Work organization : France in logic of honor when USA in logic of contract

In the last post, I've discussed how the French Ancient Regime (period from the wake of last millenary to the French Revolution in 1789) is still shaping the way we're governed. I will pursue with those considerations on a more day-to-day illustration : the way French Ancient Regime society organization is still largely tainting today's french society and mostly work organization. It explains a lot of misunderstandings and failures when a US company manages a french subsidiary and vice-versa. This post is based upon a book that has been written in 1987 : sociologists have studied organization and behavior in 3 plants of the same industrial group (US, France, Netherlands). This was 25 years ago and mostly blue collars, but the lessons learned are curiously similar to what I've personally experienced when my company was taken over by a US company less than 5 years ago,  in a completely different sector (software manufacturer). 

Ancient Regime

France has lived for 6 or 7 centuries under what we're calling the "Ancient Regime". It was a very rigid "class system" with strong barriers to move from one class to another. You had the aristocracy (including kings and queens), not engaged in any business but fighting, forming alliances and marrying amongst themselves to keep power and estates. You had the nobility and gentry, some of them more a sub-aristocracy, some of them doing business which was considered something "dirty" and kept you under aristocracy (a real aristocrat could not make a living conducting business). You had a class of religious (monks, priests), and then you had a class of people that had access to a better class through heroic behavior in battles : cavalry was for example considered as a superior class. You had craft-makers and shop-owners with a perpetuation through master/apprentice relationship (and protection through syndication). And most people were poor farmers working for small gentry. They were not slaves but working on lands that were not their property. They were working for their lord.

Everybody was under a logic of 'honor'. Belonging to a class came with a list of rights and duties. Those lists evolved with time but the system kept on being the very same. When in a class, you cannot do something that is devoted to an inferior class (or stick your nose too much into the inferior class business), that would lead you to dishonor. This is still surviving : in France, a manager cannot dig too much into a team member's work without being considered as "breaking the rank". And the team member being too much controlled will find outrageous that his manager is going too much into his business devoted to 'its class'. Even the lower class was in this logic of honor. They were into domination but were very proud and jealous of their autonomy in some rights and were not in rebellion of the duties they found 'natural' to their rank. The whole society was working well provided everybody stayed 'in his rank', benefited from 'his rights' and ensured he properly respected his 'duties'. A lord had all powers over poor farmers but he was meant to use it with moderation according to his duties. If he did so, the farmers accepted the domination. If not, there was rebellion. Nevertheless, this domination was difficult to endure. That's why, in France, "working for someone" is still seen as a problem because it always refers to a master/servant relationship, not to a contractual relationship as it is in the USA.

French revolution and US model

The French Revolution which started in 1789 was meant to break all of this. The King was beheaded in 1793 and it's true that the whole system was shaken around. The whole "class system" was torn and the aristocracy barely exists today. But the class logic and the 'logic of honor' is still vivid. The classes are far more numerous come in many shades. But each group refers to a system of rights and duties, even if it's not consistent anymore with the current reality. Some strikes are starting just because the 'honor' of a group is endangered.French employees are ready to be utterly committed in their work but don't accept  that their manager is checking on their work too much. Some people say french people are lazy and don't care about their work. That's simply not true. The fact is, people are very disappointed by companies more than most other countries simply because they put too much expectation on work (polls show very clearly the over-commitment of french people in their job). Some also say french are unmanageable. That's more true because each group refers to its own code of honor rather than to orders. And we're still reluctant to management because of the memories of the master/servant relationship. Just like the defiance toward the riches could be interpreted as remains of the time where conducting a business was considered dirty (vs aristocracy).

At the other end, the US system is built on a very different basis. The burden of the past is way thinner. US can be seen as the aggregation of free men, meant to be peers, working together under a "logic of contract". The key word is "fairness". Of course, there are a lot of inequalities in US, much more than in France. But France refers since 1789 to "equality" when US refers to "fairness". It's more acceptable in US to "work for someone" because you're meant to have freely chosen and accepted the situation and it could be reversed one day. Hence the important figure of the "self-made-men". Therefore, the work organization relies much more on procedures (job description, management by objectives, performance review). Each level, from shareholders to blue collars, is giving objective performance expectations to the inferior level which can work, inside those orders, with a fairly good autonomy. And, unlike in France, it's not a dishonor for someone to be 'checked' : in France, it's seen as a lack of trust and defiant gesture. US can also rely on contracts because it's a lot supported by culture which is tainted by community and fairness values. This contract system does not work very well in France when people are still entrenched into honor.

Models

Management and organization models, theories, books, seminar consultancy, it's a big business. Each country, each company, is trying to find best-of-breed models. Hence "copycat effects" and dramatic changes in model popularity. We have always been impressed in France by US economic power so we've always tried to import US management methods. This is still true even if it has a little bit faded away. We've had our "Japanese model" (community and inputs bottom-up) time and now the "German model" is in everybody's mouth (consensus). "Japanese model" was also very popular in the US when Japan automotive manufacturers began to gain huge market shares in the US in the 80s with a productivity that was way superior to the US.

We've been so involved in trying to copy US methods for 4 decades that some management methods very unnatural to the French have now become quite common and seems to have always been around. This is the case for job descriptions and management reviews (for white collars at least). It would seem very unprofessional in my line of business (IT service & software manufacturing) to hire an employee without a proper job description and to not have a yearly or biyearly performance review based on objectives measurements. Still, most of the time, it's just make-up, a travesty of what the reality is about.

I've myself written a bunch of job descriptions. Most of them were never respected (except maybe the core components) because the employee was going over or under its prescription. Most of the time, I did not expect myself employees to respect it and I was expecting them to act autonomously in the company's best interest. It's the same for performance reviews : I conducted a lot of them, having prepared metrics and formal reviews and finally found myself turn the review into an informal talk. That's a real advantage for small companies in France (I've always worked for small business) : you don't need formal procedures, people will do their best and know what they have to do whatever their job desc states. And they will spontaneously help their colleagues if they feel their 'honor' commands them to do so. Problem is what works perfectly in a 30-people company does not work that well in a 10,000-people company. And also explains why we do have in France a lot of "small wonders" that never turn into "huge champions" like Google or Apple.

