More stories from Feb-April 2000 newsletter

On this page - shorter hours in France and Australia

It's law: 35 hour work week in France!

by Wayne Sonter, Shorter Work Week Action Committee

Workers in France start the 21st century with a 35 hour work week, which became law on 1st January 2000. French workers, already with 5 weeks paid annual leave, now have a 1,600 hour work year. France's labour movement sets a new standard that should inspire workers world wide to match or surpass its achievement.
Shorter work hours were gained when the unemp-loyed made unemployment an issue before the last French election, and the French unions gained a 35 hour pledge from the Socialist Party and held it to its commitment once it was in government (as part of a socialist, communist, green alliance).

In the lead up to the 35 hour week becoming law the government encouraged voluntary reduced work hour arrangements, providing incentives for those companies that reduced working time to save or create jobs. An estimated 100-150,000 extra jobs were created in the 18 months before the 35 hour week became law. The government also set up an industrial inspectorate to police overwork, that imposed substantial fines on firms (next page) (35 hour week cont'd) overworking staff (see SWW News No8).

The 35 hour law demonstrates government has a role to ensure that economic growth also serves people's needs, not only profits, and that the law can be used to do it. Those in power need remind-ing of this because the drive for profits constantly undermines economic security for millions.

French employers protest that the law is a 'stupid, ludicrous idea' and claim it will increase wage costs and risk France's booming economy. They say it affects their competitivity and threaten to move operations elsewhere. What employers don't admit is how profits have accumulated over a long period of increasing productivity. For instance France's economy grew by 50% between 1974 and 1994, but used 10% fewer working hours, while the workforce grew by 10%. This fed into higher unemployment. Shorter hours can also make the French workforce less competitive only while its breakthrough in hours remains isolated. As it spreads employers won't be able to exploit differ-ences in work hours between national workforces.

French and Italian employers formed an alliance to oppose the 35 hour week (the Italian government is also pledged to bring in a 35 hour week, from 1st January 2001). However, as outright opposition seems futile employers aim to restrict its application as far as possible, and to trade off shorter hours with increased flexibility, so it does not cost business extra. They say the law uses force, when incentives are as effective.

Originally the law was to apply from 2000 for all businesses with more than 10 employees. Now firms with 20 or less employees are exempt till 2002. Trucking companies, many of whom are owner-operators have blockaded roads throughout France during January, to get exemptions from the 35 hour ruling, citing cut throat competition from other European truckers.

In turn, many unions and left parties are wary of the actual implementation of the law and demand government toughen it to protect workers more. The law is seen as a "Trojan horse" for greater deregulation of the labour market ('How the French are revolutionising the working week' AFR 9.11.99). Unions are resisting employers' efforts to use the 35 hour week to carry out wholesale revision of collective agreements as revenge for shorter hours, and to impose wage freezes over the next few years (a 35 hour week without loss of pay is equal to a pay rise of about 11%).

Another argument against the 35 hour week is that it is not sufficient. It needs a 'massive' reduction in working hours to significantly impact on unemployment. Otherwise labour's forces are harnessed to strike a blow for nothing, as happened with the 39 hour law in France in 1982 (and 38 hour agreements in Australia since 1981). A marginal reduction in hours had little significant impact on unemployment, so the idea of progressive reduction of work hours to ensure full employment and quality of life fell off the labour movement's agenda for nearly 2 decades.

Pierre Larratrou, author of '35 hours, the Double Trap' argues for a 32 hour 4 day week as a minimum step. He warns that if the 35 hour week does not make radical inroads into France's unemployment it will be seen as the failure of the regulation of the working time by law, & new proof of the impotence of the policy. The result will be implementation of massive deregulation on Thatcher/Reagan lines and decimation of social justice values (France 2 Internet, s4j@infonie.fr).

The Shorter Work Week Action Committee advocates a campaign for shorter hours that is both world wide and ongoing: for progressive reduct-ions in working time that are matched and bettered wherever labour is able to effectively organise; to move gradually toward a new global standard for labour. So in NSW we call on the Carr Labor government to declare an Olympics 2000 fortnight holiday - to share the celebration with workers, and to show it is committed to labour's further advancement as we start this new century. We call on it to commit to a 7 hour day by 1st January 2001, and a 4 day week by 2005, as well as give support for a world labour standard of 25 hours by the end of the first decade of the new millennium.

In a global economy, where a billion of the world's 3 billion workforce is unemployed or under-employed, and the rest increasingly overworked; where the 225 wealthiest individuals earn as much each year as the poorest 3 billion, it needs a radical and increasingly coordinated campaign by the world's workers to emancipate ourselves and establish a just, humane society and sustainable economy.

