The fact that you state retirement age rather than years of service shows the NYT anti union bias. If hire straight out of school by 52 a paerson could have 34 years of service. That's plenty to give a company.
10
I’m so glad to have experienced train voyages all over France in 86 (circa Chernobyl); No wonder the service was so excellent!; Very content Employees were operating the service.The TGV, seemingly a century before Anything similar (but not equivalent) will ever appear here in California, was smooth as silk locally, then went to thrilling accelerations When It got out on the flats (Between Toulon and Paris). I will forever cherish this experience.
1
I strongly believe in unions at work place, but they should not be given generous benefits, early retirement, and any special privileges.
4
Very much like transit unions in the US where their monopoly status has allowed them to exact most any crazy conditions from the taxpayers, French rail unions need to be brought into the 21st century. Many of them can be replaced by a computer or robot. The retirement at age 52 goes way back to immediate post WW II France when the US was worried that the government would go communist and pressured the French government to give away the store with the early retirement. At least Macron has given the younger French the hope their country has a future. Anything he can do to put the unions and especially P. Martinez and the CGT in their place is a big step forward.
5
French government already controls 53% of the countries GDP by looking at the statistics ( http://www.tablenew.com/publish/SeeReplies/167 ), They need to lower government expenses and things like this cost money to tax payers
6
Unions, in refusing to enter the modern age, have done a great disservice to their members. Their failure to progress has put their members at risk of forced change.
Unions had their chance to become relevant. Their responses have been inadequate and antiquated. Time moves on. They haven't and cannot seem to.
10
The railroad union needs to wake up here in France. These people are benefitting from rules that were put in place when the job was actually hard--such as having to shovel coal. Today, these workers with their excellent jobs and benefits, create massive disruption for other working people by striking at the drop of a hat. French people are tired of the massive inequality that accrues to these workers because of their historically granted privileges.
19
The fact that the House Speaker, Paul Ryan has asked Macron to address Congress is all we Americans need to know about him.
Here's hoping French voters, behind a united left, send him & his granny packing in the next election.
10
The french left has collapsed. Its been reduced to a vocal but tiny communist party and shrinking public unions clinging to the past. Thats to say nothing of the catholic revival. The future of europe belongs to the right.
"The French rail system is both heavily subsidized and deeply in debt, to the tune of 55 billion euros, or about $68 billion."
France is currently operating roughly 1,650 miles of high-speed rail for their TGV trains. The $68 billion in debt that they've accumulated for all parts of their entire system is "deep" and a serious problem, a profligate use of taxpayer money, according to the NYT.
California's is hoping to build a high-speed rail connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco, 383 road miles, by incurring $77 billion in debt (best-case scenario in which there are no further cost overruns). This, however, can be considered a prudent use of taxpayer money. (see https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/us/california-today-trump-jerry-brown... )
14
1. The article you referenced wasn't even about the train.
2. The only positive mention of the train is from the Governor of California, who is both obviously not affiliated with the times, and who you'd expect to of course speak highly about a California project.
3. The only other mention of the train says it's in debt and behind schedule.
If there's some sort of NYT conspiracy to support California's train, they need to do a much better job, because based on that article (again, not about the train) it seems like a terrible idea.
1
Thanks for giving me some billions dollars versus miles comparisons to augment my view on stupid American ways of wasting money on things… Or just how much more expensive it is in America to get something that’s been going in France, since Before I can remember (at my decrepit 60 years old)
Dear lord, all the anti-union comments on here! I wonder what you all would be saying in the 19th century? 8 hour workdays? Ghastly! No child labor? What are we to do? Pensions? Ha, they must be joking! Seriously, most of the benefits we have today in Western countries come from the (often militant) union battles against those in power. How dare a railroad worker retire at 52? Um, I would like to think we can think of a world where work is shared and people don't work until they die. Retirement with a generous pension is possible, if we'd only take on corporations, multi-millionaires and billionaires. But no, let's demonize the unions? What is wrong with Americans?
47
Citing achievements from 150 years ago shows all you need to know about unions relevence today.
Public unions are an absurdity that never should have occured.
2
But, Tony, it's not 19th century America. It's an entirely different world, and unions have not entered it.
