Question that get angryThis second pan is also sensitive

"Caution". At the time of open, this afternoon, social deliberation on the management of the joint system (an idea launched a year ago by Laurence Parisot), all the social partners have the word in the mouth. Each is aware to tackle a folder also heavy and complex that symbolic and explosive. But everyone also knows that the time has come, both the rationale and the quality of their management of some organizations of the social sphere lend today to debate. They are indeed called into question by the suspicion that feeds the opacity of the management of certain funds - to begin by the vocational training - and the interventionism of the State, which sometimes benefits to hand all or part of these funds, such as those in the 1 housing.

Transparency rules

Attacked, trade unions and employers want to get in order of battle. First step in the menu of the day: establishing a common State of affairs. A precondition indispensable both their role differs from one organization to another (see opposite). They unanimously set objective first "to agree on rules of governance and financial transparency. They are under pressure: the obligation to certify their accounts, in force since January 1, leads them to clarify the use of the money they receive for their mission in joint bodies.

On the governance component, "representativeness reform must result in the joint system," warns the SGC. This would no longer give a seat to each, as currently, but to distribute according to the actual weight of the unions, a track which is obviously not the favour of the "small" (CFTC, CGC). The CFDT also wants to "reflect on the relationship between signing of an agreement and place in the organization that is implementing. A stone in the garden of FO, who, after having refused to sign the last unemployment insurance convention, has a time considered challenge to cédétiste Central President of Unedic.

Discussions, if the discussion leads to a negotiation, will be even more tense that the financial stakes are substantial (see below). To clear the land, Marcel Grignard (CFDT) calls to "distinguish between the question of the financing of trade unionism of the evolution of the joint system.

Question that get angry

This second pan is also sensitive. Medef wants to address the "field" of the joint system, in other words whether place by place should not be to hand the State, for example differentiating a co-management "of management" of a joint system of supervision. The CFDT believes that he must "distinguish the joint system which is designed to implement the agreements" (Unedic, pensions, training...) "from that historically born of a delegation of management by the State", where the role of the social partners is lower. It is, watermark, a call to focus on the first and to allow more before the rest in the State, in particular the family branches and disease of social security, including the benefits (and more funding) are more related to the fact to be an employee.

The issue get angry and divided. FO considers that it is "too early" to position itself, but remains very attached to the joint system. "The real issue is how to resume a little autonomy from political power." "And there was also the question of new fields of the joint system," explains Bernard Devy. The TCRC excludes release chairs: "when the State resumed the hand, the interest of employees routinely suffers," insists Pierre Mencès (TCRC). Firmness also adopts the CGPME, more dependent of the financing of the joint system that the Medef. "The forfeitures that attempts the State on one or two axes did not proven", explains Jean-François Veysset. "Ask barter insurance against more responsibility in other organizations", also prevents Michel Doneddu (CGT). The message, addressed to employers as well as to the Government.