My personal experience

I was CFO and General Manager for France for a software manufacturer (approx 75 employees). The CEO  was french but had moved to California to develop US business. We'd been acquired by a San Jose, CA based company. It was fairly easy to deal with my new boss (company's CFO) and "indirect bosses" (General Counsel and HR VP). But I experienced a lot of tensions, struggles and misunderstanding with "peers". Finally, after 10 months, I decided to quit. Partly because of those tensions and mostly because my position was making less and less sense as control was centralized in California.

Tensions were largely between me and the VP US controller (may be the wrong title - the person was just "under" the CFO). Let's call him John. John was a real nice guy, very pleasant to deal with outside work when I was on business travel in San Jose or when he was in Paris or Lyon. But I must admit John was bothering me. A lot. And I could easily feet it was reciprocal. So the company CFO was constantly forced to act as a referee, which he was reluctant to do because he was very busy with other things and he did not want to push back nor John nor me. I was feeling that John was stubborn and not dedicated to the company, being in a pattern when he was just doing "his job", no matter what the company needed. It was easy to understand that he was thinking (as well as the CFO, at least for a part) that I was unmanageable, constantly doing things I was not asked to do, challenging things not meant to be challenged and a factor of disorganization. I can't remember us arguing is San Jose. I had a big number in my balance sheet on €/$ conversion risks. In my eyes, it was something to address. In his eyes, it was not to be taken in account because company procedures did not mention it. I was under the impression he was pushing the dirt under the carpet, he was under the impression I was making a world of something not that important while I was not addressing issues I was meant to address.

We were purely in the cultural mismatch I was exposing in the first chapter. I was in a "logic of honor". I had a view of my CFO's job that was not based on my job description but on feelings. So I thought this forced me to address issues I felt were important for the company even out of my scope. I also thought I had not only the right but also the duty to address this issue and couldn't care less about the effects on the company organization or on my peer's feelings. And I really apologize to John (and the CFO) for that. Not addressing those issues would have meant losing honor to my eyes and that was not bearable. The same applies to my peer. John was in a pure 'logic of contract'. He had a job to be done, following his job description and company procedures. He was working hard and very efficiently pursuing this goal. For him, addressing other issues would have bring disorder in organization and less efficiency in 'real issues'.

We were both right, both eager to do the best for the company, willing to interact at best, yet we mostly failed because we were trapped in our cultural vision bias. I can see this now ... 4 years after. This is something to keep in mind for people managing other people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. And also for managers or governments. You can't just look at the Japanese, US, Scandics, or German model and copy/paste into your country. That does not work well. Taking good ideas in other countries ? Of course but you have to deal with your history and culture. The 1789 Revolution did not ban the Ancient Regime organization that still survives more than 2 centuries after. A CEO or a Republic President who'd think he can delete History would be foolish and would fail.

France/US/UK justice system similarities and differences part one

Talking about differences in the justice system between France, USA and England would take several posts because, basically, they're so different. French system is based on Ancient Roma's one, England had developed its own barely from scratch ("common law") and US's one had been derived from UK's one but diverged and even copied some French choices. Kind of complicated. French people hardly know the US justice system (mostly based on US series like Ally Mc Beal and DSK/Sofitel case coverage by french media) and do not understand it. At all. But the common impression in France is that it's a justice that is kind for the rich, hard for the poor. May not be wrong. Is that so different in France ? I'm not sure. At all. So let's discuss few topics here. Other posts will follow on the matter.

France : no Habeas Corpus, low civil rights, third-world suspects treatment

Habeas Corpus had been developed in England. The "creation" took its roots as far as in the XIIth century but has been officialized in 1679. The basis is that no individual should be incarcerated without judgment and should know why he had been arrested. In USA, Habeas Corpus had been adopted since the Constitution. Unfortunately, France did not adopted this basic principle. We have our own lifelines but let's take some examples. When you're arrested in US, you should me mirandized (informed of your rights). In France, this right had been suppressed between 2003 and 2011. If police suspects (with the backup of a judge that's easy to have) you of something (maybe a felony like DUI), you'll be kept in custody for 48 hours. In 2009, there were 900.000 custodies of this kind in France - including 300.000 for driving-related felony) for a population of 65 millions. Most of the time, you'll be kept in a shithole (pardon my french but that's the reality - a prison just being disaffected here in Lyon was built 2 centuries ago. Nice from the outside but never changed inside), a cage with many other folks (and some of them dangerous). No separation between suspected murderers or DUI offenders. A law had been voted in 2011 to reinforce civil rights. Before the law, you had access to a lawyer the first 30 minutes (on 48h) and your lawyer (and yourself) had neither access to the file neither access to the charges you're blamed for. Now, you have the right to have the lawyer all along the custody.

No bucks, no good justice

Our justice is awfully slow because of restricted budget (that's the reason given by Justice labor union and this had been backup by many audits). On 43 European countries, only 6 spent less on justice as a % of GDP (Armenia, Albania,..). The graph on your left gives you the yearly justice budget comparison (not including jails), as percent of GDP, per head. Germany and Portugal data are not available

We spend something like $74 yearly per capita for our justice not including jails or 0,18% of our GDP. That's similar to US spendings ($91/year/head and 0,18% of GDP too) but more than England & Wales ($30/year/head and 0,07% of GDP) although some other studies (perimeter / period problems) say UK is above France for justice spendings.

If you include jails management,, you have :

• France : $152/year/head and 0.37% of GDP
• US : $182/year/head and 0.36% of GDP
• England : $85/year/head and 0.20% of GDP (with previously mentioned calculations problems)

So France and US are very similar ! But we got to set some comparisons with other countries

• Switzerland : 
• Justice only : $105/head ($74 in France, $91 in US) ; 0.13% of GDP (0.18% in both France and US)
• Justice + prison : $ : $177/head ($152 in France, $182 in US, $85 in England) ; 0.23% of GDP (0.37% in France and US ; 0.20% in GDP)
• Germany : 
• Justice only : $86/head ($74 in France, $91 in US) ; 0.21% of GDP (0.18% in both France and US)
• Justice + prison : $ : $124/head ($152 in France, $182 in US, $85 in England) ; 0.30% of GDP (0.37% in France and US ; 0.20% in GDP)
• Portugal : 
• Justice only : $42/head ($74 in France, $91 in US) ; 0.19% of GDP (0.18% in both France and US)
• Justice + prison : $ : $65/head ($152 in France, $182 in US, $85 in England) ; 0.29% of GDP (0.37% in France and US ; 0.20% in GDP

Now, if you take the number of declared crimes related to the overall population, if US were 100, you'd have :

- 253 in UK

- 146 in France

- 99 in Switzerland

- 201 in Germany

- 193 in Portugal

So with those few examples only, you can see that the resources used for justice are quite similar in very different countries. And that the correlation (and moreover causality) is not obvious. It "seems" that putting more money into justice has an outcome of smoothing crime but it's far from evident. 