5
The French were universally admonished in their last election to vote for the former investment banker Macron over his opponent LePenn, the right wing fascist extremist nationalist populist, etc. Even our own President Obama pitched in, in a bit of foreign meddling in an election, urging support for Macron. And they did the right thing. Unfortunately for them, Macron, true to form, is leading his country toward salvation on the backs of workers, cutting their benefits, to the delight of his fellow elites. Definitely an Obama guy.
10
While supporting workers' rights, the public sector in France and other developed countries is often made up of smug self-satisfied pigs feeding at the trough of state funding. retirement at 51! 20 years service on full pensions. thems pork chops for sure!! Slaver oink oink.
8
To sum up the current moment in French politics: Same Product - New Packaging.
Macron has no real belief system, he's a careerist in Paris, the town that virtually defined Nouveau Riche, Amoral Careerism for the World.
Macron became popular because of the wrong reasons.
This is not at all to say he wasn't genuinely better than the candidates he beat out on both the left and the right. Still it's important to know that he was standard french political fare from the beginning. He attended the elite schools, climbed up through the Bureaucracy of the Socialist Party, lived in Paris among the elites, he is photogenic and telegenic, as is his lovely wife. Their intergenerational backstory of loves conquers all gave them pop culture appeal, but most importantly he had the backing of a Media Billionaire and his television empire, and other special interests in the status quo.
He stabbed the Socialist Party in the back and presented himself as something new, when in fact he was just younger and prettier than most of the elite.
He is now continuing the exact same policies that caused the socialist party's voters to scatter to the four winds. He only cares about the people to the extent that doing something for them will always be weighed and decided by what he gets out of it.
The French politicians have used the Railroads as a cash cow for other projects. Like the NYC Subway. The workers are being scapegoated and the Unions attacked to cover up corrupt realities.
10
Macron always struck me as a bland, soulless corporatist, but I'm also skeptical of France's mighty rail workers' unions. They seem to be very well aware of the immense power they have. As the article itself says, they have a chokehold on over 5 million people. They know this. The impression I get then is that they're essentially willing to hold riders hostage to get what they demand. Lots of poor people depend on trains. It doesn't seem right that they have to pay the price because some people want fancy retirement benefits.
23
Another absolutely horrible decision. If Macron is successful, the great French rail system will become as bad as it is in the UK. If I were a French citizen, instead of marching in the streets, I would be urging citizens to occupy the homes of the members of the national assembly who are nothing more than lapdogs for Macron. Macon is destroying the admirable French way of life day by day. It's En Marche to the bottom.
Also how does the phrase in the article "including in some cases, the option of retiring at 52" become the standard retirement age for the mindless ones to rail against in their comments?
8
He's the best kind of liberal - a moderate. France for all, not just the privileged - union workers included.
4
I feel like we need more info here.
What are the wages of French rail workers?
I might also like to know who owns the debt of the rail system.
5
Most public servants earn relatively low wages in exchange for safe jobs and good benefits. The train drivers probably do not have such privileged working conditions because hiring has been a problem in recent years (the same goes for other public servants, who will be on strike too). Train drivers are allowed to retire when they reach the age of fifty-two, but they need to have worked at least 166 trimester to get a full pension. Technically, teachers are allowed to retire after fifteen years of work too, as do other civil servants I suppose, but NOT with a full pension, so the privilege is very theoretical.
The debt is owned by the state. Yet, I heard recently on the French radio that no railway system in the world is profitable, not even the British system, although tickets are quite expensive in Britain.
2
Merci.
Allez Macron! God's speed. One member after another of my wife's family have left France to start successful businesses in the United States and Canada. Those who have stayed behind have also built private businesses, but the path is much, much more difficult in France than it should be. The labor laws must be liberalized. The public sector unions and publicly-owned companies are strangling the country. Hold the line, France! End the tyranny of the public employees once and for all!
4
In US, railroad workers, too, are treated differently from other workers.
Per Federal law, railroad retirement, illness and unemployment payments are exempt from state income taxes. A nice perk to have if you live in a high state income tax such as NY, or CA
Ultimately, the railroad workers special status reflects that railroads can not be outsourced - and that builds union power. Most so in France, where railroad strikes are common, and tolerated with a Gallic shrug by the population - that has more compassion for working men and women then in the US.
