By Michel Ghazal
In terms of decision-making strategy and conflict management, Mazarin advised: “If you decide to promulgate new laws, begin by demonstrating the urgent need for them to a council of wise men, and work out the reform with them. Or simply spread the news that you have consulted them and that they have given you plenty of advice. Then legislate without worrying about their advice, as you see fit”.
Can we blame the government for using these principles based on mistrust and manipulation to launch its promised pension reform?
The answer is NO, quite the contrary. The President has appointed a “high commissioner for pension reform”, Jean-Paul Delevoye. He began a marathon of almost 18 months of consultations with all the players involved in this project. He then submitted his report to the government with his recommendations. Thanks to this wide-ranging consultation, and despite the fact that the subject is inherently explosive, it should have been possible to make progress on this difficult reform without any major pitfalls.
And yet the unions were soon up in arms. On 5 December, they launched a strike (the longest in the history of the SNCF), which was widely followed. This led to serious disruption, with French people finding it extremely difficult to get around, a considerable drop in turnover for many retailers and businesses, and the closure of several universities, preventing students from taking their mid-term exams.
To get out of this crisis, the government quickly found itself faced with three possible solutions: give in and withdraw its reform, as demanded, unsurprisingly, by the dissenting unions such as the CGT and SUD; try to force the issue and table its bill, as recommended by its right wing; find adjustments by increasing the number of subjects for negotiation on the table (arduousness, retirement age for senior citizens, etc.), as called for in particular by the reformist unions (CFDT, UNSA) and the left wing of the majority.
Edouard Philippe has opted for the third way, urged on by a President who stated in his wishes that he wanted ” a rapid compromise“[1]. With this in mind, he clearly stated that he wanted to make progress on the two aspects that would once and for all put a viable retirement system on track: a systemic reform that is considered fairer, with a universal points-based system, and ensuring financial equilibrium through long-term funding. He also said that he was open to any proposal that would make it possible to achieve these objectives.
In fact, unfortunately, many concessions have been made without any quid pro quo. (On the one hand, these have increased the cost of this reform. On the other hand, they have rendered part of it meaningless. Indeed, some categories will retain their specific features).
On the eve of a decisive meeting with Edouard Philippe at Matignon, there remains one major sticking point. The government’s desire to introduce a pivotal age of 64 for a full pension (with bonuses and penalties), and a CFDT for whom this is a red line. However, Laurent Berger does not deny the need to find a financial balance. His proposal is to defer a decision on this aspect to a “conference on financing”. Similarly, the President of the National Assembly has proposed, in order to win the good graces of the CFDT and get out of the crisis, a temporary 3-year discount linked to the retirement age, instead of a discount for life?
The Prime Minister says he is open to all “intelligent” solutions to ensure the financing of the new system. So the problem that remains to be solved can be formulated as follows: how can we find, within the framework of a “conference on funding” as proposed by Laurent Berger, concrete ways of achieving financial equilibrium for the new system without abandoning outright the pivotal age that the Prime Minister is so keen on?
As we can see, the obstacle facing the various players in this decision is the dramatic shortage of ideas for breaking this deadlock. How can this be done without giving the impression of going backwards, losing face and being seen to be losing out?
Knowing that there are many obstacles to creativity:
the fear that the new idea will commit the decision-maker who submits it
the fear that it will be seen as a concession that will push the other party to demand more
the fear of appearing weak in the eyes of their constituents by agreeing to be flexible and to explore options that are far removed from their initial positions.
What can be done to overcome these obstacles?
Knowing that if there are 10 or 15 ideas on the table it is easier to find the right solution than if there are only one or two, I recommend, to get around these obstacles and free up creativity, a procedure[2] that I used successfully during the banana conflict in Martinique: the creation of a “second-level joint commission” responsible for generating as many ideas as possible for solutions to the problem of financing. This commission would be made up of one or more representatives, familiar with the issue, from all the parties concerned by this reform. With one particularity: its members are deemed to have no decision-making power. This is in contrast to the 1st level negotiators who are able to make commitments on behalf of their party.
With no fear of being trapped by their ideas, and thanks to creative meeting facilitation methods, a surprising harvest of new ideas that the parties did not think of at the outset can be harvested. In this context, the pivotal age of 64, either for life or temporary, will be an option like any other, and the “funding conference” with the official delegations will welcome them for examination and objectification. The probability of reaching an agreement acceptable to all, without going down the slippery slope of concessions, is thus considerably increased.
The success of this procedure presupposes prior negotiation and acceptance of a number of ground rules:
Beyond the posturing of some and others, the pension reform is a unique opportunity not to be missed to restore legitimacy to social negotiation damaged during the crisis of “yellow waistcoats” resistant to any organization. The various players must succeed in elevating the debate to save pension insurance founded on a fine idea of solidarity between generations. The fundamental question of how to finance the system to ensure its long-term viability, given demographic trends, must not be sidestepped under any circumstances.
This never-ending crisis also raises questions that need to be addressed later:
[1] Knowing that I don’t like the term compromise, which suggests concessions on both sides, and prefer the term creative arrangement.
[2] This procedure was successfully used in South Africa between the De Clerck and Mandela teams to bring the country out of apartheid.