I've added a picture with declared victims rate in the left side that gives a pretty different view.

Slow motion justice

For a crime trial, between the act himself and the first trial, the average in France should be like 3 to 5 years. And for the appeal (which is automatic on defendant or Public Ministry simple request), add 2 more years. So, on the 65,000 people sleeping in french's jails, you have a lot of them that are simply awaiting for their judgment (while 13% of jail time sentences are never served because of a lack of jail places (people are officially allowed not to serve their time) or will/means to search convicted people). The decision to keep you in jail awaiting for your trial is based on a multi-judges decision assessing dangerosity or fleeing risks. If after 5 years awaiting in your cell, you're declared innocent, a commission will assess damages and pay you some few bucks. Recently, a citizen got $1,000,000 for 10 years procedure and 7 years in jail for a rape he never committed. And it was not a "bad jury decision". This was acknowledged as a (professional) justice fault. Imagine what can get a guy cleared by jury after 2 years of "preventive jail". He can buy himself a lunch, that's all.


Prosecution system : the French neutral judge illusion

Let's take Mr Strauss-Kahn, former IMF director and about to be French president (what chocked the most French people was the perp walk BTW. And also a politician in jail. That's something you never got to see here !). The case is "The People of the State of New York v. Strauss-Kahn". In civil court, as per my understanding, it will be "Diallo vs Strauss-Kahn".To be honest, it did not understand why, in this very case, while Nafissatou Diallo was the plaintiff, the case turned to be "People of NY vs DSK". My knowledge is limited here but I know it's not always the case (Roe vs Wade being one example). Anyway, that would have been done in France. The US system is : District Attorney (DA) for the prosecution and Defense Attorney for the defense. In France, that's a trio. A judge ("juge d'instruction" that you can translate by "case working judge"), supposed to be neutral, has the monopoly of official resources (police, experts) and try to find the truth (guilty or not ?).

In a famous case ("Outreau") that took place in early 2000s, a case was given to a young (30-something) "juge d'instruction". It was a ugly pedophilia case with people allegedly abused their own children, beat them and prostituted them. The so-called neutral judge convinced himself that the accused were guilty and instructed the case to prove this. But a famous french defense attorney (his nickname is "Acquitattor', see the photo of the "beast" at the left ; "beast" is with my utterly respect because he just wrote a book named "Black beast". Black beast also means a person you have fear of) hired his own PI, fought the case like a bull and all defendant were cleared. But those folks spent years in jail, families and reputations were destroyed, jobs lost, and one of the accused killed himself. A total mess. What happened to the judge ? He got a blame and was moved to an auditor position. Not even disbarred.

That shows the French system is far for being perfect. Now, the main reproach being made to the US system by French people is that, in US system, despite the discovery process, if you want to be decently defended, you need some money to hire your own resources (PI, experts). That's true but the advantage of the US system is clarity : the DA is working on the accusation side, the defense attorney on defense. Clear and simple.

Victims, judges and lawyers places

In France and England, judges are appointed by the "Ministry of Justice", depending on political power. Although we're theorized the separation of powers (voting law, executing law, bring justice) three centuries ago, we still don't apply it. We cherish Montesquieu and the other "enlighten", want to bring them to the whole world but are reluctant to apply their lessons to ourselves. The main flaw of this is, quite often, prosecution against politicians (like corruption cases) are buried by so-called independent judges. The US system is at the opposite. Judges and DA are elected which is theoretically very good (separation of power) but can bring bias (political agendas influencing cases).

The victim role is also in question. In France, it used to be next to zero. Victims can asked to be "civil parties" so they'll have access to (part of ) the files. That's all. Well, it's changing. Nicolas Sarkozy claimed he wanted the victim to be at the center of the justice system. It had not been very far (some shrink help) and I think it's a good thing (this project being stalled).

Beyond being pro or anti-death penalty, with my french culture, the fact that victims can assist to the execution makes me uncomfortable. For me, it turns justice into pure and simple vengeance. My feeling is that justice is between the "people" (as a community or a society) and a perpetrator. The victim is part of it but does not intervene (other than as a witness). But that's my feeling, easy to write in cold blood. Would I become a victim tomorrow, seeing my young daughter being raped and murdered, I could easily change my mind.

Finally, the lawyers. In France, we have specialized lawyers (corporate, tax, crime, ...) but they're taking (with their team) the case from A to Z. From the plaint to the plea. That's very different in England where you got to work with a solicitor who works the case. But when it's time to go in front of court, the solicitor can't and must pass on the file to a barrister which is kind on a theater expert (with a Queen's Counsel or "Silk" for the best ones). Well, there are pros and cons although I would be uncomfortable having someone pleading on behalf of me and not having worked my case before. USA began with the England system but quickly switched to french one.

There are a lot of other topics I'd like to discuss :

• Why "class actions" do not exist in France ? (this is "on the table" for long but big companies are strongly lobbying against) ?
• Why criminal and civil charges are leading to penalties ridiculously weak in France compared to US ?
• Why is the appeal automatic (on simple request) in France (the first jury ruling is basically useless in most cases in criminal cases) when you need some grounds in US ? As I said, our justice is very low because there's not enough Ministry of Justice's employees. But with semi-automatic appeal, that's quite understandable
• Why most of French people are against plea bargaining and why had it been shyly and introduced recently and for minor felonies only ?
• Why do we need a law for any single aspect of our lives when abortion policy stands on a Supreme Court ruling for almost 40 years ?
• What is the role of our "constitutional counsel" vs your "Supreme Court"
• Why can't we have a simple and readable Constitution (I've read the US one but never reached the end of my country's one !) ? and why do we change it all the time (the last major version had been made in 1958)

But that's another stories. And that'll other posts !