It is the freedom from global competition, that benefits railroad workers. If you were a steelworker, the response to higher pension benefits would be to move the plant to Mexico.
8
I think people might be more willing to pay great benefits to French rail workers if they didn't provide such terrible service. I remember once sitting in a line of 10 people for literally an hour to buy tickets - the train I wanted to get on left in the meantime - because the single person operating the ticket booth would turn to someone else behind the desk and just chat with her shamelessly for more than 10 minutes at a time in-between every sale of tickets to a customer. When one of the customers in line in front of me asked if she could sell him his ticket right away since his train was about to leave, she gave him a long look, stated she was going to the bathroom, and left for 15 minutes.
In short, sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between when the rail workers are on strike and when they aren't.
16
The French buy their tickets from ubiquitous machines in stations that accept their cards and their PINs. Good luck trying to a get a human to sell you a ticket. An American without a proper credit card needs to buy a ticket online and download it to their phone or print it.
6
Reform is possible. I went through it myself on the London Underground in 1989-90. We made some major changes to working practice but also simplified the pay structure and made it more attractive. We afforded it in part by phasing out the second person on our trains. The trick is to give the workers their fair share of the benefits that accrue from efficiencies. It can be done.
11
"It can be done" In G.B. yes. But not here. There is no Natl. policy towards RR safety, work rules, wages, infrastructure improvement on and on........
Voters in Cali. or Texas for example, have no interest in East Coast RR standards , they will support their local transit systems but not Natl. infrastructure improvements.
In previous decades , The US Congress worked together on Natl infrastructure budgets, today its all regional. East vs West , North vs. South.
We have the workers, engineers, mgs., but no giants in DC like JFK to pass a "Moon Shot" for RR's.
1
I should add that no one was forced to leave the company. If your job went you were offered another or a generous package to leave. Your choice.
4
"For Mr. Macron changing the employment terms for railway workers appears to be part of a larger crusade to push French workers into the 21st century."
American workers are living in the 21st century now. Low pay, weakened unions costly healthcare and lots of education debt. Not so great.
43
You chose the same phrase that I did - from this somewhat biased writer, I feel. If companies and countries were more respectful to workers, unions, though still necessary, would not need to ne too self-serving at the expense of others.
1
When he became president, Macron was a great hero to liberals.
Is he still?
3
Funny because in France they use the expression ''liberal as economically right wing. As liberalization of the economy means privatization, reducing rules and shifting to a more capitalistic approach. Liberal as liberty, freedom...
Anglo Saxon now use it as some kind of socialism when in fact it doesn't make sense and never really did.
Liberal economy means capitalism...
8
He's a hero to centrist liberals, yes. But the Left, who voted for him out of sheer disgust for Le Pen, opposes most of his policies.
2
All over Europe the term 'liberal' means centre-right, unlike the US, where it's the opposite. The centre-left in Europe are social democrats, and most are well to the left of US democrats.
European countries have PR electoral systems, not 'winner takes it all'. This means that most European countries have many political parties in parliament, and have to form coalition governments. Beyond liberals and social democrats, you will also find conservatives, socialists, and social liberals as well as the far left and far right.
5
France is insolvent-how do you improve services and technology if the lion's share of the money is going to silly retirement giveaways. If France can break one if these unions, they can break all of them and move on to solvency and making the EU requirements. You certainly CANNOT tax the French anymore-they are up to their eyeballs in fees and taxes as it is. Having any public union is ridiculous-they will always force politicians to cave. Imagine-striking against your government...
9
Instead of "breaking the union", how about working with them? In our capitalistic world, run by the 1%, unions are necessary; powerful unions are necessary. If employers, public and private, treat workers with respect and reasonable benefits, we all benefit.
16
Surprise how unions requests are ridiculous, but corporations requests never are.
18
First, it's not like there are no taxes in the US (or crazy debt, the whole country is based on credit). Second, at least in France you can see what your taxes fund: schools, hospitals, the police, clean water. What's better: France or Flint?
3
It's a race to the bottom, now with France following the U.S.
