seventh week with an increasing number of actions ranging from rail strikes, to blockades of fuel refineries and stations, to truckers driving at a snail’s pace on the highway, more and more people are joining the actions, and support for the actions remains very strong. Some are indeed beginning to grumble a bit about the inconveniences, but the continuing high levels of support in the polls affirm that despite the grumbling, there is a recognition that this action is necessary and that it’s worth it. Public opinion remains very much against Sarko and company, and it’s in light of this fact that we need to discuss the allegations found in the media this past week that the strikes have “descended into violence.”
It came as something of a surprise about a week ago, when, after various assemblies of high school students announced that they would be joining the strikes, the government responded by dramatically increasing the police and paramilitary presence at demonstrations and throughout the city (at the conclusion of one demonstration the other day, it looked very much as if the Bastille had been taken over by an invading army from the future). Are they really that afraid of a bunch of pimply-faced adolescents? Well, either they are, or more likely, they have used the lyceens’ announcement to try to manipulate public perception. Karl Rove would be proud. As soon as the students announced their support, government spokesmen were on the airwaves worrying about the suddenly increased potential for violence. “Those kids respect no one,” they said, “they don’t belong to a union and aren’t disciplined by stewards. You can’t predict what they will do. They are an explosive element. They are dangerous. We will keep the pubic order.” Teenagers are annoying, sure, but dangerous? Really? 25,000 extra policemen in riot gear are necessary? Does it come as any surprise to anyone that shortly after this was announced, we began to see the headlines about violence, and articles that try to place the blame for the violence squarely on the lyceens’ shoulders? Anyone familiar with Sarko’s—or Mussolini’s—tactics should see right through this ploy.
Yes, there have been some isolated incidences of violence, particularly in Nanterre, a suburb west of Paris, and in certain quartiers of Lyon and Marseille. The violence has gotten a ton of media attention, and have elicited a disproportionate show of force as a response from the government. The people committing the violence are not the high school students (though several are of high school age, and some high school students in the wrong place at the wrong time got arrested), nor are they the unionists and strikers who have been maintaining the pressure the last few weeks. The violent demonstrators from the aforementioned neighborhoods (which have much in common, socio-economically) are small gangs of disaffected and disadvantaged youth who live in HLM (projects), who are from largely immigrant, mostly Algerian, and often Muslim families, and who have been rejected by mainstream society. They are chronically unemployed. They are the French “Other,” the bogeymen of French politics, filling much the same role in polticial discourse that the illegal (Mexican) immigrant and the Muslim and the Homosexual play American political discourse. They are those who Sarko called “racaille”—scum—when he was the Minister of Interior under Chirac. And they are angry at the State for having marginalized and forgotten them. They lack the institutional tools to reintegrate into society, and in any case, society won’t let them reintegrate. They are not on strike to protect the minimum retirement age; they are not really part of the socio-political movement taking place today. Their violent behavior on the margins of the movement—behavior that consists in overturning cars and setting the on fire, smashing some store windows, and looting, behavior to which the government responds with tear gas, rubber bullets, and squadrons of black helicopters—is in fact utterly predictable. And the fact that the media will focus on them and make them the hooded face of the movement is likewise utterly predictable. We’ve seen it before, and we see it quite regularly: think of every WTO meeting, where the otherwise peaceful demonstrations of anti-globalization activists are marred by the violent behavior of just a few hooded anarchists, who then garner all the media attention. So predictable is their behavior that it’s hard not to believe that Sarko himself didn’t predict it. And even counted on it. It would not even be surprising if his agents, dressed in brown shirts, were inciting it. And it’s certainly not surprising that the media is lapping it up. Nor is it surprising that public discourse is already using it to discredit the social movement as a whole. One can easily imagine people of a moderate political disposition watching the news, thinking to themselves that they cannot support the movement anymore if it involves this kind of violence by “those people.”
Let me be very clear here that I am in no way suggesting that responsibility for this violence belongs to a group like “Algerians” or “Muslims” or any other “Other.” My point is that, unbeknownst the them, their anger and behavior is being used in a very cold and calculated political manner. This is classic Sarko. Whenever he’s up against a wall, he tends to play the race/immigrant card in order to distract and divert attention. This summer, when the Bettencourt investigation was tightening its noose around his inner circle, particularly around Eric Woerth, the Minister of Labor responsible for crafting and securing the passage of these pensions reforms, he totally and completely and very effectively changed the political conversation by announcing his deportation of the Roms. In the course of a day, public discourse was refocused away from his involvement in the Bettencourt affair and its various ethico-political implications, to the injustice of his new policy with respect to the Roms, immigration, and national identity, favorite bugaboos of the far right. The same thing is going on here: a certain group of people who happen to fit a certain demographic profile are effectively being used to distract, divert, and discredit. Media headlines about the strikes turning violent must be read in light of the brute fact that this violence is a calculated, and particularly transparent, tactic. Do not be duped by it.
The lack of detail and the flat-out misinformation that has appeared in many (mainly U.S. based) media reports about the French strikes is disheartening, and only reinforces silly stereotypes about the French. They are not striking because they want to work less and take more time off. They are striking to protect a way of life that they have already fought hard to acquire, a way of life that provides them with the kind of social security that protects everyone, from the most disadvantaged members of society right on up to Madame Bettencourt, the kind of security that the nation that proclaims itself the greatest in the history of the earth should be providing to its citizens. Yes, it costs a lot, and yes, it’s worth it, if only because we can all sleep better at night knowing that these social rights protect and provide for the least advantaged amongst us: no one is going to die in the emergency room because they don't have insurance, no retiree is going to be unable to provide for the basic necessities of life, no mother is going to have to choose between food for her family or electricity payments. What they are striking for, then, are the minimal conditions of a civilized society.
Recent Comments