35 h: Gérard Filoche responds to Manuel Valls!

Ambiguous this Manuel Valls, nicknamed the 'Sarko de Gauche'. Who is like Arnaud Montebourg always ready to make an announcement effect to attract media, and even goes so far as to literally urinate on the rubble of the PS and the achievements of the French, to highlight his candidacy. This is not behavior that I find acceptable. Would he have been 'awakened' to give another course to the French? Because thanks to 13:15 p.m. (in additional information), we better understand his inspirations, which are: Sarkozy (does that include his request for a 72-hour week when he presided over Europe in 2008?)… Sic… DSK … Re-sic… and Alain Bauer from the Grand Orient of France, Arg! Since he is a former Freemason as he admits himself! (which is an understatement, since one does not leave the masons, one goes into 'sleep'). He therefore created his 'trademark' for 2012 and launched a Pro Sarkozian/Nwo tendency in the PS, a priori more 'social democrat' even than DSK, or as a perspective for the future, it is preferable to make seniors work rather than to increase their meager pensions, this of course so that they no longer look for their food in the garbage cans… Yes, yes, he sails under the flag socialist; ) is marked on it. Finally, it is up to everyone to form their own opinion.

Like many people who recognize themselves in leftist ideas, we were appalled by the fact that Manuel Valls could offer to "unlock" the 35 hours at the very moment when the UMP goes present your pre-report on the subject.

This is why it was important to know the position of one of the best connoisseurs of the world and of the labor code and member of the Socialist Party: Gérard Filoche.

To do this, he took his pen and in a dense but precise text: " Against the total ignorance of Manuel Valls and a few others - 25 quick questions and answers on the 35 h - (almost) everything to know about the 35 h “He dismantles point by point the arguments of Manuel Valls, the UMP and some socialist leaders who, obviously, speak without really knowing the subject.

We give you below large excerpts of the text he sent to us and also published on Démocratie & Socialisme:

"(...) What Manuel Valls said testifies to his total incompetence in labor law, in economics, in history. This boy has never worked, he knows nothing about it, he ignores and despises millions of employees, that he therefore obliges himself to be a service woman in the schools of his constituency and after a few months when he will have mopped the floor in the canteens, he will be for 35 hours and will certainly claim the payment increased by overtime...

1 - Are the 35 hours “locked”?

There is no lock. Of any kind. The 35 hours are only the legal working time. They are only the threshold for triggering overtime. The only existing lock is the maximum duration which is 48 hours per week. With the 35 hours there is room for 13 additional hours per week, more than with the 39 hours where there could only be 9 additional hours per week.

2 - Are the 35 hours a straitjacket?

Copé congratulates Valls for "getting out of the dogmatic straitjacket inherited from Madame Aubry, it is also giving yourself one more weapon in the crucial battle against unemployment". There is no straitjacket. Of any kind (Alas!) This is what Xavier Bertrand replied to Copé (…)

3 - Do 35 hours no longer really exist?

This is unfortunately what Montebourg, PS deputy and also candidate for the Socialist primaries says: “The 35 hours no longer exist, so obviously reopening this debate is useless”. Arnaud Montebourg knows nothing about it either. The 35 hours exist. They even apply to 100% of employees, 100% of employers. It is a legal duration of social public order valid in all companies, all branches, all professions, all statutes.

4 - Does the 35 hours prevent the French from working more?

(...) The best year for a century of French growth, of employment in France, was the year 2000, the year in which 35 hours were introduced. 350 to 400 more jobs. It is the best social year of all annals. Less precarious, increase in the wage bill, all the social protection funds were green (...)

5 - Does the 35 hours prevent you from working two or three more hours?

(...) There is legal room for 13 additional monthly plus per week. As for the maximum annual quota of overtime, it was 91 hours in the metallurgy in 1995, 120 hours in general when employers signed the agreement of October 31, 1995 considering that overtime should be "exceptional and unpredictable » (...)

6 - Do we work less than other countries because of the 35 hours?

(...) We are in the European average: the working week in 2007 for all working people was 37 hours in France, compared to 37,3 hours on average in the Europe of 15. This is almost an hour more than in Germany (36,2 h), an hour and a half longer than in Denmark (35,5 h) and in the Nordic countries, and almost five hours longer than in Holland (32,2 h) (...)

7 - Has the world (of work) changed since 1997?

(...) There are more unemployed, world records are broken. Neo-liberalism and the dictatorship of finance tend to bring real working hours back to the level of the XNUMX^ecentury, with suffering, stress, against health and against employment (...)

8 - Is the 35 hours an idea of the 70s, 80s, 90s?