Another view on France’s 35 hour week

The revolutionary left in France regards the 35 hour week law — in its actual form — as an attack on workers’ conditions rather than a boost. They demand a shorter working week, but with guarantees that it will be used to create new jobs — not just make work more "flexible" — and pay will not be cut. For example, Voix des Travailleurs no.127 of 17 February 2000 reports: "The Aubry [35 hour week] law is also an attack on wages. This is revealed by an official inquiry carried out under the auspices of the Ministry of Employment and Solidarity. In those workplaces where an agreement has been signed for a 35 hour week under the Aubry law, the increase in workers’ wages between spring 1998 and spring 1999 was 0.9% lower than in other workplaces. In other words, it was half the norm, since the average rise of workers’ wages in the same period was 1.8%. The study adds that 84% of wage-workers covered by an Aubry agreement have had no drop in wages. In other words, 16% of them have had a wage cut.

"Thus the Aubry law allows the bosses not only to ‘annualise’ working time and to impose greater flexibility, but also to erode wages. All the more so because even because in cases where there is a wage ‘guarantee’, as for those on the minimum wage, it comes not through a rise in the hourly rate, but by a compensatory bonus, destined in most cases to disappear after a few years".

Workers Liberty Australia Front Page    |   Workers Liberty Australia site contents and index |  Workers Liberty Britain
Your comments to the editor or author? E-mail to wlaus@ozemail.com.au

36-hour week push to go national?

By Richard Lane

The Victorian CFMEU and other unions have mounted an intelligent and successful campaign to pressure the construction industry bosses into granting reduced working hours, limits on overtime, increased pay etc. The tactics have been short term stoppages and bans to slow down big sites — causing major costs to the companies, while not hurting the workers’ pay packets too severely.

CFMEU National Secretary, John Sutton, said that the Victoria branch had been earmarked to lead the campaign more than 12 months ago. "They are our strongest branch; they are one of the most formidable unions in the country and probably on the planet. The are the ones to lead the breakthrough and all the other states are watching keenly. Building workers right across the country will be seeking in due course to achieve these standards."

The bosses, led by the Master Builders’ Association (MBA), have tried to respond with a three month lockout, but have been unable to maintain solidarity. They are too busy looking at their individual problems to join together effectively as a class.

The MBA successfully applied to the AIRC for an end to the bargaining period between 217 employers and unions. This means that unions cannot take protected industrial action against those employers.

However, this has limited effect as not all unions are covered by the ruling, in particular the Electrical Trades Union. Unions may be prepared to take illegal action. The processes of arbitration are slow.

For a large builder, each day they go past the contracted date means $10,000s in penalties, finance holding costs etc. It makes a lot of sense to settle union claims quickly instead of being involved in protracted disputes.

Grocon, one of the largest builders in the country, has signed an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) with a splash of publicity. Managing Director, Bruno Grollo, said that all but a handful of projects had worked a 36-hour week for 18 years, including the Rialto and the Crown Casino.

"We’ve lost more time and money on the jobs we’ve got going than it will cost us in the next three years with the 36 hour week. We can’t afford to keep this up. They were going to step up their campaign. In the next three months they could cost us as much as the 36 hour week would cost us in the next decade."

Another group of seven large builders, including Multiplex and John Holland are close to agreeing on similar deals, with some trade-off on hot and wet day working and rostering arrangements.

The 36-hour week, of course, is still a fiction. Grocon and other large builders work 6 days a week, 10 hours a day. What the agreement actually means is that there will be an additional 12 RDOs (rostered days off) when the sites actually do shut down. They will still keep working Saturdays and lots of overtime. There are elements of the agreement that restrict weekend work, limit total weekly hours to 50 including overtime and require the employment of extra people.

Over 300 employers are reported by the CFMEU to have signed interim agreements for a 36-hour week and annual 6% wage rises, while continuing to negotiate on EBAs.

Militant tactics are still able to win serious gains from the big employers. The demands for limits on overtime and weekend work are especially significant as they can actually expand employment on the big sites, not just increase wages for the relatively well off.

How much flow on there will be is debatable. In many cases workers will still negotiate informally for a daily rate that may be cash in hand.

As Ross Gittins, economist for The Age puts it: "no doubt the unions involved will have a fair bit of success"

"But they’re the exception rather than the rule. And the gains they make won’t "flow on" to other workers as they did in the days of the centralized system."

"These days, it’s the roll-backs in workers’ conditions that tend to flow on — not via arbitration, but via the spread of competitive pressures through the economy."

It is up to union activists to build enough pressure of our own to push the 36-hour week campaign throughout all industries nation wide.

Workers Liberty Australia Front Page    |   Workers Liberty Australia site contents and index |  Workers Liberty Britain
Your comments to the editor or author? E-mail to wlaus@ozemail.com.au