Sarkozy vows no surrender to strikers

Source: Associated Press

Sarkozy appears to have the upper hand in his test of strength with powerful transport unions fighting tougher pension rules — opinion polls say the public strongly supports the president and strikers have been trickling back to work on subway and long-distance trains.

If he wins the faceoff, Sarkozy will improve his chances for pushing through even bigger and more ambitious reforms. One involves slimming down and reforming the civil service, whose 5 million workers make it France's largest employer.

Sarkozy insisted in his speech that he didn't deliberately pick the fight with the train unions.

But he certainly chose the field of combat well: Pension rights that train drivers and other specially classed workers are fighting to protect are cushier than those enjoyed by most in France. Sarkozy says pension rights should be equal for all — and he has public opinion on his side.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_re_eu/france_strikes

---

Apparently the strikes have spread to public workers such as teachers. Newspapers also halted operations to jump on the strike bandwagon. Mass transit and many schools have shut down during this confrontation between Sarkozy and the labor unions. Students have also gone on strike.

If the strike drags on, Sarkozy risks the various striking groups forming a unified front against him.

The spin should be one that embraces the benefits of the train union workers and attempts to push those benefits to all workers. Instead, assuming the Yahoo article is correct, the government has succeeded in dividing and conquering by playing the 'special treatment' card.

I don't know enough about the labor movement in France to comment on their situation, but from what I know about labor in the US, we are missing two things - the ability to dream big and the militant core that pursues that dream. Without the vision and the willingness to realize that vision, we have no power. I hope that the people of France will realize that they've been duped and come back around. Without visionaries, it probably won't happen.

In France, it's quite a different atmosphere than in the US of the early 80's. The test wil be whether the French press conforms to the "on bended knee" behavior.

The sheep still believe he had an IQ above 80 (his real IQ, even with that he's still above the chimp)

In the US, the legal structure is pretty adversarial in nature with respect to state power and labor power. In France, the relationship tends to be more collaborative in nature. Labor power is enshrined, in many ways, into the fabric of French society. That was never true in the US, given its more individualistic nature.

to offer a different evaluation of this.. While I do strongly believe in workers rights and protection for them, the fact of the matter is that France has one of the most subsidised, artificial economies in the world. Sarkozy's proposed reforms are only scratching the surface of this, he wouldn't dare take on all the landowners who are doing nicely out of EU subsidies.

France's protectionism and is hurting other countries, 3rd world nations are unable to trade equally with us in the EU and instead get flooded with our cheap imports. Something's got to give, and as much as I dislike Sarkozy, I'm with him on this one.

This isn't French workers standing up for social justice, although they think they might be. This is about scaling down the biggest government bureaucracy in the world. It's a harsh wake up call, but it needs to happen.

I guess the French are just being snookered again, like they always are, by "all the landowners" with their "EU subsidies" and "cheap imports," whatever that is. And don't get me started about all those lazy bureaucrats!

Your message is the first non sequitur of my day!

How does one decide if an economy is subsidized and artificial? I am curious in part because it appears to me that the US economy is the most subsidized and artificial in the world at present, so it would be good to agree about what those terms mean.

I favor local and distributed economies for reasons that are more ecological than economic; when you centralize too much you create single points of failure, your economy becomes brittle rather than robust. The US is in this dilemma now, a single power station failing can darken half the country. SO for that reason, I favor a high degree of "protectionism" to maintain viable and robust local economies that can function independently of the global economy if necessary.

PSPS
"Whatever. The LAST thing any country needs is pensions after 30 years of work, right?"

In an ideal world, yes I'd agree with you absolutely! However the fact of the matter is that we live in an increasingly globalised world where France can no longer afford to offer such generous pensions and stay competitive. You think Asian workers get these kind of benefits?

"Your message is the first non sequitur of my day!"

er.. Thank you?


bemildred

"Bonjour. How does one decide if an economy is subsidized and artificial? I am curious in part because it appears to me that the US economy is the most subsidized and artificial in the world at present"

As far as I know, the US isn't too bad on protectionism.. there was the whole steel & farming thing a few years back and a few incidents in the WTO, but it's a drop in ocean compared to EU subsidies!

"SO for that reason, I favor a high degree of "protectionism" to maintain viable and robust local economies that can function independently of the global economy if necessary"

Well all countries do it.. here in the UK we're far from perfect, but I honestly don't think that protectionism is the way to preserve your local economy. By doing that you're screwing over someone else who's probably a lot poorer and would benefit from fair trade.

