Labour struggles against mass redundancies in France: understanding direct action
| Published date | 04 October 2011 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451111174111 |
| Pages | 642-653 |
| Date | 04 October 2011 |
| Author | Sylvie Contrepois |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Labour struggles against mass
redundancies in France:
understanding direct action
Sylvie Contrepois
Working Lives Research Institute, London Metropolitan University,
London, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This article aims to examine recent labour struggles against mass redundancies in
France. It seeks to understand the well reported incidences of direct action within the terrain of how
industrial relations operate and are governed.
Design/methodology/approach – Primary and secondary data sources are deployed to build and
understand, in a grounded way, a case study of an industrial conflict.
Findings – The weakness of the regulation of employers, when allied to a number of considerations
like union presence, has led to radical, direct actions. This highlights that overall the source of
stimulus for action is worker weakness vis-a
`-vis the employer and not strength.
Social implications – To aid social peace in the workplace, further regulation of employer
behaviour by the state is needed given the weakness of union regulation.
Originality/value – The article highlights that conflict takes place primarily in contexts where the
institutions of the French republic are shown to be incapable of forcing employers to respect
employment laws.
Keywords Workplace conflict,Industrial action, France,Redundancy, Industrial relations,
Industrial law
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The radicalism – and accompanying extensive media portrayal – of some recent
disputes challenging employers’ terms for restructuring in France surprised many
observers. For example, as part of occupations of workplaces against redundancy,
“bossnapping” – as it was termed in English-speaking countries – dominated the
coverage of employment relations of France in the foreign press in 2009 (Keating,
2009). This was all the more so with levels of unionisation being extremely low – some
8-9 per cent overall and just 4 per cent in the private sector by the early 2000s ( Jefferys,
2004, p. 334). Indeed, for a number of years, the idea that open, visible collective
conflicts in employment were withering away gained considerable credibility. National
statistics revealed a clear fall in the number of strikes, while the numbers of claims
being taken to the employment tribunals was on the increase as were the numbers of
collective bargaining negotiations. This combination of trends lent support to the idea
that basic class antagonisms were disappearing and that there was a change taking
place in the nature of conflicts (Groux, 1996, pp. 82-6). How, from this starting point,
can we understand the length and radical character of several recent employment
conflicts? Are they sporadic and residual outbursts that can be located within a
national trade union history dominated by anarchist and revolutionary currents? Or
can these cases not be interpreted as demonstrating at a deeper level the inheren t
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
ER
33,6
642
Employee Relations
Vol. 33 No. 6, 2011
pp. 642-653
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425451111174111
To continue reading
Request your trial