NICOLAS QUINT

Halls of Justice Painted Green
Money Talking
Power Wolves Beset Your Door
Hear Them Stalking
Soon You'll Please Their Appetite
They Devour
Hammer of Justice Crushes You
Overpower

Metallica "And justice for all"

France/USA, same diplomacy, same messianic foreign affairs. US copes with it, France's in hypocrisy

I do believe that diplomacy (or foreign affairs) is a matter where France and USA and quite similar but also utterly different. If you look at the purpose of countries diplomacy, you'll basically find only two ones sharing the same "messianic"  (or proselytistic) vision : France and USA. For United States, this vision is built on a "God's choice" (pledge of allegiance I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all). In France, now a mostly post-religious society, it's based on the strong belief in our philosophical superiority based on what we call "Century of lights" (roughly 18th century with famous intellectuals like Diderot, Rousseau or Montesquieu). There are many grounds to contest this vision but only USA and France are acting today not only to "push" their geo-diplomatic interests but also because they do think they're enlighten and they have something to bring to the rest of the world. Moreover, they feel they have a moral obligation to do so. Look at Germany : they waived this ambition in the ruin of Berlin in 1945. England gave up when the Commonwealth collapsed. China is acting to gain leadership but they're not trying to act so we adopt their way of life or their life vision. Russia had also gave up in 1991 after the USSR collapse. Some countries just never tried even though they had strong power during History (Italy, Portugal, Spain) or a huge population (India). That leaves USA and France, brothers in arms in this fight. That may explains why those two countries are seen as the most arrogant in the world, even in the eyes of each other. But France and USA do not manage their diplomacy the exact same way, despite sharing the same goal. They don't have the same power, either. Let's see it through.

France : the difficulty of being when you had been

France has a glorious past. We had been the most powerful country in the world. Consider sciences, philosophy, warfare, we really were. Our territory was huge including what we called colonies (e.g. Algeria or Vietnam) or when we invaded half of Europe with Napoleon as a leader. We had to battle very hard against England or Germany, sometimes they were ranked #1, sometimes we were. Nowadays, we have slipped on most domains : we obtain only few Nobel prizes, our army capacity is limited, our cultural influence is either strong in small countries (western Africa) or weak in huge countries (US, China), our language is less and less spoken on the planet (in part of the overall population), our economic marketshare is decreasing day after day, we hadn't been the leading edge of the latest technology revolutions like Internet or biotechs. We still have a seat  at the very selected club of permanent members (with veto right) of the United Nations (UN) Security Council (inheritance of WWII) but our influence on US or China policy is limited. And, as hard as we try, we're less and less involved in conflicts resolution like Israel vs Palestinians. We're far from insignificant but we've been ousted of the major league (which undoubtfully includes USA, China and Russia). That's not a drama in itself but French people, deep inside, are living this as a punishment. And french leaders are often still acting as if they were still part of this league. Hence the question: is this possible to be, here and now, when you've been greater in the past ?

USA : learn to deal with others

The question is very different for US. The country had seen its power (real and relative) rising from the very beginning until very recently. And it's still in the major league. Some alarms were ringing during the Vietnam war and US is always balancing between exporting its model to the world and focus on itself first (between 1975 and 1981, the "focus on ourselves" briefly won and then Reagan came with "America's back", sending the pendulum in the opposite way). After the Berlin's wall fall, some thought America will lead the world with no rival. Francis Fukuyama predicted the "end of history". All wrong. Iraki war #1, 9/11 awful tragedy, Iraki war #2, Afghanistan war, Guantanamo, all showed that America cannot anymore send the pendulum back to "focus on ourselves", do not have a solo lead anymore in a "multipolar" world, and got to deal with other countries. End of a (brief) illusion for some delusional folks.

France diplomacy : hypocrisy as a compass

The french current Secretary of State, #2 of the french government in the protocol, said, in a press conference on Oct, 23rd 2012 "Our influence is meant to support our interests but also to defend universal values. That's one of the french diplomacy specificity". That's a sentence previous Secretary of State may have made, a "sub-Secretary of State", dedicated to "Human Rights", had been created by previous government. Moreover, the base line of french Secretary of State is always : we're acting for the greater good of Humanity and, in the same time, for french interests. Let's take the Iraki War #2 as an example. When US decided to make on move on Irak and oust Saddam Hussein, France was opponent #1 and our Prime Minister of the time, Dominique de Villepin, made a brilliant speech at the UN tribune (a lot of french people still remember that very speech with emotion as a moment of "french splendor"). I wasn't a fan myself of this war and was not sure about those WMD story but I was very uspet at the time. Because the story told by french authorities to french population, proxied and backed by huge majority of politicians, medias, experts and intellectuals was :

• This is a was for petroleum only
• Maybe this is also a payback for George W. Bush for what his father did not manage to succeed (oust Hussein)
• Bringing democracy to Irak will is bullshit (by the way, we're not sure "those people" are ready for democraty ... maybe dictature fits them better)
• US acts based on their interests only, do not care about local population and that's wrong

Huge majority of french folks believed that and still do. A tremendous hate wave against US President rocked France and also a hate wave against US itself. A year ago, some french people (not a majority but not that isolated ... and even educated ones) thought that 9/11 was, somewhere, "deserved" by Americans for their long-time arrogance. There was a call for a minute of silence in France after 9/11. At the decided hour, I parked my car and "thought" about the victims (I would have prayed but I'm not religious). My colleague looked at me like I was a martian and said to me that we're not Americans and would US people had been more "understanding" with the rest of the world, that would have had never happened. I answered to her if she thought terrorists attacks on France, in 1995 for example, were "well deserved". Of course not.

Regarding Irak, most of french people forget that Saddam Hussein was a long-time "friend" of our nation (photo above is our former president Jacques Chirac with Saddam Hussein). We sold (signature was made by the president itself) in the late 70s a nuclear power plant, OSIRAK, to Saddam Hussein, which had been eventually bombed and destroyed by Israeli aviation. And our biggest company (TOTAL, a petroleum company), long-time Nation's owned monopoly but now private with a lot of political links, was fiercely acting to be the one to benefit the most of an expected stop of "petroleum against food" UN program.

