Battle of Titans

The letter (1) sent on the 8th of February by Maurice Taylor, Chairman of Titan to Arnaud Montebourg, the French minister of Productive Recovery sums up the gulf separating American free thought from the French politico-economic environment.

The all-out attack by this American self-made man (“mad trade unions”, “French employees… discuss things for three hours and work for three hours”) is far too simplistic and Manichean for us to applaud it openly. However, we must admit that his words are just and hit a sore point by publicly asking taboo questions in our beautiful country.

The no-frills letter discusses working hours, the working state of mind, and in short, the concrete work that enables productivity… or not! It talks of salaries, and is daring, which the French political world has struggled to be for many years and underscores the considerable difference between salaries in still developed countries such as France and fast-growing countries such as China and India.

The head of Titan should be congratulated for his frankness since these realities are rarely brought up. Hypocrisy? Refusal to face reality? The facts are there: today in France, it is clearly difficult to contest the fundamental choices made in favour of globalisation and to objectively and collectively face the consequences of these choices. Reflection on these themes remains a matter for specialists and quickly turns into an ideological or partisan confrontation to the detriment of good sense thinking.

In France, more than elsewhere we consider, the political world remains above the organisations, restrictions and logic that could guide an efficient piloting of companies and the economy.

Xavier Fontanet (former Chairman of ESSILOR) described his surprise at the situation in a recent column in French financial daily Les Echos (2): a draft law born from the commendable aim of the public powers to favour ever more the dialogue between a company’s shareholders, managers and employees apparently aims to provide voting rights to staff representatives who take part in board meetings.

In the implacable logic of a former company head, Mr Fontanet also brings up questions similar to those of our American agitator: to what point can a state interfere in the life of a company in which it is not invested itself? Are voting rights not the counterpart to a financial risk taken personally by the shareholder and not by employees? Why tax employee corporate savings at the same time? In all, these questions on the state’s role and the utility of its interventions are questions full of good practical sense, which unfortunately have no satisfactory answer in the short term.

For the moment, let us content ourselves with the malicious remark made by Mr Fontanet who concludes his article as follows: “While we could regret the fact that there are not enough employees on board meetings, we could also regret the fact that there are not enough entrepreneurs in the government. For symmetry’s sake, and while there is still time, why not include in this law the presence on ministerial board meetings on Wednesdays, of two entrepreneurs, one representing small local companies and the other major global companies? It is always wise to apply to ourselves what we impose on others”.

There is no certainty that Mr Montebourg will reply to this attractive suggestion…

Didier LE MENESTREL
with the complicity of Bruno BERTEZ(3)

1 Les Echos published a translated copy on its website on 19/02/2013
2 Les Echos of 21/02/2013
3 Founder of French financial daily, La Tribune and author of leblogalupus.com