18
And your solution is?
2
I have to laugh at the French. Many of them thought they were voting for a left of center candidate. Instead, he represents the corporations and a corporatist EU. Sure, the evil workers and their awful unions have to tighten their belts. Not the tax-cheating 1%-ers. A better example would be to follow the socialist policies of the Scandinavian countries or Austria. Continue on this way, Macron, and the Rassenblement National (former FN) will just be stronger come the next election. Who is Macron working for?
21
The Left voted for him to keep out the crypto-fascist Front National. It's alliance ended there.
8
France, for decades, has fallen victim to the GCT and other union with unreasonable demands. Retiring at 52? Please. M. Macron may succeed where others have failed and I wish him good luck.
10
Romanticizing trade unions is no way to protect all workers rights going into the future. Unions have a role to play in building sustainable organizations, but when they only think of protecting incumbent (normally white male) workers' rights they demonstrate their true colours - maintaining the social order as it is and "tant pis" for everyone else.
13
It's too bad that unions and mgmt can't work together. The era of generous perks with taxpayers and riders footing the bill is over. Mgmt is always greedy and unions can be greedy. Retirement at 52 when the average life expectancy in 1900 was 40's should be an easy give but instead the union will dig in its heels since it knows the harm it can impose. Hope Macron and the public hang in there.
10
Macron's hubris is representative of the ongoing neoliberal assault on the quality of life for working-class people. The continued, relentless attacks on retirement benefits, pay and working hours is indicative of corruption, especially when governments are unwilling to address the massive hoarding of savings by the uber-wealthy. Investment levels are excessively low, and the rich are simply sitting on their money. Macron, beware, this is a fight you will lose.
16
Working people are always the first target when pols want to squeeze money out of the public fisc. The rich won't miss a beat. Never do. The champagne will still flow. God forbid a RR worker can retire with dignity. (I am sure Macron and his pals will.)
Macron may want to hit pause and look back at when the workers were told by the anointed ones to eat cake.
How did that one work out ...
Viva la France .
18
By and large, politicians squeeze workers for two reasons. One, cutting salaries and benefits can yield substantial savings to the government. Two, and more important, capital is mobile but labor is not. Thus, if wealthy people - who typically have a lot of capital - were taxed substantially more heavily they can often take their money and invest in lower tax countries. This could lead to a reduction in government income, which has to be avoided. For workers, legal restrictions on immigration and family and social considerations are barriers that often require them to work in one country and often in one industry for which they are trained. Additionally, workers are often more easily replaceable if they are not compliant. Thus, workers simply do not have nearly the same leverage that wealthy people have.
4
A railroad worker can retire with dignity at 62 or 65 like the rest of us. 52? Shameful.
3
I doubt seriously that the changes will be better for the railroad workers but will benefit the larger general population.
3
Nowhere is it more obvious of this split. On one side, unions. On the other, the public and those paying for the services.
How unions allowed themselves to become so distanced from the other side is a tragedy. Was it incompetence? Their own greed? Inability to deal with change? They have failed their members miserably. There is no place for them today in their current form.
The message to unions is this: Adapt or die.
Of course the metro lines closed tomorrow due to the strike will be those that go out to the further suburbs, meaning it’s the poor that will be most put out by the strike. As someone who lives just barely outside of Paris on the line 1, but works in the 93 and 95, the poorest suburbs I can tell you the poor have little patience left for these strikes.
5
In the French collective imagination, the railway network represents resistance. The battle of the rail during the Second World War was marked by acts of resistance of an incredible audacity of the French railway workers. In the minds of many French people, the status of railway workers represented the French social model, which had to withstand the onslaught of unbridled capitalism, which wanted to take everything in its path. That is why, for some commentators, this strike is not just about railway employees. The stakes are much higher. It is a question of entering the 21st century by maintaining the social achievements that make France a country where it is very pleasant to live and work.
27
"...that make France a country where it is very pleasant to live and work."
So pleasant that there are many more people living than working.
2
The 20th and the 21st century are colliding, and the 21st century will prevail. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is highly debatable at this point, but resistance is futile.
It's happening all over the world, but the conflict between the two is particularly conspicuous in the "legacy" West, as illustrated here with the unions in France.