If you're looking at the more recent history, France had been very active to obtain a UN resolution (despite the reluctance of Russia & China) on Libya. The reason was to save population of a town named Benghazi. Noble cause. But we violated the resolution (hence the higher reluctance of China on Syria) : we were supposed to perform an air-ban and protect civilians, not launch missiles on Gaddafi convoy or houses. Humanitarian reasons were true but other considerations were at stake : gas/petroleum supply, influence on Arab's world, not having a terrorist backyard so close to Paris, ...

Africa : the french backyard

France used to have numerous colonies in Northern and Western Africa. What does this mean ? Those lands were governed by France, populations were second-rank french (or not french at all), we extracted resources from their soil for our own purpose (at a very low cost and no dime for local population). After an ugly decolonization process in the 50s (worst of it was Algeria war including terrorism and torture on both side), a new policy had been theorized and enforced. The  name is "Françafrique". It had been setup by a man reporting directly to the President of the time, General de  Gaulle : Jacques Foccart. He set up networks so to keep french influence at any price. The aim of the influence was to ensure the gas & petroleum supply, ensure UN votes of African dictators and obtain indirect influence from those bullies. To do so, France financed rebellions, helped military coup realization, and any other kind of actions that were "necessaries" to fulfill the goal. Note that the system was nicely thought : France was financing local bullies regardless of what they do with their population, bullies were letting us extracting petroleum from their soil at a very competitive cost, they loaded their Swiss bank accounts and send back a part of the money to french politicians.

The system had been smooth but is still alive. Over decades, it led us to play a dirty part in humanitarian aftermath like in Biafra. Our exact role in Rwanda genocide (800.000 casualties chopped off with machete) is unclear but we supported the "future killers" because they were "pro-french" and the "future corpses" were supposed to be pro-US. Now, the game is getting more complex with China arising in Africa.

If  you're looking at a map of the french forces acting outside France, we're part of several ops : Afghanistan (2.200 troops), Lebanon, Tchad (african country, the operation started 26 years ago ...), Ivory Coast, Kosovo (after former Yugoslavia collapsed in 1991). Our "pre-positioned" soldiers are based in Djibouti (North-East Africa little country, led by crook politicians financed by France, close to Middle-East petroleum sea routes; 1.900 troops), Indian Ocean and ashore Arabic Emirates, Gabon (Western Africa, 900 troops), Senegal (Western Africa, 350 troops). No need for a long study to understand what those troops are doing here : protect our influence in Africa and the road to our energetic resources (gas, petroleum, uranium). Where does french petroleum importations come from (we don't have any in our soil) : 33% from Russia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaïjan, 16% from Libya (hence our interest for Libya population), 16% from other countries in Africa (hence troops there), 15% from Norway and UK, 9% from Saudi Arabia (hence the troops in the area), 4% from Irak (hence our opposition to the Iraki war #2). Our uranium (75% of our electricity is made by nuclear power plant so we need uranium) is mainly coming from Africa. TOTAL, our big oil blue chip, highly linked to Francafrique and french politics ? 35% of its petroleum is extracted in Africa and 37% of its proven reserves are lying under Africa's soil. Gas ? 37% from Norway, 17% Netherlands, 16% Russia, 15% Algeria.

Superpowers flex their wings

So let's not fool ourselves. The purpose of french diplomacy is to preserve our influence and secure our energetic supply. If that's compatible with human rights, that's good. It not ? Too bad. That's why Laurent Fabius (current french secretary of State) sentence is pure hypocrisy. A Secretary of State's job is to push its country interest. Acting otherwise would be treason. Am I happy with this ? Well, I'd like us to manage to fill our car gas tank without having to think about abused children, sure. But that's the way world works. We might be able to change this, little by little. But certainly not by denying the reality.

France and US are alike. They're acting to push their influence, secure their energetic supply. The only specificity those two countries have is that they also want to "teach" something to other countries. And why not? The only difference I see between USA and France is that US is a grown-up country able to face the fact it's using realpolitik. France needs to lie to itself to do so cause we're ashamed of what we do (and maybe it has something to do with guilt associated for what we did in our colonies but that's another story and that'll be another post).

Well if they tried, maybe they'd seeIt'd do a little good to let the world be freeHandshake and a smile, gets you on throughThen turn it all around with a suicide move
But you know it's not foolin' anyone but meYou gotta make yourself see what you want to seeBut you know it's not foolin' anyone but meYou gotta make yourself see what you want to see
I say yeah, "Superpowers flex their wingsHold the world on puppet stringsEgos will feed while citizens bleedThat's always the way it goes"
When will the world listen to reasonI've a feelin' it'll be a long timeWhen will the truth come in to seasonI've a feelin' it'll be a long timeI've a feelin' it'll be a long time

The Offspring "It'll be a long time"

Jimmy Hoffa's not dead, somewhere in the Everglades. He's alive and kicking in France

Jimmy Hoffa is not very famous in France. Not at all I would say. People like Sam Giancana are not familiar to the average Frenchman neither. This part of US "subculture" seen from France is limited to Al Capone. I don't know if Hoffa is famous in US, especially in young generations. Last time another human saw him, Apple wasn't founded. For french readers and maybe some US ones, Jimmy Hoffa was the leader of the "teamsters", a very powerful truckers union league. He was very close to the mob (especially when it came to the trucker's pension), was convicted, served some time and finally whisked away in 1975, accurately on July, 30th at 2:45PM on a parking lot of a restaurant in Detroit. A nice story for "X-Files" or  "Cold Case". A lot of theories had been made involving crocodiles and Everglades but it seems that he had simply been shot dead by his mobster friends and buried under a freeway.

French labor unions landscape

Now what does it have to do with France? In my last post, I was talking about a regular strike in France. You can't talk about strikes in France without speaking about labor union. First, lets's define vocabulary. As concepts are not exactly the same, one must be careful with translation. Let's call "labor unions" organizations that supposedly represent and defended workers (I know it's "trade union" in "british english") and "corp union leagues" the ones defending CEOs (or at least the company's views, including management and shareholders). On "labor union" side, we're basically talking about five organizations. In fact, after WWII, only those five labor unions were authorized to bargain with management and shareholders on behalf of employees (and sign deals). This list was written in the stone of the law. It's slowing changing since 2008 (a new law) and new labor unions are arising like SUD/Solidaires (a very radical labor union close to the former political party "Revolutionary Communist League" and close to a new one named "new anticapitalistic party". Well, names only say a lot). The other 5 big ones are CGT (historically close to French Communist Party), CFDT (historically a moderate labor union close the political "Socialist Party"), FO (close to trotskysts, a flavor of communism), CFTC (a moderate one with "C" for Christian) and CGC (also moderate with "C" for "cadre" which can be translated by "middle-manager"). On "Corp union league" side, basically, you have MEDEF lobbying for blue chips, CGPME for small & medium business and UPA for craft workers and "small-shop-around-the-corner-not-owned-by-a-chain" owners. I'll have to explain why communism is so integrated with labor unions and France political history (close to 30% voters in 70s, part of government in 80s and 90s, still running some large cities right now). But that's another story and that'll be another post.

