Social dialogue and the public services in the aftermath of the
economic crisis: strengthening partnership in an era of austerity –
the case of France
Gilles Jeannot, LATTS, école des ponts
Contribution to the research project for the DG for employment, social affairs and inclusion 1
European Commission project: Industrial Relations and Social Dialogue VP/2011/001,
October 2012
Executive Summary
Introduction
The research aims to understand the particular challenges facing the social partners, what
strategies they are putting in place to manage change and what contribution forms of
employee consultation and involvement i.e. social dialogue can make in maintaining high
quality public services in a period of austerity. A key goal is to encourage the adaptation of
these systems of consultation and involvement to deal with new challenges.
The analysis builds on a series of broader underlying research questions:
1. What have been the main drivers and measures of austerity adopted in each country?
2. How have these changes been implemented and to what extent has social dialogue
contributed to the change process at national, sectoral and workplace level?
3. How have institutions of social dialogue influenced industrial relations processes and
outcomes in the public services?
A particular strength of the research has been to build on and extend our understanding of
macro level developments by researching workplace change. This has involved detailed case
study work in local government to identify how local employers are affected by, and are
responding to, national austerity measures.
This national report looks at the various pressures the French public sector is under, partly
stemming from the economic crisis, and analyses the developments in the public sector,
including both central and local government – with a particular focus on the two municipal
case studies - and the implications for the public sector workforce. It also considers in detail
the impact on and the role played by social dialogue.
Measures
Between 2007 and early 2012, the French government undertook substantial measures to
reduce government expenditure through a policy of wage controls and job reductions. This
1
We would like to thank all the people who agreed to be interviewed both at national level and in the two case
study cities, and those who took part in the social partner meeting, for their contributions to this study.
used a ‘natural wastage’ principle with one in two posts not replaced after retirement.
However, the response to the crisis included stimulus measures and the effect of automatic
stabilisers (i.e. an increase in the number of people receiving social benefits); expenditure
reductions were only one component of the state’s response.
These measures were also accompanied by a general reorganisation of central government
services and government services in the departments and regions. These measures were
taken slightly before the beginning of the crisis and were not presented by the government
as a consequence of austerity. Hence, the reforms begun by Nicolas Sarkozy’s government
from 2007 combined quantitative measures (significant public service job cuts, wage
restraint, reductions in pension rights) and more qualitative measures, arising from a
significant reorganisation of all government departments and associated agencies. Few
connections were made between these reforms and the question of austerity, and whilst
they did lead to spending cuts, it was not sufficient to contain public expenditure growth.
The effects of the arrival of a new socialist government in 2012 are still difficult to assess.
However, it would seem that a change of style can be expected rather than a change in
overall policy direction. More precisely, the election of a socialist government in 2012
brought a change in style and in some priorities (an increase in fiscal pressure, new jobs in
education and justice), but no rollback in the objectives for pay moderation and public
sector employment. The economic crisis was explicitly cited in justification.
Overall, reforms under Sarkozy’s government have tended to combine quantitative
measures, including public service job cuts, wage restraint, reduction in pension rights, and
more qualitative measures, arising from a significant reorganisation of all government
departments while the effects of the new socialist government are as yet uncertain.
Social Dialogue
The employment conditions of central government employees are laid down by statute
rather than by contract. The state follows a sovereign tradition characterised by
unilateralism towards its employees and the possibilities for negotiation set out in the
statute of 1983 are small, but there is some scope for dialogue and discussion. Although the
laws on civil servants apply to local government as well as central government employees,
local employers have more room to manoeuvre and have considerable autonomy. This
flexibility and autonomy, which was long criticised as encouraging unprofessional practices
and cronyism, has been reinterpreted as a sign of managerial modernity, in contrast with the
rigidity and proceduralism of personnel management in central government.
Despite these blockages a reform of industrial relations was undertaken between 2008 and
2010. Its aim was to introduce an element of negotiation into a system governed by statute
and unilateral decision, by changing the conditions of union representation to restore union
legitimacy and by specifying conditions for binding contracts between employer and
employee. The origins of this reform predate the pressure of austerity and stem from a
longstanding critique of the formalism of industrial relations in the public sector and
attempts to adapt equivalent reforms applied in the private sector. Reform plans also have
been inspired by New Public Management. The introduction of austerity has had the effect
of freezing the implementation of this reform. Indeed, the decisions to reduce the workforce
2
and reorganise services were taken virtually without social dialogue. However, this lack of
social dialogue has not led to mass protest movements in the public services. The main
social unrest took place in opposition to pension reform in 2010, which affected both the
public and private sectors.
