Resistance to Unemployment in France

It also saw a new awareness in France, by all workers and unemployed, of the nature of work and how it should be organised, and started a national questioning of the economics of employment.

Below is an edited interview with a former member of the French CNT [Confédération Nationalé du travail, National Confederation of Labour], who now lives in London, giving her own thoughts and views about the situation. The interview took place at the Bradford May Day Weekend [1998], at which the Solidarity Federation [the English section of the International Workers' 'Association] held a public meeting on the subject.

Direct Action: How did the protests start?

Claire: The protests started in Marseille in mid-December 1997 and came about for two main reasons. Firstly, there is currently a national debate about reducing the working week from 39 to 35 hours, with obvious implications for unemployment, which the Communist-controlled CGT [Confédération Générale du travail, General Confederation of Labour] union is pushing for. Secondly, the CGT had recently been beaten in local union elections. They wanted to do something dynamic to increase their profile and recruit members.

DA: How were the protests organised?

Claire: The initial protests -- occupations of several benefit offices in the Marseille area -- were organised and heavily controlled by the CGT and had very limited aims: a 3000 franc [about A$900] "xmas bonus" for the unemployed. If this had remained the extent of the protests, the Government would have ignored the protests or stitched up a deal locally with the CGT. It was only when other actions took place on a national level in the following weeks -- many of them organised within a few hours -- that the government started to react. And what was also good, was that the extent of the movement meant that they could not find any "leaders" at first, with which to stich up a deal. While many of the protests-blockades of railway lines and roads, and occupations of a wide range, of companies and organisations took place at short notice, and many of the groups behind them were well established.

DA: How did the unions react?

Claire: They tried to control the situation. We have to remember that the welfare system works on a joint system composed of the unions and the government. All of the reforms in the welfare system -- the disappearance of the emergency payment funds, etc., and general lowering of benefits -- have been possible with the agreement of the unions. The CGT played an ambiguous role because they were fighting to re-establish their power within the administration of the benefit system.

DA: Which groups other than the CGT were involved in the occupations?

Claire: The AG (Agir Contre le Chomage) was one of the main non-party controlled, unemployed groups behind the protests. It was actually composed of working union members. AC met with the government towards the end of the action, along with the CGT.

DA: What were their demands?

Claire: There were many, ranging from free transport for the unemployed to demanding that benefit be given to 18-25 year-olds, who currently do not receive it in France. They also called for the eight "social minimas" (minimum benefits), such as single parent and incapacity benefit, to be increased by 1500 francs ($450) a month. There were also demands for an end to the cutting off of electricity supply to those who could not pay, and the wiping off of those debts.

DA: What was the significance of the demand for the 35-hour working week, and what has been the reaction of the bosses?

Claire: In the press, it appears that the bosses in France oppose the government's proposals for the lowering of the working week from 39 to 35 hours. This needs explaining. The French bosses are not actually against this in principle, so long as, in return, they can stich up a deal to reduce the power of organised labour through "flexibility." The reality is that the 35-hour week could turn out, if the bosses get their way, to be an average spread over the year. So it actually means that, under the proposal, the bosses can get workers to work any number of hours in any particular week. Also, there are currently strict agreements about payment for overtime. The bosses will accept the 35-hour week if the agreement can be scrapped. This is just one example of how the bosses are attempting to push through attacks on workplace rights as part of the reduction in working time. So it's actually a bit of a con.

DA: Do you think that this will actually have any effect on unemployment?

Claire: There is no guarantee or evidence that this will reduce unemployment.

DA: Tell us about your own experiences during the occupations.

Claire: Just before Christmas, around 35 of us occupied one of the Council¹s benefit offices in northern Paris. The Council, which is right wing and undecided as to how to react, did not interfere and we stayed there for ten days altogether. It was one of the few occupations which the police attempted to blockade. Also, the workers still came in and we talked to them. Management put pressure on them not to talk to us. It was a 7-storey building, with faxes, telephones, photocopiers, etc., so we communicated our message quite effectively and the media actually reported that there was a temporary food blockade and we were able to pressure the authorities to let food in. It was very stressful, not having access to hygiene facilities a long time. Still, the police did not move in, even when only 12 occupiers remained. I think that this was because there were still occupations going on nationally and the movement was seen to be strong. It was also Christmas and New Year, and a difficult time for the government to evict people protesting against poverty.