France as a strikers haven : wrong image

France do have an image as being a "strike's haven". Well, fact is that's not true. Anymore. The numbers of yearly strike days is constantly decreasing for four decades and we don't go on strike more often that other European countries. Let's say we're average on that topic. Visibility is the problem. Let's say a "private company worker" (private means owned by individual and/or listed on stock exchange) goes on strike one day a year (that's not the real number, just to set the comparison), a governmental sector worker (e.g. teachers) goes on strike 7 days a year and an employee of the National Railroad Transportation Company (SNCF, Nation's owned), 22 days. Problem is that SNCF is not only transporting people from a town to another but is also a major player in suburban commuting, especially in Paris. Therefore, the resulting mess is highly visible in France an outside France (through TV, papers or for foreigners travelling in France for business or leisure). Small businesses workers barely never go on strike but would they do, nobody would notice. Strikes are highly concentrated in very visible sectors : transportation (trains, airlines, air traffic, subs, buses), energy production. And that's not a coincidence, I'll explain that. Just keep in mind that the cliché of France being a "strikers haven" come from the actions of 1% to 5% of the population only (many thanks to them !).

Want to fight the cliché ? Take a look at this figure. It's ": Strikes five-year average in days not worked per 1000 employees (1996-2000)" International comparison should be handled with care (differents processes). Greece had "lied" about its GDP so with not with strike days? Still, France is just in the average (67). US workers go on strike less often but that's close (60). More surprising (considering economic situation), Greek's strikes are twice more rare than in US and France. Portugal 3 times. Scandics country are supposed to have less strikes because they're more prone to find a solution discussing first. Well, Sweden shows that but Denmark and Norway certainly not (but those data are 12 years old). French cliché is that southern Europe folks are lazy and strikes-prone (you're always the strike haven of someone else) but those strikes numbers, again, denies that (Spain high, Portugal low). Now, be sure of something : if your wish is to travel somewhere with a very weak probability of strikes, go to Japan. Or Switzerland.

The second french paradox

Now why so many strikes in highly visible sectors ? Because labor unions are desperately weak and need some some visible actions to keep their high power : they're welcome to sit at the government table any time they want and their claims are very often satisfied. They're very weak at their base but very strong in the outcome of their actions. That's what I call the "second french paradox" (first had been preempted by wine & cardiac condition).

Politicians are afraid of a country paralysis due to major transportation strike (it happened in the past) or, moreover, a massive strike like in 1968, destabilizing the government (french leader, General de Gaulle, fled away in Germany during two days to block a political coup set up by communists who meant to march on the Presidential Palace). Labor unions power is based on fear and political weakness. Politics would do anything, whatever the cost (for citizens) to preserve what we call "social peace". Because they think they'll help them keep their positions and even help them being reelected. You know what ? It works !

Let's backup this with some numbers. Only 7% of french workers are affiliated to a union league. That's one of the lowest number in Europe and in the world developed countries (19% in Germany, 27% in England, 35% in Italy and 70% in Finland). Even lower than in USA (12%). You got to look at Nicaragua or Peru to find lower numbers. And even those 7% are to handle with care. In governmental sectors, it's close to 15% but in private, it's more like 5%. In small, private business, it's close to 0. The three main labor unions claim to have 2.5 millions affiliated people. Real numbers are closer to 1.5 millions. Affiliated are old (compared to the population's average) and getting older, mostly male and governmental sector is over-represented. So the labor unions also leave in fear : the fear to disappear. And they should : number of affiliates is dropping fast and managers and shareholders are trying more and more to bypass them to bargain directly with government. French people trust more labor unions leaders (43%) than politicians (23%). This level of trust (43%) is close to the one travel-vendors are credited. Basically, sectors where labor trade still "exist" (more than 10% of those sectors employees are affiliated to a labor trade) are:

• Teachers (most of them governmental and paid by tax payers)
• Transportation and energy employees (same)
• Police, national finances management (same)
• Hospital workers (same)
• Local government (cities, counties) workers also paid on taxpayers's dime
• Some of big Telcos and road-repair ancient Nation's owned monopoly turned private (e.g. France Telecom / Orange)
• Few industrial big companies in sector on the brink to shutdown in France (e.g. steel)

Well, either it's people directly paid by taxpayers, either it's people belonging to sectors on the way to disappear.

Trade labor folks busy as bees digging their own grave

The situation is pretty bad. Not only for labor unions but for France. Companies and labor unions  are not dealing together, the government is voting law after law after law so the labor law would pile over the Eiffel's tower. That's one of the main reason of our poor performances compared to Germany where the "social dialog" is much more fluid.

Now, we should add on top of this some trade labor behavior that also explains why french workers don't exactly run into their arms despite the unemployment situation (from 9 to 15% depending on the calculation method) :

• In France, shops are not allowed to be opened on Sunday unless they got a special authorization (for a very shop, a zone or a sector). Home repair tool vendor are not allowed to open on Sunday which is weird considering that if you’re looking for a hammer to fix something in your house, that’s a good day to buy it. Oddly, if you need to buy a sofa, furniture shops are opened on Sunday. A home repair tool chain, Bricorama, was opened on Sunday. It had been sued by its labor unions for this. The judge ruled in favor of labor unions, forcing Bricorama to close on Sunday. The group may be forced to go on chapter 11 and all employees may lose their job (and now Bricorama is suing to force competitors like sofa vendors to also be closed). Moreover, working on Sunday was made on a voluntary basis and was paid 50% to 100% more than a regular day. The labor unions are acting against the will of employees in a gesture of self-declared “enlighten elite”. That’s not the only case, far from it. There had been a lot of similar cases, especially on Sunday opening in the last few years. The odd thing is that only three parties are involved: company (being sued), labor unions (suing) and justice (judging). But employees have nothing to say in the matter.

