At the end of the line, the general secretary of a trade union federation is embarrassed. “It’s an explosive subject, she breathes. No, really, I can’t talk about it.” For some section leaders, talking about the police unions gives the impression of handling a stick of dynamite. “The police are very delicate. They are the symbol of our societal fractures. If I tell you what I think, it will be a problem”, she continues, before sending us back to the leader of her confederation.
Since the death of Nahel M., killed by the shooting of a policeman in Nanterre, the positions taken by certain law enforcement unions have once again brought to light the differences with their central managements. The use of an offensive vocabulary – sometimes outrageous – by the most representative organizations of peacekeepers has given rise to debates within the coordinations. However, the latter remain very cautious with the police unions, anxious to spare structures that have many members.
Internal debates
Since the end of June, this diversity of points of view has been particularly expressed through an incendiary press release, signed jointly by the two majority organizations among the police. “Faced with these savage hordes, asking for calm is no longer enough. It must be imposed!”, wrote Alliance and Unsa Police, calling for “restoring republican order and putting those arrested out of harm’s way”. “The time is not for union action but for the fight against these ‘harmful'”, they argued. In the parent organizations – Unsa for Unsa Police, CFE-CGC for Alliance – this virulent position has caused a stir. “The categorical defense of a profession, even sincere, does not authorize derogating by words from the values which make our republic and which found Unsa”, tweeted Laurent Escure, the secretary general of the organization, while François Hommeril, president of the CFE-CGC, explained to Release find these remarks “totally inappropriate”. In the process, the two unions announced that the press release would be discussed at their national offices the following week.
In the case of Unsa, a motion adopted by its office on July 5 affirmed that it will “always be engaged in the defense of the Republican police”. It nevertheless asks the Unsa Police and the Autonomous Federation of Trade Unions of the Ministry of the Interior (also affiliated to the Unsa) to “reaffirm their attachment to the fundamental values of the Republic, to the charter of values of the Unsa and in the fight against the far right and its ideas”, as well as “their autonomy in their expression and their action”, in particular “vis-à-vis the Alliance union”. Requests which it will verify the application at the next national office of the confederation, in September, while a union commission has been mandated to “verify the commitments requested”.
In that of the CFE-CGC, the press release was also discussed internally. “Some leaders of trade union structures told me that they were shocked or that they wondered about the positions taken by an organization dependent on the CFE-CGC, says François Hommeril. We discussed it. I myself had a fairly long and comprehensive exchange with the president of our Public Service Federation, who happens to be a member of the Alliance union himself.”
“Speech is free”
Difficult, for the central trade unions, to go much further than the “discussions” of the CFE-CGC and the “verifications” advocated at Unsa. Question of union culture, first. Within both structures, the autonomy of each federation is important. “With us, speech is free as long as we respect the statutes of our confederation, explains François Hommeril. We have only one major prohibition, namely direct support for a personality or a political party. The rest is subject to interpretation. “
An “interpretation” which partly allowed Alliance to opt for controversial speeches, far removed from the “reformist” reputation of its central. When it comes to sanctions against the profession, the organization has even been able to become threatening. In June 2020, she was already rebelling in a leaflet during the demonstrations of the yellow vests. “The police are not presumed innocent but already found guilty!”, Proclaimed the union, which continued to the attention of the Ministry of the Interior: “National Police Alliance is not afraid to warn our authorities […] we will be attentive to any arbitrary decision and we are prepared to react if necessary”. Questioned about these positions, François Hommeril explains that it is up to the “federations to regulate the expressions” of each one. At the CFE-CGC, around 300 unions depend on about thirty federations “I do not have control over what each section can declare.”
This freedom of speech can also be explained by the history of police unionism. During the second half of the 20th century, it was dominated by the Autonomous Federation of Police Unions (Fasp), until the disappearance of the latter in 1995. “The association of police unions with large confederations is quite recent, which which sheds light on the differences in discourse”, analyzes Benjamin Pabion, author of a thesis on police unionism. Unlike Force Ouvrière, which was heavily involved in the reorganization of its police union in the early 2010s, the CFE-CGC and Unsa tended to assume the autonomous side. “The question of image also allows them to enjoy a certain independence, he continues. Do all CFE-CGC members really know that Alliance depends on their confederation? Do they feel concerned by their positions ?” Not so sure: questioned about the remarks made by the police union, Gilles Le Stir, the president of the federal office of the CFE-CGC Chimie thus explains to be “very far from the problems of the Alliance union”. “I have been in office for a year, I have not had the opportunity to discuss this subject with my counterparts,” he admits.
Parent brand
Such a semantic argument is however much more difficult to assume for Unsa Police, whose name is directly linked to the mother “brand”. Unsa, founded in 1993 around seven pillars – democracy, solidarity, freedom, humanism, justice and social dialogue, secularism – is not used to the controversial remarks of its police branch, usually known to be more measured. But its association with Alliance in the last professional elections seems to have weighed in the balance: the two organizations are now in the majority in police representation and must ensure that they keep their members. “In my original sector, industry, our union approach is different, because we don’t try to steal members from each other. We try to interest employees who are mostly not unionized. With the police, it’s different, analyzes François Hommeril. When you recover a card, it means that you have stolen it from someone else. Obviously, the way of communicating is different. “
With its 140,000 civil servants unionized up to 90%, the Ministry of the Interior is a major issue for the unions and their central bodies. Sanctions more severe than those suggested so far – for example, the exclusion of the union from a federation – are complex, very long, and above all very risky. “An organization like the CFE-CGC, for example, has a lot to lose by opposing Alliance head-on, continues Benjamin Pabion. Losing them means cutting yourself off from tens of thousands of members.” So many agents who, in the ultra-competitive environment of police unionism, would quickly join another federation.
At the CFE-CGC, however, it is ensured that the number of members does not come into account in the treatment of Alliance. For the moment, the communication gap between the union and its headquarters is not a handicap. “I am not bothered by the fact of letting my Alliance colleagues know that their communication is not necessarily the most effective in defending their interests, assures François Hommeril. At the same time, I feel quite comfortable defending at all times the police who are under attack very clearly both in their place in society, and as civil servants at the very bottom of the scale.” Enough to make ends meet?