Thank you to Paul Spicker and Tim Clark for comments, and apologies for a
belated response.
The 35 hour week was not intended for the public sector, at first, but was
meant
a. to encourage private employers and unions to develop a culture of
negotiation , which is said to be lacking in France: firms that negotiated
successfully received a bonus from the government
b; to create jobs, although this was controversial. The shift from a 40 hour
week to a 39 hour week in 1982 is said to have generated 140 000 jobs i.e. a
significant number.
Trade Union pressure is much greater in the public sector, which was rapidly
drawn into the debate. The 35 hour week was therefore extended to all types
of employment, which naturally created difficulties, given the degree of
understaffing, and the difficulty in attracting nurses and qualified staff
in general. Fundamentally,pressure for the 35 hour week stemmed from the
fact job satisfaction is very low, wages are relatively low and have
received the brunt of anti inflationary freezes, and carrer prospects are
not attractive. It is difficult not to be essentialist, and avoid
generalisations, but it is my feeling that approaches to work are very
different from the UK. Public service workers over here seem to be committed
to what they do, and are prepared to stand for the "public service", but
their personal commitment is strictly limited in time. Never after friday
lunchtime (at 12). This might be a silly empirical or even personal comment.
The same applies to the issue of pensions. Millions of public service
workers took to the streets, and commited large amounts of money to the
strike against the government's plan to , in effect, cut pensions and try to
force people to retire later. People will just retire, money or not (at the
moment, they retire at 57). The current crisis is more akin to the post 1968
situation, than to 1995, with a considerable degree of frustration and
enmity, and unmanageable industrial relations in the whole of the public
sector for the years to come. That might also be a high price to pay for a
government, probably a higher price than the short period of relative
disorganization that followed the adoption of the 35 hour week.
Jean paul Révauger
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Clark" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "jp revauger" <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: Catastrophe in French health care
> I suppose it's a bit trite to point out that references from French
sources
> may have exactly the same function of aiming to convince audiences of
> 'superiority'.
>
> However, I do agree that it needs a balanced approach- pity you didn't
tell
> us more.
>
> The 35 hour week in France is interesting because currently in Britain the
> NHS would collapse due to lack of staff if such a working time was
> introduced. Yet I am sure most people here would like the idea of the
same
> money for less hours (even if they wouldn't understand/care about the
> possible positive implications for employment levels etc).
>
> The question for us is- have the French succeeded in producing a more
> socially just/desirable employment arrangements while maintaining the high
> standards they have a reputation for? Or is it a bit like your trains?-
> great service that costs an arm and a leg that in the long term is simply
> unsustainable.
>
> You suggest the impact is mixed so I guess I'll modify those questions
with
> the caveat 'to what extent'
>
> A brief answer would be great- I must say it is nice to have some
> international input (no offence to previous contributors intended!).
>
> Tim Clark
> University of Birmingham
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jp revauger" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 8:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Catastrophe in French health care
>
>
> References to the French health system in the British press and in British
> political discourses and references to the British health system in France
> usually have the same function: they aim to convince audiences of the
> superiority of their own national models. Serious consideration of the
> strengths and weaknesses of systems requires a rather difficult and
balanced
> analysis.
> The impact of the 35 hour week in France, and comparisons with British
> mores, is a case in point.
> Quoting dramatic headlines from the French press does not necessarily help
> British experts understand what exactly is happening over here (I mean
chez
> nous).
> Best wishes,
> Jean Paul Révauger
> Université de Bordeaux III.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Spicker" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:40 PM
> Subject: Catastrophe in French health care
>
>
> > I'm running behind this week, and I've only just got round to reading my
> > copy of Le Monde Hebdo from 31st May. There is a full page article on
the
> > crisis in the French health service, original date 23 May. Here is a
> > taster:
> >
> > <<At the root of this fiasco: the staggering shortage of nursing staff.
> > "With the closure of training schools, the main cause of the shortage,
and
> > the application of the 35 hour working week, the result is there:
> > catastrophe!" says with alarm the chief service manager, Catherine
> > Toffolon, herself a former nurse. She gives a simple example of the
> current
> > situation: "Before ... children who have hurt their fingers by jamming
> them
> > in the door would be kept in for at least a night. Now, they're being
> given
> > a bandage and told to come back tomorrow. Just to get the bed!">>
> >
> > from: N Bastuck et al., Hopitaux: rien ne va plus, Le Monde 23.5.03
> >
> >
> > Paul Spicker
> > Professor of Public Policy
> > Centre for Public Policy and Management
> > The Robert Gordon University
> > Garthdee Road
> > Aberdeen AB10 7QE
> > Scotland
> >
> > Tel: + 44 (0) 1224 263120
> > Fax: + 44 (0) 1224 263434
> >
> > Website: http://www.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/
>
|