This is historic progress. The history of the labor code IS the history of the reduction of working hours. From 1840 to 1920, it took 80 years to go from a 17 p.m. day to a 10 a.m. day. from 1936 to 2000 it took 70 years to go from 40 hours to 35 hours: in 70 years, we succeeded in practice, in facts, in real life (...)

9 - Are the 35 hours expensive for companies?

The 35 hours should not be for "constant profit" but as a means of redistributing jobs and wealth. But no, the Medef has "led the war" for 13 years at 35 hours. He demanded masses of subsidies. He lies claiming that it costs too much: in fact to refuse to negotiate wages. But its profits have never been so enormous, France has never been so rich.

10 - Are the 35 hours expensive for the State?

It costs the State, which takes from the taxes paid by employees: because the State redistributes enormous sums to employers (...) Between 30 and 45 billion in exemptions from social security contributions from 1 to 1,3 times the Smic what goes first in the pockets of the CAC 40 (...)

11 - Have the 35 hours already been unraveled?

Jack Lang: “The 35 hours have already been partially unraveled, readjusted”. Again, that means nothing! The 35 hours is a figure, a unique benchmark for the legal duration (...)

12 - Did the 35 hours block wages?

(...) Lionel Jospin (...) proclaimed the WEEKLY 35 hours BY LAW WITHOUT LOSS OF SALARIES. It was the bosses who blocked wages and tried everything to make them more flexible (...)

13 - Have the 35 hours been annualized?

(...) In less than 0,3% of cases, there were annualization or modulation agreements. They are bad: because they amount to making overtime invisible and not increased (...) In fact employers (...) use them in 76% of cases to adjust working hours

14 - Have the 35 hours been canceled by flexibility?

(...) Flexibility is opposed to 35 hours, it seeks to modulate the legal duration, the maximum duration, the rate of overtime, etc. But as long as there remains a social public order with a single benchmark figure, the 35 hours are there. Employers are for flexibility, but when it comes to payment, they are extraordinarily rigid.

15 - Has the TEPA law settled the question of 35 hours?

(...) TEPA has pushed for overtime by having them paid in part by the State (through employee taxes). This amounts to making those who have a job work more to the detriment of those who do not. It's expensive and it worked badly: 4 billion that go into the bosses' coffers and increase the number of unemployed people not hired (...)

16 - Are the 35 hours defrauded?

(...) There are 1 billion overtime hours in this country that go undeclared, uninflated and not even paid at all, which is the equivalent of 600 jobs. (...)

17 - Does the 35 hours have no effect in small businesses?

But if ! They apply to all small, medium and large businesses. Even Alain Vidalies does not account for the truth when he writes: "For example, Valls warns [the Socialists] against a generalization of the 35 hours to SMEs. But it was François Fillon, in 2003, who put it in place (...)

18 - Is it already possible to derogate from the 35 hours?

Yes, since the Bertrand law, by “agreement” with unions representing a majority of the employees concerned. This was the case at Continental and in a certain number of key cases where employers blackmailed social public order, forcing employees on pain of unemployment to work more without overtime being increased... and then the bosses of Continental , after having swallowed this agreement, nevertheless closed and laid off (...)

19 - Have the RTTs been removed?

Yes, there have been certain texts to facilitate "packages" without control and with fewer days of RTT among executives in particular, with sometimes an extensive and questionable definition of the status of "executive" (...)

20 - Do 35 hours no longer exist for executives?

The executives are at 35 hours, of common law like all employees. In fact, no one can make them work more than 10 hours a day, nor more than 48 hours a week! (...)

21 - Should the 35 hours be “extended”?

No, they are extended. The 35 hours, art. 1 of the Aubry law, are a magnificent law, the most advanced in the world. But we could take measures to bring the real duration of work closer to the legal duration (...)

22 - And if we went back to 40 hours?

Going back all 70 years would only amount to one thing : lower wages . Because millions of employees would lose the 25% increase for hours between 36 and 40. AND there would be a million more unemployed at the very least.

23 - Would removing the 35 hours increase wages?

It would automatically lower them for those working overtime. And for all the others who would have even less work to distribute.

24 - What if we increased the authorized number of overtime hours?
It is already huge and sometimes fortunately unreachable. The British indeed practice the opt out (Article 18 of directive 93-104). Sarkozy tried to pass the week of 65 and 72 hours when he presided over Europe in December 2008: he was fortunately beaten by the European Parliament. But the working time directive is still on the table in Europe… Danger!

25 - And if there was no longer a legal duration?

This is the absolute dream of Medef. He never ceases to claim this "solution" ... final. This would break any benchmark, both for duration and for wages. No more minimum wage at 151:66. No more conventional “salary grids”. To make fluctuate, to confuse, to better flow all labor law.

Gerard Filoche