Unemployment is high despite shorter working week

Now France's 35-hour week is the nation's favourite scapegoat.

It is blamed for everything from the country's economic woes to the deaths of thousands of people in the summer heatwave.

Five years after the grand social experiment of socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, the conservatives of Jean-Pierre Raffarin's government want the test declared a failure and its rules redefined.

"The law is contrary to the interests of our economy - all French people say the 35 hours is a true economic mistake," said budget minister Alain Lambert, blaming it for France's failure to keep its budget deficit within the eurozone limit of 3% of GDP.

Fundamentally the 35-hour week was bad for our country Francis Mer Finance Minister

Other politicians joined the queue to put the boot in.

"Fundamentally the 35-hour week was bad for our country," said Finance Minister Francis Mer, putting its cost to the economy as 10 billion euros a year.

"Almost everybody finds the effects of the 35-hour week disastrous," said conservative reformer Herve Novelli, demanding a parliamentary inquiry.

Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin publicly acknowledged he wanted changes, although only, as he put it, only after "social dialogue".

The 35-hour week policy played a central role in the 1997 socialist election victory, but many economists were prophesying doom from the start.

Unpopular measure

Employers' organisations, like the Chambers of Commerce and Medef, were furious at the obligations it imposed, although the blow was softened by government aid and the promise of a more flexible workforce.

Raffarin promises "social dialogue" before change

And for every worker revelling in the extra time off, it seemed there was another resenting the state interference and the loss of income caused by a strict overtime limit.

Small businesses in particular struggled to adapt and provide sufficient staff cover.

Some workers said they were being forced to achieve the same output in the shorter time. Waiters, for example, complained at having to work far harder to cover for absent colleagues.

However, the legislation did have measurable successes.

Some leisure pursuits soared in popularity, gym membership hit record levels and many women opted for Wednesday afternoons off to spend with their children on school half-days.

Other workers took their extra time off in the form of longer holidays.

Benefits

As millions found their quality of life improve, one poll found more than 80% of workers felt the changes "positive" or "very positive".

And unemployment, once 12.5% hit a nine-year low at 9.2% in 2000 - though this was arguably the result of other economic success.

Supporters now say up to 450,000 jobs have been created or saved.

Even the sceptical International Monetary Fund acknowledged that the 35-hour week "seems to have had a positive effect on the level of social dialogue and the organisation of work."

By the time of the 2002 election, conservative Jacques Chirac was promising to adapt rather than abolish the Loi Aubry - named after Jacques Delors' daughter Martine Aubry, author of the legislation.

But the rumblings about the problems went on, and this year's summer heatwave spectacularly brought it back into the public eye.

It is paralysing the economy like removing oxygen Economist Eric Chaney

An official inquiry into the deaths of nearly 15,000 in the crisis pointed to a number of causes - among them staff shortages caused by the 35-hour week.

And now, with the giant French economy lumbering into trouble with the EU stability and growth pact, the 35-hour week again finds itself in the dock.

"It has created higher labour costs and a real management problem in companies," Morgan Stanley economist Eric Chaney told Reuters news agency.

"It is paralysing the economy like removing oxygen."

Most unions, including the big two - the CGT and CFDT - will not accept amendments to the law without a fight. Limited changes already introduced on overtime hours were greeted with angry protests.

It remains to be seen how attached the French public have become to their new leisure pursuits - and how strongly they will resist any alteration.