Strikes held in state education system

Download article in original language : FR0406103NFR.DOC

Trade unions organising staff in the French state education system called strikes in March and May 2004 in protest at current education policy, the decentralisation of the management of certain categories of staff, and continuing pensions reform. Support for both strikes was limited.

A number of education workers' trade unions called one-day strikes in the state education system on 15 March and 25 May 2004. The unions involved were the United Union Federation (Fédération syndicale unitaire, FSU) and the teaching sections of the National Federation of Independent Unions (Union nationale des syndicats autonomes, UNSA), the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (Confédération française démocratique du travail, CFDT) and the General Confederation of Labour (Confédération générale du travail, CGT).

The strike in March was considered by the unions as a 'semi-success', with 40% of staff heeding the strike call according to union estimates. However, the action in May was considered a 'semi-failure', with an average participation rate of less than 25% and a very limited turn-out for demonstrations organised by the unions that called the strike.

The strikers’ were protesting against the same targets in both March and May: current education policy, particularly funding and job categories; the devolution of management of certain non-teaching categories of staff, especially administrative and manual workers, to regional or départemental authorities; and changes to the civil service pension system. The unions were counting on the continued momentum of the anti-government mood illustrated by the April 2004 regional and local elections to help them end a year of protest on a high note, by sending a message to the new Education Minister, François Fillon. However, the actual level of mobilisation in the strikes simply enabled 'note to be taken', in the words of the FSU general secretary, while the Education Ministry stated that the new minister himself does not appear to have been challenged on a personal basis, and that the mobilisation showed the persistent anxiety of staff but not its transformation into anger.

Possible explanations for the half-hearted mobilisation on the part of the education staff include the following:

• the strikes in 2003 ( FR0306102F ) ultimately led to large amounts of pay being docked. This de facto pay cut, stretched out over a period, had a serious deterrent effect;

• the relative failure of 2003’s significant mobilisations to achieve their aims. The two education ministers remained in their posts until the recent regional elections, the controversial new teaching assistants are gradually taking up their positions in schools, the decentralisation of non-teaching staff was only postponed, and the the criteria for entitlement to a full pension are to be applied to all civil servants, including teachers;

• in a climate of disillusionment and mistrust, a public debate on schools launched by the President of the Republic did not become a core mobilising issue. Despite the seriousness of the issue, the mobilisation of Ministry of Education staff has played a very limited part in this general debate; and

• although extremely hard-hit by 2003's amendments to their pension scheme ( FR0309103F ), education staff (with the notable exception of people on youth employment schemes and those without full civil servant status) are less affected by the effects of the government’s employment policy and latest changes in the regulations governing unemployment benefit. However, they are all as affected as the rest of the population by changes in the sickness insurance system. However, in terms of these issues, the mobilisations are against the general policies of the current government and its health policy.