Local Government
Generally, local government services have not been affected by austerity up to 2012. In fact,
staff numbers have grown steadily in these organisations. However, tangible signs of change
are emerging and the rise in budgets and staff numbers seems to be under threat. Central
Government has removed the advantage of a business tax which gave flexibility to those
local authorities that were most active in attracting companies to their areas. It has frozen
the lump-sum transfers arising out of the decentralisation process. Moreover, the general
measures of freezing salaries or restricting sickness benefits apply to local government staff.
There are elements of centralisation and decentralisation in the situation of local and in
particular municipal authorities. In particular the status of local government workers and the
inflation proofing of salaries is decided nationally. Decentralisation however, enables local
authorities to recruit freely and there is flexibility in terms of staff promotion and bonuses.
When local authorities were growing, the decentralisation trend was dominant, but this may
alter with limits on central funding. At national level, social dialogue on the rules governing
the status of local government workers played a subordinate role to discussions about
central government workers because central government is more concerned with managing
its own staff than in regulating the relations between local employers and their employees.
Representation issues also complicated social dialogue.
The case studies on social dialogue in two towns demonstrate, however, that social dialogue
can be very lively in local government. It particularly relates to questions of work
organisation and becomes particularly significant when it relates to linking the working
conditions of local government employees with the quality of service provision. Moves to
connect social dialogue and participatory local democracy illustrate these trends, indicating
a wider definition of social dialogue than usually included in industrial relations.
While the economic pressure on French towns has remained limited in the case of Saint
Ouen, the first signs of financial pressure seemed to have led to little more than marginal
adjustments to the conditions of management and social dialogue. In Saint Etienne, the
pressure has led to tensions when the issues are properly discussed. In the first case,
beginning with the needs of users provides a starting point for social dialogue. Combining
participatory democracy and social dialogue provides a useful way of framing this kind of
shared quality-of-service objective. Reducing outsourcing practices or bringing services back
under municipal control can also provide a basis for agreements. The unions or staff working
groups can specify what they see as unacceptable in terms of working conditions or wages,
but also highlight limitations in the restructuring proposals.
Case study research of social dialogue in municipalities, a subject up to now previously
largely neglected in existing research, offers interesting perspectives. These reveal a capacity
for sometimes significant local dialogue around issues of reorganisation. This dialogue
becomes particularly robust when reorganisation processes have a direct impact on users,
3
which makes decision making and dialogue very real rather than an arid ritual. Procedures
for combining citizen involvement through participatory democracy and direct and indirect
participation of municipal staff represent important innovations.
Conclusion
In France, central and local government employees have been subject to unilateral
regulation, even if social dialogue and participation existed in particular forms. Until the July
2010 reform on ‘the renewal of the social dialogue’, any agreements formally signed
between parties had no legal validity and were only symbolically binding on employers. The
changes associated with the reform (i.e. binding nature of agreements, rules on
representation of trade unions etc) are still to come into force. As regards local government
workers, the general rules of their status are set centrally in the higher civil service
committees. Total salary levels are decided unilaterally by the government (for the three
public services: state, regional, hospital) after consultation with the unions. In a context of
austerity and wage freezes, this consultation is purely symbolic. This centralised control is
partially offset by more open discussions on changes to salary scales on a corp by corp basis.
Also decided centrally are general questions on pensions and sickness benefits, and it is
noteworthy that some of the recent reforms (35 hour week, accreditation of work
experience, new negotiation rules) were first introduced in the private sector, and then
applied to the public sector. For central government, there is active social dialogue in the
administrative committees of the different ministries, on individual careers (geographical
mobility, promotion). Local authorities have significant flexibility on certain aspects of pay
(bonuses, promotion levels) and informal negotiation procedures for the reorganisation of
departments, working conditions and hours. Fieldwork in two French local authorities shows
that there is scope for significant local dialogue, particularly around issues of reorganisation.
Key reference/ sources
The question of social dialogue in local government has been largely neglected in French
research. The professional bodies have little to say and prefects, who are judged on their
capacity to maintain social harmony and good relations with local government, are in no
hurry to send feedback to the Interior Ministry on industrial conflict.





Garabige Alexandra (2008), Modernisation du service public et évolution des relations
profesionnelles dans la fonction publique territoriale, Thèse de sociologie,
Conservatoire des arts et métiers.
Garabige Alexandra (2010), « La logique du compromis belliqueux. Chronique d’une
négociation sur le régime indemnitaire dans une mairie française », Négociations,
2010/2, n° 14, p. 59-70.
Lorrain Dominique (1989), les mairies urbaines et leur personnel, La documentation
française.
Bezes Philippe ; Jeannot Gilles (2011), « The development and current features of the
French civil service system », in / Van der Meer Frits, civil service system in western
Europe, second edition, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, p. 185-216.
Jeannot Gilles (2008), “Réforme de la fonction publique et réorganisation de l’Etat”,
Esprit, n° 12, 2008, p. 94-109.
4