The sentence which made me smile is the one about keeping people busy going to meetings and others processing their expenses. There is, in Europe, at European and national level, a whole superstructure of people who work in and live off these social dialogue processes.
For a while, in Paris, I was one of the MEDEF’s nominees on the board of one of France’s many public institutions jointly overseen by representatives of employer federations and trade unions. (MEDEF, for other readers, is the national employer federation.)
We had quarterly board meetings and occasional other meetings between the board meetings. I was the only person in the room who actually worked in a company. All my other colleagues came from employer federations or from trade union federations.
I was quite a busy guy professionally, as the country HR leader in a large multinational. But it was far more difficult for my colleagues to find times in their diaries for meetings, because of all the other commissions, business lunches, confederal meetings, etc, which they had to attend.
And this was basically all funded by the tax payer and by employers and employees. The particular public body whose board I was part of actually received a mandatory contribution from all private sector monthly payroll deductions (employer and employees). Its role was to fluidify the job market for « cadres » (managers or senior professionals). It did interesting studies of the job market, promoted training and provided support to individuals. But nobody ever questioned whether the best was to help the employment of cadres was to reduce mandatory payroll deductions and boost companies’ competitiveness and profitability.
The Americans called this ‘the cost of doing business in Europe’. Those were the sensible ones. Others called it ‘socialism’.
And the amazing thing is that it just goes on and on. Macron made some timid labour-market reforms but has never questioned this labour-related superstructure. “Jobs for the boys” is what we would have called it in the past. At a time when union membership continues to decline (whether a good or bad thing is not the point) and the country is sinking under the weight of its debt, maybe it’s time for a rethink.
Tim, thanks. I try to keep these things relatively short to make them readable. But I vaguely remember a report from about 10 years ago on the French state's funding of trade unions, without which the unions would collapse. That funding came in many ways, one being membership on boards and commissions.
I am also mindful of the many "projects" that the EU Commission funds, which also keep many people busy and consultants employed. Have any of them ever produced anything that was acted on?
In other words, there is a "social dialogue industry" unhooked from reality.
Thanks, Tom. Very true, I think.
The sentence which made me smile is the one about keeping people busy going to meetings and others processing their expenses. There is, in Europe, at European and national level, a whole superstructure of people who work in and live off these social dialogue processes.
For a while, in Paris, I was one of the MEDEF’s nominees on the board of one of France’s many public institutions jointly overseen by representatives of employer federations and trade unions. (MEDEF, for other readers, is the national employer federation.)
We had quarterly board meetings and occasional other meetings between the board meetings. I was the only person in the room who actually worked in a company. All my other colleagues came from employer federations or from trade union federations.
I was quite a busy guy professionally, as the country HR leader in a large multinational. But it was far more difficult for my colleagues to find times in their diaries for meetings, because of all the other commissions, business lunches, confederal meetings, etc, which they had to attend.
And this was basically all funded by the tax payer and by employers and employees. The particular public body whose board I was part of actually received a mandatory contribution from all private sector monthly payroll deductions (employer and employees). Its role was to fluidify the job market for « cadres » (managers or senior professionals). It did interesting studies of the job market, promoted training and provided support to individuals. But nobody ever questioned whether the best was to help the employment of cadres was to reduce mandatory payroll deductions and boost companies’ competitiveness and profitability.
The Americans called this ‘the cost of doing business in Europe’. Those were the sensible ones. Others called it ‘socialism’.
And the amazing thing is that it just goes on and on. Macron made some timid labour-market reforms but has never questioned this labour-related superstructure. “Jobs for the boys” is what we would have called it in the past. At a time when union membership continues to decline (whether a good or bad thing is not the point) and the country is sinking under the weight of its debt, maybe it’s time for a rethink.
Tim, thanks. I try to keep these things relatively short to make them readable. But I vaguely remember a report from about 10 years ago on the French state's funding of trade unions, without which the unions would collapse. That funding came in many ways, one being membership on boards and commissions.
I am also mindful of the many "projects" that the EU Commission funds, which also keep many people busy and consultants employed. Have any of them ever produced anything that was acted on?
In other words, there is a "social dialogue industry" unhooked from reality.
Tim, by the way, we have a lunchtime meeting in Paris on December 11. Drop me an email at tom.hayes@beerg.com if you would like to come along.