The moral and ethical leadership implications of the French strike

Résumé du document

On October 17th, 2007, French rail road workers decided to call strike. Indeed, several public companies made the decision to join their forces in order to claim professional ameliorations. Several corporations were involved in the action such as SNCF or RATP, EDG-GDF and also clerical workers. Workers used their right to strike in order to obtain changes in the decision of the State. But before explaining the purpose of the strike, it could be useful to remind in what consists the right to strike. In France, this right is recognized by the State and is protected by the Constitution. It means that each worker or employee has the right to stop working and be on strike in order to demonstrate a dissension, or claim professional improvements. A strike is licit and the employees can be protected if some conditions are respected, the action must be collective, the employee who is on strike must totally stop working and professional claims must be defined. Furthermore, concerning the public service, the strike notice must be sent 5 clear days before the beginning of the strike to the hierarchical authorities. Strike has no legal duration and can last even for several months.

Extraits

[...] But it is a human reaction for the transport public workers to strike. Indeed, they always had these rights and these advantages and they don't want them to be changed. But they tend to consider their rights as more important than any other consequences such as the impossibility for the users to go to work, the costs for the company and also for the State. They think they are right but we can wonder why they would be favored. The fact of being employed by the State is not a reason, this is simply not fair. [...]

[...] It means that the State is losing money in this system, and it should really think about implement the reform in order to reduce the cost and have a budget surplus. Now, this system of “solidarity” cannot work anymore. It was possible when the number of workers was higher that the number of pensioners as the expectancy life was lower. The solution is thus to work more. Furthermore, as explained before, employees of public service companies work mainly in an office. Indeed, about 70% of the SNCF workers are in the head office. That means that their work is not as painful and dangerous as other railroad worker. [...]

[...] They really have a power of pressure. The users The role The role of the users is that they are the first persons who directly suffer from the strike. Indeed, they use public transport everyday and they pay for this service. It is their mean of transportation in order to go to work. The consequences The consequences are really significant for the users. Indeed, strikes on the public transportation really give users a bad image of the company. Actually, users who suffer from the action begin to think that people from the public service are lazy and that they don't know the chance they have with their advantages. [...]

[...] But, because of the reorganization people must not retire. It would thus represent a saving of: 10,000 people * 18,000 = 180 million for one year, and 180 million * 2.5 years = 450 million over 2.5 years. For the State, these 450 million represent a real cost that doesn't help to improve the budget deficit. Besides, the calculation above considers the worst case. It means that the State could save more money. At last, the role of the State is also to negotiate with unions. [...]

[...] We can suppose that for the worst cases, each retiree receive 1,500 per month, that is [ 1,500 x 12 months ] = 18,000 per year. The reform wants the workers to have 40 years of contribution instead of the current 37.5 years. It represents 2.5 additional years. It means that with the current reform, a retiree receives: 1,500 x 12 months) x 2.5 years] = per 2.5 year. According to the reform, it means that people who leave with their 37.5 years of contribution should not retire. We can consider for the worst cases that each year 10,000 people of these companies retire. [...]