• Union leagues in France are not of “service type”. In some Northern Europe country, if a labor union signs a deal with the company management, only this labor union's affiliates will benefit of the deal. That raises mechanically the number of affiliated people.

 

• Few months ago, a report had been order by the parliament. It showed that the financials of the labor unions are awful : no obligation to publish account, no need to have an auditor stamp on it, theft of budget paid by companies (mandatory according to the law) and supposed to benefit to employees (discount on cultural activities or holidays), a lot of governmental employees, paid by the taxpayers, are in fact working full time (and charge free) for labor unions, theft in some funds (supposed to be used for employee training), among other things. This report had been ordered to be destroyed and removed from the Net (although some part had been published by courageous journalists), which is more than rare in the last five decades. This report ban had been voted by all political tendencies represented in the parliament. Note that there were some scandal on corporate union leagues also ..

• There are strong links between political parties and labor unions. A major labor union leader had called to vote for François Hollande at the last presidential election. That’s a problem but not a major one. In Germany, the most powerful labor union (IG Metall) is closed to a moderate political party (SPD) with no harm. But, in France, some labor union are closely linked to extremists parties. One of the most powerful labor union, CGT, had always been tight with French Communist Party, even in the period when this party was receiving direct order from Kremlin under USSR (historian proved it) in the late 70s. Other labor unions are linked to parties like “Revolutionary Communist League”. The name talks for itself. That means those labor unions are following a political agenda (revolution, anarchy) much more that an “employee defense” one.

• In some local government (cities, counties) or railroad company places, the de facto management is made by the labor unions. They decide who will be hired for example (friends, family, political party member, ...)
• Some labor union leader had been convicted to having misbehaved with employees (harassment, lack of payments, non-respect of labor laws)

• Some labor unions had evolved for a long time now toward mob-like organization. That's mostly the case in books/newspapers printing and dockers. The printing labor union is known for its use of violence (if a newspaper tries to use non-affiliated workers, they basically go and smash their head. No charges are pressed because the authority fears them and wants to "preserve the social peace"). They've also used threat, anti-semetic accusations onto a journalist, grand theft for their own profit and for the benefit of Fidel Castro (they were stealing tons of papers to help Cuba's leader), they've stocked 5.000 firearms (firearms are prohibited in France) including automatic rifles and warfare firearms to help a revolutionary political movement. They finally accepted to give back the armory in exchange of (granted) full immunity. They also performed some highway high-speed chase onto competitors. Again, no charges were pressed. Let's add that some of the printing machines operators are earning $70,000 a year, way above the median french wage. The Marseille's port dockers use the same kind of method (but not in the same extent). To extend their normal wages, they're asking cash from ship's captain if they want they boat being unloaded. An inquiry had been made and those dockers are making $65,000 a year after tax for ... 12 hours of work a week. That's what you can call a good job.

That's why I don't believe Hoffa had been a good meal for crocodiles. I think he's the one beyond all of that. Guy's is 99 years old now but alive, kicking, living in some serious mansion in Luberon and knows what he's doing ! I'm trying to make some fun of this because, otherwise, I would cry. 3 to 5 millions people are unemployed in France, millions of others got poor job and are hardly making a living. All they got to defend themselves are some mafioso who don't care about their fate and push their head under the water trying to make their way to the top. Strikes, labor unions, workers's defense, that's bloody serious matters.Too serious to be left in the hands of those guys. A few of them at least. Cause labor unions are also filled with people who're working for the "greater good" and are also being fooled. Millions of people are like me : they're hesitating between laughter and cries, get informed about all of this and bitch or just look elsewhere because they got no control over this at the end of the day. That's France, 2012.

NICOLAS QUINT

You woke up this morning
Got yourself a gun,
Mama always said you'd be
The Chosen One.

She said: You're one in a million
You've got to burn to shine,
But you were born under a bad sign,
With a blue moon in your eyes.

You woke up this morning
All the love has gone,
Your Papa never told you
About right and wrong.

But you're looking good, baby,
I believe you're feeling fine, (shame about it),
Born under a bad sign
With a blue moon in your eyes.

You woke up this morning
The world turned upside down,
Thing's ain't been the same
Since the Blues walked into town.

But you're one in a million
You've got that shotgun shine.
Born under a bad sign,
With a blue moon in your eyes.

Alabama 3 "Woke up this morning"
"The Sopranos" original Theme

A typical strike, France, 2012. SNAFU

In France, we have something major protected in our constitution: the right to go on strike. Well, nothing original compared to other countries, and I totally second that. However such a sacred principle should keep its Sacred face. But, in my story, the way labor unions handle this Right might be comparable if a French patriot pissed on the flag. Even though that the Sacred value we put in our flag is nothing compared to US citizens and the Stars & Stripes, I don’t like this image. At all. This takes place in Lyon, the place I live. Not a well-known city but the second biggest in France. 440.000 people for the city itself, 1.2 million including the suburbs. I tried to call the national media on this story but they don’t care. France is a very centralized country, for all aspects. National media are all based in Paris. And what happens beyond Paris’ outskirts is of low interest to them. That could explain why journalism is one of the most hatred profession in France (along with politicians, dentists and car repair).

Strike explanation

Here is the thing: the huge majority of the labor unions of Lyon’s public transportation company (TCL) had launched a “strike notice”. In France, you need to send a notice if you plan to go on strike. This is at labor union

 discretion, they don’t need to consult their members (and if they do, that’s always by a “raising hands” vote with peer pressure included). The notice is for labor unions only. The employees themselves don’t need to declare themselves strikers or not: that’ll be management surprise. Well, it has changed a little bit with a law promoted by Nicolas Sarkozy, a so-called “minimal service”.

TCL plan to strike from Nov, 23^rd to Jan, 6^th (6 weeks!) with an alternate system: odd day, stop work at morning peak hour (7:30AM to 8:30AM), even day, same thing at evening peak hour (5:30PM to 6:30PM). Why an hour only? Because if they’re on strike only 59 minutes a day, they get their full payroll at the end of the month. Gain but no pain. That’s very painful because Lyon’s car traffic is saturated. We have two rivers flowing down the city and that does not help. A fire aftermath in a tunnel in the Alps in 1999 caused 39 fatalities. The security norms have since been revised. Therefore, currently, the major tunnel of Lyon is closed every night and the second major one is closed 24/7 for six months. That’s precisely why the labor unions chose this moment in time to call for a strike! That and the upcoming mayor election coming up in a year and a half. Oh, and add that Lyon has a major cultural event on Dec, 8^th (bringing tourists and money). Those guys know what they’re doing.