The types of occupations varied. When the bosses told workers not TO come in, claimants still turned up expecting the offices to be open. It was other claimants who were in occupation that helped with their forms, etc., and discussed issues with them.

DA: How did the demands materialise, and what effect did they have on the movement?

Claire: In France, at the beginning of the year, the interesting thing was that the protest movement was a catalyst to a national debate about the unemployment issue. Although the CGT is a reformist union with limited demands, its demands for a xmas bonus for the unemployed struck a chord. At the height of the protests, people were questioning capitalism and the meaning of work.

DA: Are the unemployed and employed more united in France than they are in Britain?

Claire: It's not about the two being united, it's about all workers and unemployed recognising that we're in the same boat, and that there are no divisions. Such awareness has been increasing in France. The word "precaire" has now entered the French language, reflecting the new need for a noun for "precarious," and an acknowledgment that we are all increasingly in the same boat -- insecure "flexible" employment, in and out of work. There is much discussion in France currently about the plight of casual workers. The whole notion of a distinct difference between employed and unemployed is becoming blurred. If this situation does one thing, it focuses people's minds on making demands for conditions and income both in and out of work. To unite these, two demands is not easy, but its, the direction we have to go if we want to build the movement of all workers and unemployed. In France now everyone could be seen as a "precaire."

DA: Is there also a different attitude to poverty in France?

Claire: Yes, I think there is. I am amazed at the number of charity shops and collections in Britain. The charity industry is on a much larger scale in this country than is France and people seem to accept it a lot more. Also, the attitude to loan sharks and pawnbrokers. For instance, when the first and only "Cash Converter" shop was opened in France about five years ago there was a national outcry that this company was profiting from people's misery and poverty. And during the protests, a Cash Converter shop from one of the poorer suburbs in northern Paris was occupied by the unemployed, who attempted to redistribute the goods that people had had to sell to the company.

DA: What do you think the unemployed groups in Britain are doing wrong, and why are they not growing?

Claire: There are no easy answers. The first point to make is that the movement in France is not actually as big as many people think.

But when I read leaflets of political groups in Britain I think they lack a demand for a better quality of life. Many groups are hung up on the idea that to be working class is to live in a high-rise flat and to be poor. For instance, the ideas that Class War has a few years ago of going and burning down Hampstead. What I would say is let's burn down our own estates because they're crap, take over Hampstead, and de-ghettoise it. Everyone should have a garden, a decent house and decent food. We shouldn't be asking for peanuts. This attitude was reflected in some of the protests in France when people went en-masse into luxury food shops and started giving the food out to people. It shows an attitude of "the rich have got it. So why haven't we?" At the meeting (in Bradford), I remarked that we should all have access to so-called "luxury" products which would no longer then be luxuries, and I said we should all be able to drink champagne and there's no reason to be ashamed of it, and people looked at me as if I'd said something outrageous.

DA: Do you think that Direct Action is a French thing?

Claire: People talk about the French tradition of Direct Action. While there is a tradition, it doesn't mean it can only happen in France (and is still happening though ongoing struggles) could happen anywhere. The demands -- and most importantly the actions that were being taken to achieve them -- were determined. Those involved didn't wait for mass support, they just did it.

DA: Did the unemployed gain anything, and is the movement still continuing?

Claire: The government rejected all of the demands on the basis that any rise in the different benefits would blow the state budget and threaten France's involvement in the single [European] currency. But they were I forced locally to pay out emergency fund payments because of the protests.

Perhaps the main gains can be seen individually. Unemployed people who got involved and haven't been involved in any kind of movement before started to build an identity and broke out of their isolation. The movement is still going on on a really low level. Poverty and unemployment is not going down in France, so there is the continual possibility of it starting up again at any time.