The decision of the Minister responsible for employment concerning the increase in minimum wages of domestic workers and house employees is to be greet. It is an old claim. It is in accordance with the law which considers as a house employee “any employee employed in the service of a home and continuously occupied in the private home of the employer”. The compliance provides the employee with the right to a retirement pension or a survivor’s pension.
Unfortunately, as in all countries, social policy has both positive consequences in terms of workers’ protection, but also certain negative effects, especially on specific jobs. Thus, some compatriots speak of contextualization of the problem and discussions between social partners for an application. I am convinced that these essential consultations took place. I also understand what is behind these prudential proposals.
This is why, I would like to recall here the similar case of France that I know well.
The SMIG, or guaranteed minimum interprofessional wage, established in France by the law of February 11, 1950, later becoming the minimum wage (minimum interprofessional growth wage) in 1970, is a pillar of social protection. He marked a historic turning point, offering workers unequaled economic security. This bold measure made it possible to establish a salary floor guaranteeing a minimum level of remuneration to all employees. It is a major social advance that has reduced the most glaring inequalities on the job market.
The impact of the SMIG on labor relations has given unions, collective negotiations more weight and has induced a positive change in the nature of employer/employee relations, with greater formalization. Many low -wage workers were starting to live more with dignity and to increase their purchasing power. This guarantee has favored more equitable participation in economic growth and a general improvement in the standard of living of popular classes.
The gradual formalization of the labor market made it possible to limit operating practices and to promote more balanced labor relations. There is no doubt that this framework has strengthened the role of unions and collective negotiations. This is what created an environment more conducive to social dialogue.
However, the steep introduction and without preparation of the SMIG caused major upheavals in certain economic sectors of the French economic and social fabric. Domestic jobs, such as peer girls or building guards, were hardly affected. These positions, often accompanied by advantages in kind such as housing and food, were generally supplemented by a low monetary salary. They mainly concerned students and young employees (boys and girls) from the provinces to work in major urban centers like Paris. However, this model has difficult to be compatible with new legal requirements.
It is obvious that the uniform application of the minimum wage by the political authorities, without consideration of regional or sectoral specificities and with few consultations, has created significant disparities between rural and urban areas. The low -added value sectors, such as textiles or agriculture, have been faced with difficult restructuring, marked by job losses and relocations. Some employers have reduced their hours or gave up hiring, preferring informal arrangements.
The rush to France of workers from neighboring countries such as Portugal, Spain and Greece, whose income in purchasing power parity was at least half that of France, stimulated the greed of employers whose economic patriotism was not the concern. Often the workstation is occupied by two employees who took turns. It was during this period crisis that we heard the slogan, “they come to take our bread and our women.”
There is no doubt that the absence of suitable transitional devices penalized the employment of young people and low -skilled people during the two decades who followed the Thirty Glorious Years. This has prompted many employers to reduce their workforce or favor mechanization to compensate for the increase in wage costs. This situation thus contributes, in a surprising way, to weaken certain categories of workers.
The situation in France is an exception in major industrialized countries. You can cite the USA for example, or Germany.
Conclusion
The history of the SMIG offers us an invaluable lesson in social governance: even the most noble reforms can cause undesirable effects when applied without nuance. Social justice is not only decreed by law, it is built by a patient dialogue between all stakeholders.
The social legislator, like an experienced captain, must remain vigilant and anticipate the consequences of his actions on the most vulnerable. Because, as you know, those that we are trying to protect can become the first victims of too rigid or poorly calibrated protection.
The key to authentic political wisdom lies in this ability to harmoniously marry the ideal of equity with the complex reality of the field. It is essential to understand that sustainable social progress is not manifested by a steep rupture, but by a progressive and concerted evolution. This consultation existed, I am convinced, but perhaps it did not go to the bottom of things.
Related news :