A finance inspector, who worked for the offices of Michel Delebarre (Labour) and Dominique Strauss-Kahn (Economy) but also for large groups such as La Poste or BPCE (Banque Populaire-Caisse d’Épargne), Bruno Mettling is a resource specialist humans in mined ground. Called as HRD at France Telecom (now Orange) in 2010, it was up to him to take on the heavy task of healing the wounds of a company bruised by a series of suicides. At the head of his own consulting firm, Topics, since 2018, this apostle of social dialogue now supports leaders in driving change. Convinced that the pension reform was “necessary” but that it tensed the French by its lack of “balance”, he outlines, for L’Express, the narrow ways of a way out of the crisis.
L’Express: This reform was originally supposed to respond only to a budgetary equation. How could it have derailed to this point, and heated the country to this degree of political and social incandescence?
Bruno Mettling: What strikes me, in the first place, is the weakness, even the mediocrity, of the initial diagnosis. The major error is that we started, on such a sensitive subject, with a report from the Pensions Orientation Committee which identified several possible scenarios, more or less pessimistic. And it is the most pessimistic that has been retained, while moderate economists said they were skeptical about the findings and the timing very early on. In other words, the minimum necessary consensus among the experts, prior to the debate, has not been achieved. In my job, I see the devastation produced in companies by undiscussed and unshared organizational changes, all because a consultant has been there…
The second crystallization factor is having played the political card against the social partners. When the unions are unanimously opposed to a reform, one can quickly conclude that it is not balanced.
The situation has worsened all the more as certain political leaders, who had pleaded for years for the measures included in this text, slipped away at the last moment by competing in demagoguery. This couple, unanimous union hostility and political maneuvers, could not work. There was an error in the analysis of the balance of power. Of course, that’s easy to say after the fact. But playing the political against the social is rarely a winner. All the reforms that succeed in France are based on a balance, and there, it was not united.
Could the Macron-Berger moment, which did not happen, have changed the game?
Hard to say. What is certain is that the executive has done nothing in this direction. Remember the draft decree on unemployment insurance sent to the unions last December, with this surprise measure which aimed to reduce compensation by 40% if unemployment fell below 6%. When you throw out such a text, on Christmas Eve, after a consultation where a certain balance had been found regarding the tightening of the compensation rules, you put yourself out of the game and send yourself to the CFDT and the others, a message of contempt.
The second thing that shocked me is this little music that we heard in the majority according to which Laurent Berger would be a prisoner of his congress. Since when would a trade union leader, or a political leader, who respects the guidelines set by the congress of his movement be to blame? The advantage with Berger is that he immediately announced the rules of the game: we can discuss the contribution period, we cannot extend the legal age.
The reading that has been made in the country about 64 years of age is extremely simple: this extension will not penalize, or very little, those who have started working late because of their studies, managers in short, but only those who started working early. From the moment this reading took hold in public opinion, no more arguments were audible.
What are the ingredients for getting out of the crisis?
We can decide to go to the end of the balance of power. But that’s unthinkable, in my opinion, because our country is hit by two major crises: war is at the heart of Europe and inflationary pressures are extreme. The responsibility of a leader, in this context, is to appease, not to camp on a posture of authority. How to get out, then?
First, by acknowledging its mistakes, to reopen a space of listening and trust with the social partners, and the country. When I arrived at Orange to manage the social crisis linked to suicides, the fact of clearly saying to employees “what happened before in terms of management was not admissible” was a structuring moment in the renewal of the ‘business.
Secondly, a framework for dialogue with the unions must be re-established. Emmanuel Macron who refuses, on March 10, to receive them, on the grounds that there is parliamentary time to preserve, it’s crazy… The rule in negotiation is to receive your interlocutors, even to record a disagreement. When I worked with Dominique Strauss-Kahn on important reforms, he often used this formula: “You always have to hold both ends of the string.” Social partners and politics.
Thirdly, I think that we must give up the passage to 64 years, to preserve the dynamics of transformation on the other subjects. It would be an act of political courage. Clearly, this means that after the vote on 49.3, the government announces that it is waiving the age of 64, possibly with a review clause conditional on a new financial examination of the system within some time, in order to be able to implement the other elements of the reform, which are better understood.
We could also broaden the dialogue to other themes that have not been addressed in the context of these debates. Occupational health, for example, which has experienced a spectacular deterioration since the Covid episode. Or the retention of seniors in employment, which deserves better than this very cosmetic story of “senior indexes”. My firm has carried out a study on the way in which this subject is dealt with in the countries of Northern Europe. There, as soon as an employee approaches the age of 54-55, the company discusses with him the question of his professional development, by planning ad hoc training. And the obsession of occupational medicine in these countries is to keep employees in business for as long as possible by adapting their workstations. In France, the last reform of occupational medicine consisted in spacing out the compulsory visits even further. All is said !
Would a major social conference make it possible to reach a consensus on these themes?
The Assises du travail were opened last December under the aegis of the ministry. There is therefore already a framework for discussion, which brings together experts and social partners. No need to mount another high mass, “Grenelle” style, especially if the objective is to drown the fish… What is needed are answers on the substance to the misunderstandings that this reform has raised, not on the form . We can no longer afford to pretend.
Should the government be reshuffled to relaunch the dialogue?
When a company is in difficulty, the management team is generally changed. The current ministers, who have spared no effort in often difficult conditions, it must be recognized, do they still have the legitimacy to open a new chapter? At this stage, only Emmanuel Macron can take the initiative.