Transportation system in a 1.2 million people city

Few words about TCL. They own 4 metros lines, 4 tramway lines, 2 funiculars and over 100 lines of buses. This is the second biggest network in France, operating over 234 square miles where 1.2 million person lives. But management is complicated. TCL is managed by SYTRAL. Let me explain basic forms of companies in France (and the danger of vocabulary "false friends") :

•  Private: all privately owned companies, including those listed on stock-exchange
•  Public: all company owned by “France”, directly or indirectly. I know the term is confusing with public as “listed on stock exchange”. I’ll refer to “Gvt Companies”

Well, for SYTRAL, it’s even more complicated, it’s syndication but basically, its “Gvt company”. It is managed by a Board made up of elected politicians, headed by the mayor of Lyon (who is also senator) – currently a socialist party member (PS). The other board members are from all parties represented in Lyon: greens (ecologists), communists, conservatives. But SYTRAL does not operate all of this: the operations are delegated to a private company: KEOLIS. Nothing’s simple. SYTRAL debt is almost a billion dollars (mainly national banks, some of them “governmental banks”).  There have been scandals: money wasted for dumb projects by SYTRAL, SYTRAL president stating that TCL employees are AWOL 23 days a year (well, AWOL not the good work, they most of the time have a certificate from a very understanding physician). Managing director of SYTRAL had been tried and convicted for having stolen around 100k$ from company accounts. Anyway, all those folks are working hard to save their small world (and their cash cow).

‘Cause money is flowing! SYTRAL has 670 M$ cash resources yearly. Private and “gvt companies” are paying 207 M$ on their own dime (it’s mandatory, of course), metro/bus tickets buyers 157 M$, French equivalent of your counties 116 M$, French budget 20 M$. Add some borrowings and misc resources and you’ll come to the right numbers.

Greed & selfishness may also be seen among bus drivers

What do the labor unions want? Same as usual: better work condition, more money, better career progression (and money therefore). Are those employees badly handled by the management ? I don’t know. In 2009 (2012 is basically the remake of a 2009 story), the socialist mayor of Lyon said « we hire a bus driver 1,260$/month net. With bonuses, that rises up to 1,420$/1,575$ a month. Are there a lot of sector with those hiring salaries?”. For American readers, note that it includes full health coverage (90% of health costs refunded, 75% by national healthcare and 15% by private healthcare company, usually half-paid by companies - a typical private healthcare covarage costs $150/month thus $75/month deduced from the employee payroll) and open rights for a good retirement pension. Note also that :

•      Those bus drivers, assuming their salaries is 1,500$ a month, are earning more than 60% of the French people
•       In the transportation sector, in their classification, they’re earning more than 75% of other people
•      As a comparison matter, as manager in the same sector will earn 70% more than those bus driver. Upper management 2.1 fold, CEOs 4.5 fold

I’ve performed some calculations based on our national statistics institute (INSEE) return on experience about national massive transportation strikes in 1995, 2003 or 2007 (just a sample, that’s not the whole bunch of them). The area that would be impacted by the strike represents 3% of the French GDP. Based on those assumptions, the strike may push up to 33.000 people into unemployment, to be added to the 3.000.000 officials unemployed in France (10% of the potential workers) and 5.000.000 unofficial (if you include people that worked only a single day in the month for example).

Now, how numerous are the potential strikers? We don’t know (remember, they don’t have to declare themselves on an individual basis). But TCL employs 4.500 people (majority of bus drivers). At the last labor unions elections, 61.7% of the employees voted. Labor unions calling for strike got 85.3% of the votes. That makes 2.368 persons backing the labor unions threatening 33.000 jobs. 14 jobs at risk for a single individual. I’m not a great fan of Ronald Reagan (at least not of any aspects of what he did) but my feeling is that, at a very moment of history, the central power of a nation needs to step up, deploys its wing and use its power (given by voters) to affirm its authority for the “common good”. That’s what did Reagan in 1981 with the air-traffickers on a larger scale, with some brutality that makes this the icon of “economic liberalism horror” for a lot of French people (not all of them tough). My guess is that those 2,368 people should be fired and replaced by unemployed bus or truck driver (there are plenty of them: our transportation sector had been crushed by the competition of low-cost low-social law countries workers from Poland, Romania or Bulgaria). At the same salaries and benefits. Maybe that’ll bring some disorganization while those folks learns the TCL process but that’s nothing compared to potential strike aftermath. And we’re talking about driving buses not guiding jumbo jets cruising at 35,000 ft, packed with families, flying at 600 mph up in the sky.

One thing you can rely on : politicians are weak

But Lyon’s population should not panic. The strike will never take place. Administrators of SYTRAL (politicians) have too much to lose: elections, power, money for themselves, and even their hopes for city common good. The strikers will obtain most of what they want. The politicians will refuse some commas here, some semicolons there in order to keep the illusion of their power (for electors if not for themselves). The money to finance the TCL employee’s raises will be found on taxes (local, national, companies). Mainly on local. That’ll just be some few percent. Few will notice. If they do, nobody will listen to them. They will be answered that local taxes are raised cause the central power give more are more duties to local power and less and less money. Taxpayers will do what they do: pay. The bus driver’s will have more money in their pocket. Lyon’s mayor will be reelected, thanks for his grand management of the crisis and the votes of TCL employees and families (4.500 employees plus their families, that’s not nothing when you know that mayor of Lyon, in the last election, obtained 80,236 votes on 1^st round; to be fully honest, not all employees are registered to vote in Lyon. That’s why mayors of Lyon’s outskirts cities will back Lyon’s mayors to get their contingent of votes).

Maybe some courageous local media will make a story will this. Maybe they’ll be scared by the politician’s power (French press is surviving thanks to governmental help). National papers won’t bother taking the risk: not a single copy to be sold on this.  Thinks will go on as usual. People will go to work using metro and buses. That’s a glimpse of France 2012. SNAFU.

"Lucky Strike, it's toasted"

Famous cigarette brand slogan