The secretary general of the CFDT, Laurent Berger, returns to the conflict at TotalEnergies, whose social utility he refutes, and pleads for more dialogue to respond to the concerns of employees.
The refinery strike is coming to an end, what is your feeling about the social climate in France?
There is a strong tension, difficult to apprehend. The changes that await us have been integrated by the workers, but their consequences remain unclear, which creates deep concern. Opinion polls show an evolution in the structuring of workers’ concerns: the distribution of the value created, the consequences of climate change and the relationship to work have gone beyond the fear of mass unemployment, even the subject of pensions.
We observe individual concerns about the onset of winter, the upheavals that the ecological transition will cause, democratic instability… The wage issue is also at the heart of the discussions, with conflicts at their highest since the beginning of the year. The context of inflation also favors this generalized uncertainty: are we only at the beginning of the inflationary episode?
The CGT appeared to be the loser, as it failed to export the strike beyond the refineries, nevertheless, its strategy of preventive strikes made it possible to clinch a generous agreement at TotalEnergies. Do you say thank you to the CGT?
No. It was not the blocking of refineries that led to the agreement. The mandatory annual negotiations of 2023, which were scheduled for November 15, when the CGT strike began, would have achieved the same result.
We highlighted a strike movement which brought together less than 300 people out of the 14,000 employees of the refining and petrochemical industry of TotalEnergies. At the same time, the results that we encounter in other branches, which are less open to the questions of distribution of the value created, with negotiations carried out in a climate of normal social relations, have been passed over in silence. If the agreement has really been obtained thanks to the CGT, let it sign it! Especially since it is a majority agreement.
The CGT did not want to recognize this majority agreement. Following the example of what we observe in the political movement, do you feel a questioning of the representativeness in the trade union environment?
When I see 300 strikers wanting to decide for 14,000 employees, I don’t call that democracy. We have the right to disagree, but the majority fact must prevail.
Do you believe in a “runoff” of demands, where those who have the means to carry out spectacular strikes would work for second-line workers, the very people who were put forward with the “yellow vests”, then during the pandemic?
I do not believe it at all. Subcontractors rarely benefit from advances made by employees. As for these shadow jobs deemed essential during the pandemic, they were quickly forgotten.
Some branches are particularly lagging behind in terms of wages, but we are also seeing progress thanks to a trade union approach that is done on a daily basis: we must stop thinking that trade unionism only manifests itself during major explosive movements.
We must respond through social dialogue to the muted concern that is spreading in the country, correlated with the rise of the extreme right. Take the example of the automotive sector: the growing share of the production of electric vehicles will shake up this industry. Workers know this and wonder about the repercussions.
You have brought tax issues and the taxation of the richest back to the fore. Why are you interested in these issues?
It is natural that the CFDT is interested in the general interest, the workers being also citizens. The pandemic has highlighted the strength of our social protection system and the importance of our public services. It is therefore legitimate to ask the question of everyone’s participation in the common interest.
After the big debate, we wrongly identified a tax fed up of the French, but their perception is actually that of a strong tax inequality. We can therefore wonder about the contribution of capital income compared to that of labor income and discuss the taxation of assets, for example.
As for the superprofits, we must above all look at what they are used for: to finance the energy transition or to remunerate shareholders? We must establish collective rules and not study companies on a case-by-case basis.