Throughout 2006, speculation continued in relation to the proposed reform of the special unemployment insurance scheme for workers employed sporadically on fixed-term employment contracts in the entertainment sector. As a result, finalising the draft agreement on the reform has again been postponed. The draft agreement, which was completed in April 2006, has still not been signed a year later.
On 18 April 2006, a draft agreement was concluded on the reform of the unemployment insurance scheme for workers on fixed-term employment contracts in the entertainment sector (intermittents du spectacle). The agreement was an attempt to address the issues at stake in the entertainment industry in relation to the workers’ status. A year after completion, the draft agreement is still not signed. The implementation of the reform does not seem to be on the government’s current agenda, although workers in the entertainment sector have expressed their concerns.
A special unemployment insurance scheme for sporadically-employed workers in the entertainment industry was set up in 1969 to enable performers and technical staff in the arts, entertainment and cultural sector to receive unemployment benefit despite their often uneven pattern of employment. This group of individuals included manual and technical workers in cinema and television, as well as artists and technicians in the performing arts. However, over time, this benefit scheme has contributed to radical changes in the industry’s recruitment practices. There is currently a huge reliance on and sometimes abuse of intermittent work (travail intermittent) – periods of activity alternating with periods of inactivity. Employers’ preference for this form of employment explains the scheme’s financial imbalance. The number of recipients of unemployment benefit in the sector has doubled over the past 10 years.
Difficulties linked with previous reform
The previous agreement, which was reached in June 2003, was signed by:
- three employer organisations, including the Movement of French Enterprises (Mouvement des entreprises de France, MEDEF), the General Confederation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (Confédération générale des petites et moyennes entreprises, CGPME) and the Craftwork Employers’ Association (Union professionnelle artisanale, UPA);
- three trade unions, namely the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (Confédération française démocratique du travail, CFDT), the French Christian Workers’ Confederation (Confédération française des travailleurs chrétiens, CFTC) and the French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff – General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff (Confédération française de l’encadrement – Confédération générale des cadres, CFE-CGC).
The aim of the agreement was to tackle the imbalances of the entertainment industry’s unemployment insurance scheme. In order to meet this target, the agreement imposed stricter benefit entitlement criteria (FR0402101N) with a view to reducing the number of beneficiaries. After its implementation on 1 January 2004, a certain amount of malfunctioning became apparent among the managing bodies, which included the National Union for Employment in Industry and Commerce (Union nationale interprofessionnelle pour l’emploi dans l’industrie et le commerce, UNEDIC) and the Associations for Employment in Industry and Commerce (Associations pour l’emploi dans l’industrie et le commerce, Assedic; Assedic represent the regional branches of UNEDIC) (FR0402101N).
As a result of protest action by entertainment workers’, the state was forced to intervene. From July 2004, the state set up and financed a provisional benefit fund for entertainment workers who had been excluded as a result of the reform of the 2003 agreement; these workers included those who had worked their quota of 507 hours over a period of 12 months rather than over 10 months.
Since then, entertainment workers have made counter-proposals and organised days of protest action and demonstrations, in order to encourage a positive conclusion to the negotiations and the adoption of a new agreement. A monitoring committee, comprising Members of Parliament (MPs) and representatives of various trade unions as well as entertainment workers’ coordinating committees had even drawn up a draft law that more than 470 MPs had undertaken to vote for if it was put before parliament. The Minister of Culture at the time, Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, stated that if the negotiations failed, he would not hesitate to use legislation. Finally, due to their failure to reach an agreement, the social partners had to resign themselves to extending the agreement, which expired at the end of December 2005.
New draft agreement
The 2006 draft agreement represented a broad outline of the June 2003 agreement, but confirmed the stricter benefit entitlement criteria. The period during which the quota of 507 hours had to be worked in order to qualify for unemployment benefit was reduced to:
- 10 months for technicians who were covered by appendix 8 of the draft agreement;
- 10.5 months for artists who were covered by appendix 10 of the draft agreement.
Furthermore, the maximum period for receiving benefit was reduced from 10 months to eight months.
However, several changes have been introduced with the intention of rectifying the pernicious effects of the 2003 agreement. Thus, the method of calculating the daily benefit has been changed and should reflect all remuneration related to working time during the specified period. The situation of people whose entitlement to benefit has reached the threshold should be re-examined taking into account a reference period of work that is longer than that normally attributed to technicians and artists. In return, the 507-hour threshold would be increased proportionally to the increased length of the reference period.
Reactions to draft agreement
The latest draft agreement has won the support of the three employer organisations. However, the trade unions have mixed opinions about it. The General Confederation of Labour (Confédération générale du travail, CGT) and the General Confederation of Labour – Force ouvrière (Confédération générale du travail – Force ouvrière, CGT-FO) have rejected the agreement; the former trade union confederation demands that the 2003 agreement be repealed. CFTC and CFE-CGC have expressed their willingness to sign the agreement on certain conditions while CFDT has rejected the hypothesis of using legislation. Its conditions for signing the agreement include:
- greater progress regarding collective agreements in the sector;
- a more precise definition of the functioning of the state-financed insurance fund;
- increased monitoring of the latter, in order to avoid abuse of the system.
So far, signing of the agreement has been continuously postponed for various reasons.
The state honoured its commitment and decided to continue the provision of the insurance fund. This has made it possible to provide benefits for those entertainment workers who were excluded from the June 2003 agreement. The government also took on the responsibility of financing an allowance of €30 a day for two to six months for those workers whose benefit entitlement has expired, depending on how long contributions had been paid. After these announcements by the government, CFDT stated at the end of October 2006 that it had decided to sign the draft agreement – eight months after the end of negotiations. However, CFDT had still not signed the agreement two months later. In fact, CFE-CGC and CFTC had also failed to sign the agreement by the end of 2006.
On 25 April 2007, hundreds of unemployed persons and casual workers in the entertainment industry gathered in protest on the rooftop of UNEDIC’s Parisian headquarters. As a result, the union’s management decided to block access to the building for employees and members of the public until the matter was resolved.
Commentary
On the one hand, this delay in signing an agreement once again illustrates the difficulties of the French joint negotiation system and of tripartite bargaining involving the state.
On the other hand, it reflects the ambiguous nature of the agreement, and the fact that its aim to reduce the imbalances in the insurance scheme, and thus the number of beneficiaries, will only be partially achieved if it is implemented in its present state.
Catherine Sauviat, Institute for Economic and Social Research (IRES)