John Rapley
THE AGED DOORMAN, remembering with fondness the national strike which shut down France in 1968 and for a brief time looked like it might start a revolution, was dismissive. "These students don't know how to organise a strike," he grumbled in the thick brogue of an accent still tinged by his native Basque. "This isn't a strike, it's a nuisance. Now 1968, that was a strike."
Fondness for the old days, when anarchists and communists were more than mere curiosities in southern Europe, runs high among the older generation. But like my old friend, the doorman at a university institute in southern France, they typically sniff at today's students for the limited scope of their ambitions. After all, while France's students talk of the struggle, all they are actually seeking is the repeal of a government law they feel will hurt their economic interests.
NATIONAL PASTIME
Sometimes, I can't help but wonder if demonstrating is the national pastime in France. I don't think I have ever spent an extended period of time here without there being some major demonstration, strike or even riot. It is not just the old folks who cling fondly to marches in the streets.
In question is a government policy which will make it easier for employers to fire employees during the first two years of their contracts. The intention is that easier firing will make for easier hiring. As things stand, French firms are reluctant to increase their hiring in response to short-term shifts in demand: once an employee is contracted, he or she gains a set of rights which make it expensive to dismiss him.
By American standards, what the government is proposing is actually generous. After all, job security will come along after a couple of years, something most Americans can only dream of. But in a land where workers enjoy all sorts of protections against the vicissitudes of the market, young people are outraged. They are also entitled to feel that they are being victimised. After all, the new law will not apply to all employees, only young ones.
However, France does have a problem. Its system of social protection was founded in the days of Keynesian economics and national economies. Then, full employment was the norm. Protecting it seemed the right thing to do.
HIGH EMPLOYEE-COSTS
But today, in the age of increasing globalisation, high employee-costs are threatening the competitiveness of French firms. Reluctant to take on obligations they might not be able to afford later, French firms have been slow to boost employment in response to short-term increases in demand. This, of course, can produce a vicious circle. With demand for workers slow to pick up, unemployment keeps overall consumption from rising, further inhibiting economic growth.
The result is a sluggish economy and a high rate of unemployment. And young people bear an unusually large brunt of it. Meanwhile, a system that was originally crafted to protect workers at the expense of businesses now seems to be protecting employed workers at the expense of unemployed ones.
In short, the system needs to change. The students may succeed in pressing the government to withdraw the policy. The prime minister, under criticism for his handling of the matter, finds his position weakening.
However, regardless of the outcome of this particular debate, the French model, however attractive it might have once been, looks increasingly dated. Although they wax nostalgic about the 1968 uprising, most of France's older generation nonetheless add that it was in the end an impractical dream. A similar nostalgia will probably one day come to colour reminiscences about France's post-war system of employment protection.
John Rapley is a senior lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona.
