Clément Viktorovitch returns each week to the debates and political issues. Sunday March 12: the will displayed by certain opponents of the pension reform to “bring the country to a halt”.
Transport strikes, refinery strikes, garbage collection strikes: that’s what we’ve had this week. A situation which provokes the annoyance of the government: its spokesperson Olivier Véran said Monday March 6 on France 2 to do “the difference between those who want to contest and those who want to block. Those who want to block everything in the long term cannot ignore that there can be an impact on our economy.” And the Minister of Labor Olivier Dussopt added on franceinfo that “The expression of disagreement is legitimate, but this must not lead to a blockage of the country which would be dangerous for our economy.”
The government therefore accepts the principle of the strike, but refuses that of blocking. Let’s start at the beginning: the distinction between strike and blockage is, in fact, very debatable. Because, it’s true, there may be illegal actions here and there: power cuts, occupation of premises, pickets in front of depots… But for the most part, when France is blocked, it’s because strikes ! When transport does not work, it is because the drivers, the controllers, the signalmen go on strike! When there is no more fuel, it is because the refinery workers go on strike! The proof: last December, when the government urgently wanted to restore the fuel supply, it did not need to send the police to unblock the sites: it was enough to requisition the strikers. Claiming to “accept strikes but refuse blocking” is to introduce a largely fallacious distinction: in fact, it is often the same thing.
Strikes do not “endanger” the country’s economy
This assertion by certain ministers or members of the majority is false on three counts: economically, theoretically, and historically.
Economically, first. It is true that strikes temporarily put certain sectors under pressure – in particular hotels and restaurants. But, as Professor Patrice Laroche reminds us in the columns of JDDstrikes have, in the long term, almost no impact on the country’s growth.
Then, from the point of view of negotiation theories: claiming to have a social conflict without exercising the balance of power is really showing false naivety! In a negotiation, the confrontation is the extension of the discussion, when the latter has failed. If we can’t agree on what we have to gain, all that remains is to compare what we are ready to lose. Let us not forget that in this conflict the strikers are losing days of wages, and they do so, from their point of view, in the interest of all workers.
And precisely: historically, many social rights were obtained only at the end of a social movement. One thinks, of course, of the strikes of 1936, which made it possible to wrest the 40-hour week and paid holidays. But even without going that far, according to figures from the Ministry of Labor (official DARES survey), in 2020, 62% of companies that experienced a strike also saw agreements concluded for the benefit of employees. . This figure drops to 12%, five times less, in companies that have not experienced any social conflict.
From a democratic point of view, is the strike legitimate?
Yes. Unquestionably. Democracy is not just about elections. It also admits checks and balances, competing sources of legitimacy. And among them, we find precisely the social movements, popular protest, in short, the street. This is what historian Pierre Rosanvallon calls “counter-democracy mechanisms”. Without them, our political system would amount to voting one day, and being a slave for five years!
Whichever way you approach the problem, the answer is always the same. Yes, no offense to the ministers, to strike, to block, to try to defeat a decision of the government, it is legitimate. To claim otherwise is to attempt to undermine the legitimacy of a fundamental, democratic and constitutional right: the right to strike, pure and simple.