No framework agreement on 35-hour week in civil service

Source: Ministry of the Civil Service.

Government proposals

The Ministry of the Civil Service had opened negotiations with two objectives in mind. first, designing an approach to the introduction of the 35-hour week consistent with that established in the private sector by the second "Aubry law" on the issue (FR0001137F); and second, prioritising the modernisation of the public service, with employment issues being merely the consequence of this. The unions were resolutely seeking commitments on overall job creation (FR0001126N). The draft framework agreement, reshaped several times during negotiations on 7 and 8 February 2000, represented an advance on the principles initially announced by the government:

• from January 2002, the date when the 35-hour week comes into force in the civil service, the calculation of working time would be made on the basis of a maximum annual actual working time of 1,600 hours, an identical threshold to that provided for in the private sector. This maximum duration could possibly be lower if work-related conditions justified this. To respond to union demands, spurred by fears that the annualisation of working time would introduce too much flexibility, the latest version of the agreement reintroduced a reference to the 35-hour week;

• compensation for overtime with time off in lieu would be encouraged. Moreover, when overtime is used as a normal method of managing working time, the possibility of establishing new funded positions to fill these hours would be examined;

• daily and weekly working hours and minimum rest periods were set out;

• the overall development in staffing levels would occur within the framework of a forward-looking employment management policy "to satisfy the needs of the public services". However, the unions were promised that all staff taking retirement over a three-year period would be replaced. In the hospitals, job creation was to be considered; and

• ending precarious employment would become a priority objective. A willingness to end the perpetual cycle of recreating layers of low-paid temporary jobs, which has continued despite successive plans for curbing such forms of employment, was declared and manifested.

The unions' positions

The Minister felt that a "freeze" in civil service staffing levels was still justified despite the reduction in working time, as in the public service this reduction does not fulfil the same function as in the private sector. Moreover, the public sector has witnessed a rise in employment levels of over 20% over the past 20 years. In the draft framework agreement, no increase in staff numbers was planned, except in the hospitals. However, significant concessions were made on this issue. CFDT stated that certain provisions even partially contradicted the principle of freezing the number of jobs in the public sector. This is the reason why this union agreed to sign the deal.

The other unions have different interpretations of the draft agreement, which made it impossible for them to sign up to it. First, the government made no commitment to increase staffing levels overall. Second, the replacement of staff who retire was guaranteed only until 2003, while between now and 2010, 43% of the 4.5 million civil servants currently in employment will retire. Both CGT and CGT-FO also emphasised the risks of flexibility, and the challenge to established extra holidays contained within the draft agreement. UNSA, acknowledging that the concessions made by the government were not inconsiderable, refused on principle to sign an agreement supported by only a minority of unions. CFE-CGC justified its refusal to sign by the absence of solutions for the problems of managerial and professional staff, especially in terms of overwhelming workloads. In the draft, measures concerning managerial and professional staff were referred to specific regulatory provisions, with no further details given.

In spite of union demands, the Minister refused to extend negotiations. He did, however, agree to retain the advances made in the draft agreement on the issue of precarious employment. Negotiations on this topic were due to reopen in April. The other commitments on employment levels have been rendered obsolete by the refusal by the unions to sign the agreement. The same is true of provisions on "time savings accounts" and on time spent on standby.

Diversified implementation of the 35-hour week

Following the failure of the framework agreement, the ways in which the reduction of working time will be implemented is now to be negotiated in a decentralised and diverse manner. With regard to the central government civil service, employing a little over 2 million people, a law will lay down the main provisions of the reduction of working hours. The way in which these general principles will be applied are to be decided within each area of the central administration. For the employees of the national education system, discussions opened on 8 March. The Minister of Education proved disinclined to reduce the working time of teachers, whom he feels often work less than 35 hours a week. However, strike action which began several months ago in response to the Ministry's plans for education (FR9903170N), led to the Minister announcing the creation of jobs. The Minister of the Interior, on the other hand, has declared himself in favour of linking the police unions' support for the 35-hour week to a recruitment drive. At the Ministry of Finance, staff are taking action in opposition to as planned merger between the tax department and the Treasury (FR0002142F). The Minister has stated that "increased efficiency" generated by this reform would allow the reduction of working time to be implemented without every staff member who retires having to be replaced. Discussions in the various ministries are thus getting under way against a backdrop of pressure from strike action, which makes their outcome highly uncertain.

The hospitals sector has also been witnessing sporadic strike action for several months (FR0001136F). The 750,000 hospital workers are demanding extra funding and staff. On 2 March, the Minister of Employment and Solidarity, Martine Aubry reached an agreement providing for a significant "budget increase," which all the unions except CGT are expected to sign. This agreement states that "the reduction of working time will lead to net creation of jobs."

The greatest diversity in the introduction of the 35-hour week is likely to be experienced by local and regional authority staff. The 50,000 local authorities, 36,000 of which are town and village councils, employ 1.5 million staff. Each authority is in principle free to act in the domains of its own budget, recruitment and organisation. As a recent study carried out by a consultancy firm revealed, many authorities have already started the process of reducing working time, which has been accompanied in the majority of cases by the creation of jobs. CFDT, which is asking for negotiations to be opened in order to establish a set of common guidelines for local and regional government, fears that the lack of general rules will deepen the inequalities between wealthier and poorer, and between larger and smaller authorities.

Commentary

This is the first time for 30 years that negotiations in the civil service have not produced an agreement. The reasons for this failure stem partially from the approach taken by the government. After delaying the opening of negotiations for almost a year, which was devoted to consultation, the Minister for the Civil Service wanted to see a quick agreement. The schedule for negotiations, however, was disrupted by the concomitant intensification of strike action in several sectors of the civil service, which encouraged certain unions to take a tougher line. The delayed announcement by the Prime Minister of his intentions regarding civil servants' retirement pension schemes had the same effect. The government's refusal to postpone the end of negotiations showed that the reduction of working time in the civil service was not one of its priorities. The failure of negotiations, however, may well fan the flames of discontent among civil servants.

The Roché report, presented to the Minister for the Civil Service in early 1999, demonstrated the vast complexity and diversity of systems of working time in the civil service (FR9903166F). The decentralised implementation of the 35-hour week could exacerbate these differences, but it is not certain that a framework agreement would have lessened disparities within the civil service. This agreement would have left considerable room for the sector-by-sector application of the reduction of working time. With or without a framework agreement, the civil servants best protected by powerful unions will certainly have their interests defended better than others.

In practice, the implementation of the 35-hour week can be accomplished only by the reorganisation of work within each individual department, authority or ministry. Wiping the slate of working practices clean and starting again will be a sensitive issue, since many advantages have in the past been granted in the wake of industrial action. (Catherine Vincent, IRES)