Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-04-29
Source: The Conversation – France (in French)– By Rémi Bourguignon, University Professor, IAE Paris-Est, University Paris-Est Créteil Val de Marne (UPEC)
The idea that the union monopoly should be ended to revitalize French social democracy has been gaining traction for about ten years. It has been suggested to facilitate the participation in professional elections of employees not organized in the form of a union, or even to allow them, under certain conditions, to take charge of collective bargaining. While this idea has resurfaced in the social debate following the positions taken by several economists, it appears that it rests on an ambiguity that makes the issues difficult to perceive. An analysis.
To reform the functioning of French social democracy, a reform proposal has been the subject of intense and recurring debates for about ten years: the end of the union monopoly. This proposal was prominently featured in theFrançois Fillon’s political program when he was a candidate in the presidential electionand was the subject, during the same period, of abill proposed by Senator Jean-Louis Masson.
The controversies sparked by this measure have been rekindled in recent months by the positions taken by economists who occupy a central place in the social debate. Pierre Cahuc and André Zylberberg are thus the authors of aopinion piece published in the newspaperLes Échosin which they call for a challenge to the “union monopoly” in professional elections, according to which only unions can stand in the first round of these elections. A “rente” that would harm not only employment, but also social democracy itself, the two economists tell us, who propose to open up these elections by allowing employees not endorsed by a union organization to form a candidate list.
Power to negotiate
Gilbert Cette, economist at Neoma Business School and chairman of the Pension Advisory Council, proposes, on his part, to challenge the trade union monopoly on collective bargaining whereby only unions are authorized to negotiate with employers.With Jacques Barthélémythen in a book co-written with Guy Groux and Richard Robert as well asin numerous media appearances, it proposes that, under certain conditions, the power to negotiate be withdrawn from the unions to be entrusted to the elected staff body, the social and economic committee (CSE). The challenge to the union monopoly on collective bargaining had already been the subject of intense discussions in 2016 at a time when employer organizations were requesting that the company referendum might replace negotiation with the unions. Some legal experts were then questioning theconstitutionality of the union monopoly.
Whether it concerns the presentation of candidates in the first round of professional elections or the right to negotiate with the employer, the authors of these proposals suggest challenging the union monopoly to give more room to non-unionized workers. But what should be understood by “union monopoly,” and is there really a union monopoly?
Also to read:
Unions: fewer members, but still a positive image among employees
An ambiguous expression
In reality, this expression, while not entirely false, is ambiguous enough to distort the public debate. The non-specialist indeed has reason to be confused. Pierre Cahuc and André Zylberberg speak of a trade union monopoly while indicating that it is reserved for a large number of organizations. Moreover, as a sign of their embarrassment, the two economists speak, in the same article, of a “quasi-monopoly.” Similarly, for Gilbert Cette and his co-authors, the main obstacle to social democracy is the excessive number of trade union organizations. Their main proposal, which they call the “mother of battles,” is to reduce the number of unions. Here too, a strange conception of monopoly: a monopoly shared by too many actors.
The ambiguity, and thus the complexity, of the debate lies in the fact that there are two meanings of trade union monopoly. The first meaning refers to a right of exclusive representation.Christian Morel recalls, in this regard, at the time of the New Deal and the drafting of American collective bargaining laws in the 1930s, two ideas of democracy were being discussed:
“On one hand, proportional representation: according to this philosophy, several unions could represent the same group of employees. On the other hand, majority representation, according to which the union holding the majority should have the monopoly of representation.”
And to recall that it is the second that prevailed, so that the union monopoly prevails in North American companies and, more generally, in Anglo-Saxon systems of labor relations. When a union manages to establish itself in a company, it has an exclusive right of representation. The French system, for its part, rejects the principle of union monopoly and even takes an opposite stance through particularly marked pluralism.
At the heart of social democracy
So, what are we talking about when we mention the union monopoly in the French system? In fact, not a union monopoly in the sense that these rights would be reserved for a single exclusive actor, but a principle at the heart of French social democracy, namely a collective framework for the representation of employees. One could also say a union control over this representation. In clearer terms, to get involved in representing their colleagues and negotiating with the employer, employees must adhere to a collective organization, external to the company, and possessing legal personality.
These organizations are called unions and their mission is to compile the lists for the first round of professional elections and to appoint negotiators with the employer. These organizations bear the responsibility for the actions of their activists on the ground. In this sense, it is a form of union control. But if one must speak of a monopoly, it is a monopoly granted to a status, that of the union. Not a monopoly granted to an actor.
Indeed, all employees have the possibility to form a union and, if they meet certain criteria, can stand in professional elections. If, at the end of these elections, they have demonstrated their representativeness, they will be able to participate in collective negotiations. The right to stand in professional elections is therefore fully open provided that the employees who wish to do so frame their action within the context of a responsible collective organization.
An opening already presented
The law notably states that it is open to trade union organizations “which meet the criteria of respect for republican values and independence, have been legally constituted for at least two years, and whose professional and geographical scope covers the company or establishment concerned.” In short, if employees have filed statutes, demonstrate financial transparency, respect republican values, and are independent of the employer, they can stand in professional elections.
Opposing the union monopoly to open elections clouds the issue. Because, on that basis, there is little doubt that the open election is preferable. But that is precisely not the question since the election is already open. What is contested by those who call for an end to the union monopoly is, in reality, less a privilege that would distort the representativeness of negotiators than a prerogative.
The trade union monopoly, taken in this sense, would rather be comparable to the medical monopoly according to which only doctors are authorized to prescribe medicines even though doctors compete with each other. Similarly, if access to the first round of professional elections and collective bargaining is reserved for trade union organizations, these are put into competition and access to union status is possible for all employees.
Put the debate back into the right context
The debate on the end of the trade union monopoly thus invites one to wonder whether employee representation and collective bargaining should take place within the framework of collective action carried by an identified and responsible organization or whether it can be the result of a collection of more or less coordinated and organized employees.
The trade union form currently plays an important role. First of all, it provides a legal personality to the employees who join it, which contributes to their independence from the employer and opens up modes of action to them that are not available to employees who would constitute a so-called non-union candidate list.
It is above all an organization founded on democratic principles and must, as such, constitute a space that allows the discussion of the diversity of interests and visions that traverse the world of work in order to bring about, through deliberation, the most widely shared demands possible. It is with regard to this function that trade unionism is usually considered the central institution of social democracy.
The challenge to the union monopoly is fueled by the idea that unions no longer actually fulfill this function. While the debate on the vitality of union democracy is entirely legitimate and welcome, the argument that weakening or even removing union prerogatives would strengthen social democracy remains to be substantiated.
Rémi Bourguignon received research funding from France Stratégie, the IRES agency for objectives, and the CFE-CGC Metallurgy federation
–ref. Does the union monopoly really exist?https://theconversation.com/does-the-trade-union-monopoly-really-exist-281070