“A major negotiation to make a few dates sacred would be better than going through the law” believes Jean Viard

Can we regulate or limit the right to strike? A social question deciphered by sociologist Jean Viard. A question that will be debated in the Senate next week.

Today, in Social question, we wonder if we can regulate the right to strike. The issue will be debated in the Senate next week. The idea, coming from the ranks of the right and the center, is to neutralize 30 days per year in land transport, where strikes would be prohibited. For example, it could be today, the day you go on vacation.

The ball is therefore in the court of the senators, who will vote or not on this text on the limitation of the right to strike. And then, it will be the turn of the deputies. The government, for the moment, remains opposed to this idea.

franceinfo: This is not the first time that elected officials have sought to limit the right to strike. Why these repeated attacks?

Jean Viard: There are two opposing rights. There is the right to strike, not only a constitutional right, which was won after decades, centuries of struggles in reality, and which is a magnificent right. But there is another right, the right to vacation. It was also won after struggles in the 19th century. The law has been social battles since 1870, the ban on child labor, the ban on night work for women, the Sunday holiday in 1905, paid leave in 36, retirement in 1945.

The battle of popular circles, workers and workers to “frame time” is another battle, and a popular victory too. So the fundamental question is that there are two rights, which arise from popular struggles which clash. That’s a bit of the point. We must not say: we want to call into question the right to strike, we say: how could we articulate two rights which are as legitimate as each other? And both are absolutely fundamental.

There are two victories of popular struggles, and I am always a little disconcerted when I see the unions choose vacation dates to strike, because I would tend to think that it is in their interest to block the economic machine instead. , that is to say the economy, the businesses, the worker who goes to the factory, it is the fight against the employers and against the State. Attacking free time throws me off.

But are these also times when companies make a lot of money?

These are companies that make a lot of money, it’s true, but at the moment, excuse me, but the trains are full all the time, so I would say that they can strike almost any time. When. The problem is that the ideal would have been for there to be an agreement, a consensus. And I’m going to add one thing. You know, the primary activity of the holidays is family. However, the family, this place is essential, it is the strongest place in society. And that’s what we need to say: we need to protect family ties.

But what unions and left-wing elected officials often say is that when we start to limit the right to strike, we end up ultimately affecting this constitutional principle?

But it’s true that it’s a big danger, that’s why I’m not very in favor of the limitation. But at the same time, for example, there are 30% of blended couples, that means that there are children who move alone to go from one household to another, that’s what we’re also blocking. with strikes. So that too is still legitimate to take into account. Why is there no way to reach an agreement to say that we are making a certain number of dates sacred, because frankly, that would not seem impossible to me. I would prefer an agreement, a round table where the unions and the large family and tourism associations, etc., would make a certain number of dates sacred.

Why Italy regulated a certain number of dates. They did not regulate a month, they regulated certain major holidays. It’s good because in such a mobile world, attacking the private lives of families is still very serious and very dangerous. So I would rather call for a major negotiation, where we could make a few dates sacred, agree on that, that would be better than going through the law, otherwise, it will one day end up being voted on.

One thing must be said: the strike in companies has almost disappeared. 90% of agreements in companies are signed by all unions, including the CGT. The company is no longer the heart of social struggles. There are ecological social struggles, there are social struggles around the place of women, there are social struggles in the suburbs, there are social struggles everywhere, but they are no longer primarily in businesses. . Indeed, some large public companies maintain this strike culture. So, is there not also a real reflection to be carried out, in these large public or parapublic companies, on another culture of social dialogue which would still need to develop?