Historically, most industrialized economies were built behind a wall of protectionism, for reasons that ought to be obvious. Now we are told that we should tear down that wall so that other economies can be built up too, behind their own walls of protectionism, by selling us the crap we used to make for ourselves, thus again impoverishing and degrading our own workforces, and again exploiting these foreign workforces in the same manner as our own once were. Now I have to ask why? I have nothing against the Chinese or Indian or Korean workers, but I don't think it is the business of the British or US or French governments to be looking out for them, the governments job is to look out for its own citizens. The development of robust Korean or Chinese or Vietnamese economies that treat their workforce well TOO is the way to go, and that will not be achieved by the present course. All we have now is a race-to-the-bottom which benefits the few and exploits the many.

and yes you're not wrong, each government's responsibility is to it's own citizens. But personally, I can't go along with that, there's too many 3rd world nations being screwed over by this for me to turn a blind eye.

For me, if you believe in social justice then you should be in favour of genuinely free markets. But I do understand your concern that the usual suspects will just exploit the situation to drive everybody's wages down.. however we in the west are going to have to give a little, I'm afraid.

They have nothing to do with each other. All the market cares about is money, and that is more or less the opposite of deciding on public issues with an eye towards social justice. Social justice is about people having rights as citizens, not rights they can afford to buy. This whole argument that France cannot afford these workers benefits anymore is poppycock anyway, France can and is affording them, and has been for some time. The French elites are just annoyed about paying for it.

I agree with you that France can afford these generous pensions, but it's at a price. Economic growth is at best sluggish, taxes are high, youth unemployment is through the roof and it's causing social unrest. It's not a formula for a dynamic economy and encourages the cliques that already exist in French society.

However I have to say I fundamentally disagree with you on your other point, of course social justice is linked to the economy and the markets. I believe in helping people at the bottom of the ladder via welfare, tax benefits, state pension and so forth, but ultimately the best way to help people is to have a healthy economy that can provide jobs. Currently we've giving millions to various causes in developing nations, but it's all for nothing if we don't give them a fair chance to sell their produce in our markets.

Meh, my 2p :)

Ultimately, my recommendation to the French is that they should really get off of value-added taxes or national sales taxes and payroll taxes. With French Social Security, the payroll tax is about close to 20%. That's quite a huge burden borne by typical workers in France. Sure, it comes back to them in the form of free health care and a social security check at the end of their working lives, but at the same time, one cannot ignore the merits of a progressive tax code in spurring economic growth.

In short, they should shift the burden of taxation away from the working class and up the income ladder. For example, cut the SoSec payroll tax down to 10% and replace the other 10% with a tax hike on capital gains income. I wouldn't support gutting Sécurité Sociale, but I would recommend making the tax code more progressive.

and the recipients of those benefits are not. Now we have a clear picture of the issue. That's what politics is all about.

Free markets are good at being efficient.

The trick is to craft laws that guide and direct these efficient tendencies.

We all want to be free to pursue our own interest, as we see it. But it is not some sort of right, it is a privilege we earn by playing our part as citizens in the society that raised and supports us and that provides us with our economic playing field. The obligations are mutual and necessary. We are all in it together.

Now then about being "efficient". "Efficient" in economic terms means little more than most profitable with least trouble. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but it should not be dressed up as some sort of altruistic social value. It's about that which best assuages one's tendencies toward sloth and greed.

So I agree with your last sentence whole-heartedly.

it's all about driving wages down and driving profits up. Funny, I thought companies believed in team work... at least good ones do. You know, when your company makes more profit, so do the workers? Yeah right!

Greed, pure greed

They could have elected Sergolene Royale instead, but they wanted an ultra-right fascist instead. I bet they'll have big time buyer's remorse soon just like most Bush voters here have.

Most of the rioters tended to be Blacks located in run-down ghettos, and Sarkozy openly courted the ultra-right voters who are anti-immigrant to help bolster his vote totals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7106764.stm

French commuters have endured a ninth day of travel chaos, but an end to a crippling strike by transport workers appears to be in sight, officials say.

National rail operator SNCF said more trains were running, with support for the industrial action apparently dwindling among rail workers.

It said 42 out of 45 union committees voted to return to work as talks with government officials continued.

The strike was triggered by President Nicolas Sarkozy's pension reforms.

...seeing a strike as a "test of strength," and vowing no "surrender." So afraid of being seen as weak that he forgets to be smart.