In my seminar for Creating Social Europe this morning we were discussing the rise of Trade Unionism (and all the other things that came with Trade Unionism) in Britain, France and Germany. I find France's case particularly interesting, I'll give you a bit of background before I make my actual blog point.
They first began with the mutual (mutuelle if y'all want to get all French) in the Second Empire under Napoleon III in 1852. They were created to encourage stabilisation under a new regime, as the Second Republic had only lasted 4 years, obviously Napoleon III would rather his Empire lasted a teeny bit longer than the pitiful 4 years. By introducing mutuals there was some (although mutuals were hardly fabulous) form of social welfare, albeit limited in many ways (it was restricted to the Petit-bourgeoisie, particular crafts and it barely had any presence in rural France, oh and women were pretty much ignored...). The mutual supported the family, benefits were given to families, and were based on family need. Family was massively important (remember this for later), one of the main mantras of the Second Empire was that money should not be given from the rich to poor, but from the celibate to the family. This is to do with the Church often being the only form welfare for families, those who are celibate should promote and help the family and France's dwindling birth rate. In France there is something you don't really see here in Britain, intergenerational solidarity. Léon Bourgeois argued that people had a social debt, this is acquired due to your incapability to care for yourself when you are born, therefore you are cared for by family, friends and society. This debt is then repaid back when you are an adult, for example, in caring for elders.
Right, now that's out the way, here is my actual point...
In the past few weeks many people I know have gone to France for their year abroad (as they're doing language degrees). There have been many statuses on Facebook written about the strikes in France, and from a British perspective the strikes could be seen to be for a silly reason. They're raising the pension age from 60 to 62, doesn't seem like a big deal really. George Osborne revealed a much bigger rise in the pension age (particularly for women) yesterday in the Spending Review. He said that the pension age for men and women in this country will be 66 by 2020. Right ok. We've accepted this change, which will affect millions, and just said "Oh, ok, bit annoying, but I suppose it's fair". I'm not arguing that the retirement age shouldn't go up, it should, we're living longer, it makes sense (as long as pensions etc are not compromised). What I'm trying to get at is the difference in how we reacted, and the way the French reacted.
The reaction is so vastly different across the Channel. Anyone who says that the French are being ridiculous as "it's only two years" needs to understand that it isn't necessarily the increase that they're striking against. They're striking to prove a point, that they are a republic and that it isn't an autocracy, it's a democracy and President Sazkozy has no right to implement such a change in the law. Oh, and all the stuff I said before, about the intergenerational solidarity, do you see what I mean? The people striking are the young, students, adults, it isn't just a load of almost-retired oldies, it's everyone. There is something to be said for a load of people that go out on strike when the piece of legislation they're arguing against won't affect some of them for 40 years.
Britain could probably do with scaring some politicians a bit, they get it far too easy in this country. I'm not saying we should be more like the French, *insert French joke about their army/food/Frenchmen here*, but you must get the idea. We tolerate so much, just look at the cuts the Coalition announced yesterday, it really is ridiculous.
Grrrrr.
No comments:
Post a Comment