This is one of the economic issues at the start of the year: the sharing of the wealth created by companies. In 2021, CAC40 companies generated 137 billion euros in profit, which has not been without reviving the debates on the increase in wages and the reduction in working time. Two options rejected by the government, whose rhetoric aims to make its decisions look like a fatality.
As often, this is the heart of the problem, and we were able to observe it on Thursday February 3 with Élisabeth Borne. The Minister of Labor was the guest of BFMTV. It adheres to the objective of better sharing the wealth generated by companies, whether through wage increases or participation. But what are the levers operated by the government to achieve this? There, his answers are immediately more vague. “We strongly recommend having agreements in companies to share the wealth that is produced, says Minister of Labor. I had asked these branches, these sectors to engage in discussions. / We gave all the tools. / We showed that we were quite insistent. / I invite them again to engage in discussions to revalue their gates.”
We are at the pinnacle of government firmness! The lexical field is that of incitement, all the sentences are modalized, that is to say that they contain elements of attenuation or caution, in short: the Minister of Labor clearly explains that she does not intend to take no binding measures.
The government has always been clear on the fact that it preferred to rely on social dialogue rather than imposing a decision. And besides, the same goes for the other subject that is on the table at the moment: a possible reduction in working time. “I think that in some companies, there may be negotiations to set up a four-day week but I think that we cannot impose such a measure at all, respond Elisabeth Borne. I think it can be discussed in some companies. / I think it’s a choice of the company. / It is not a measure that is decided from above. / I don’t think it can be a general measure. / I tell you me, it’s business choices.” Here it is, difficult to be clearer: if reductions in working time should be decided, this could only take place after a negotiation company by company.
>> Working time: the four-day week tested in Spain
It is difficult to blame the French government for this choice, if it were fully assumed as such. But already, in the excerpts from the interview listed, there are elements that deserve attention. You may not have seen it pass, but Élisabeth Borne tells us: “We cannot impose such a measure at all”, speaking of the reduction of working time. So if. We can. We have even done it before: in 1982, to go from 40 to 39 hours. And in 1998, to go from 39 to 35 hours. Were they good or bad decisions: everyone will judge. But what is indisputable is that it was possible to take them, contrary to what the Minister of Labor told us today. And besides, it even goes a step further. “I think that there are companies in which this can be put in place, but in any case, it is not the role of the State and in any case I do not at all recommend that such a rule be imposed on all companies,” ensures Elisabeth Borne.
“It is not the role of the state”. In fact, this sentence is a falsehood. It is obviously a prerogative of the State to reduce, if it wishes, the legal duration of work. Is it appropriate, is it wise, we can discuss it. But in any case, it is possible! And for me, all this is nothing trivial. What this installs in our minds is the idea of state impotence in economic matters. But this impotence is not irrevocable: it is a choice, good or bad!
Ideology is not a dirty word. On the contrary, it is the very heart of politics! If we need to have our differences arbitrated by a vote of the people, it is because there are no pragmatic solutions on the one hand, and unreasonable or unrealistic solutions on the other! All there is are decisions, which are based on divergent assessments of reality, and are made for the benefit of different segments of the population. So, on the part of the government: defending its choices, a fortiori during the campaign, is perfectly justified. But making your choices look like fate: that, on the other hand, borders on disloyalty.