Unfortunately, these changes in France should have literally been made at the dawn of the 21st century, with the adoption of the Euro and the advent of hyper-globalization that is the cause of much of the turmoil in the world now, when the trend lines of the 21st century were already clear.
Because of decades of abysmal leadership, France is now in a position where it has to transition from a Socialist country to a neoliberal ruthless capitalist country virtually overnight, or else it will be too late.
The scope of the wrenching changes required are such that it must change from a society where people can retire from a job essentially guaranteed for life at the age of 52 to a much more pervasive "gig economy" of the 21st century.
The two contrasts could not be more stark.
And the dawning Age of Automation increases the complexity of the challenge by an order of magnitude.
It's not clear where France will end up, but the much-envied "French way of life" is over.
France will literally be unrecognizable in ten years, whether Macron is successful or not.
Welcome to the race-to-the-bottom of globalization, France.
29
The huge disparity between the "haves" and everyone else is getting worse of course. Perhaps we can see the longer term future by looking at the huge growth in unionism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when the disparity was perhaps comparable to today.
Bitter fights by unions but eventually some decency in remuneration by the early 1950s. Then come over-strong unions. Perhaps the first fight by management and the government to curb excessive strikes and padded incomes was Margaret Thatcher with the coal mining industry. I suspect history is repeating itself (over a few decades.
1
Very thoughtful comment, and mostly accurate, except:
"Because of decades of abysmal leadership, France is now in a position where it has to transition from a Socialist country to a neoliberal ruthless capitalist country virtually overnight, or else it will be too late."
Macron is hardly a "neoliberal ruthless capitalist;" his changes have been made with a scalpel (the biggest changes to the rail workers will be applied to FUTURE employees, not current), not a hatchet, for the simple reason that the French have been spoiled for so long, the body politic could not SURVIVE anything else. To be fair, the article doesn't reveal this facet.
4
Preposterous. This same kind of fatalistic, TINA philosophy lead directly to President Trump and it will lead directly to President Le Pen. When Le Pen is able to style herself as the defender of the "French way of life" she will cruise to victory in a landslide.
You liberals will all be singing a different tune about the desirability of globalization when the fascists completely take over thanks to your myopia.
7
It seems like decrease of worker benefits and increase of corporation benefits are the main part of any economic reforms lately. I am wondering if the World should explore other possibilities. Otherwise, wouldn't the society return to the Dickensian world
27
We are already well on a our way in America to revisiting a Dickensian world. The trend in the ratio of chief executive income to the average income of their workforce over the last couple of decades tells all.
16
Retiring at 52 with full pension? Only if you are a Government worker. This will not happen in the private sector but who funds it all? The private sector.
24
52 may be too early, but the private sector in the States is no place to look for fairness in this issue either.
46
Yes you are right for the train driver but not maybe with a full pension, you perceive 75% of your wage, you need to work at least during 172 quarters. Otherwise for the other staff, from between 55 and 57 but not with full pension.
8
There are some state governments that still have 55 as a retirement age. I expect that will change soon. US Congress gave themselves the same retirement as police and fire. Very generous.
1
Because in times of stagnation and rising inequality it is always best to cut wages.
24
The stagnation is most pronounced in France, more than the rest of Europe. French unemployment is 9% and it (plus Italy) is the ONLY core member with a higher-than-Eurozone-average (8.6%) rate; both Portugal and Bulgaria, not known as economic powerhouses, are lower for example.
In short, the REASON for the stagnation is the inability to compete, BECAUSE of higher wages. Give Macron credit for that: If it ain't working, try something else.
23
Connecticut Yankee:
In the end, competition ultimately infiltrates all societies. One could call it an economic fact of life. The modern world presents challenges because competition exists everywhere, in some form.
Globalists try to paper over the true nature of things and have sold people a bill of goods for something unattainable.
2
Moderation here like anything else in life.
Unions can be greedy but so can management. It is a delicate balance.
Any reduction in benefits to the RR workers should be moderate and over time and go to reducing the national debt etc.
Same thing in the opposite direction for management. If these reductions result in a boon time for the R's, the workers should re share in the bounty with temporary bonuses whenever this happens.
39