Les syndicats français pris dans le tourbillon de la négociation - Collective French Trade Unions Caught in the Swirl of Collective Bargaining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article interroge l'action syndicale en France dans un contexte caractérisé par une remise en cause de la loi relative à la réduction de la durée du travail. En prenant appui sur le cas d'un établissement qui s'engage dans un processus d'allongement de la durée du travail, l'auteur retrace le cheminement parcouru par les acteurs en présence qui débute par la renégociation de la règle sur les 35 heures pour aboutir à l'invention d'une nouvelle régulation entre salariés et direction. Loin d'abroger les lois Aubry, ce mouvement d'allongement de la durée du travail questionne la capacité des acteurs à mener des négociations collectives.This paper questions the way French trade unions have dealt with the effects of the legislation purporting to limit maximum working time to 35 hours per week. The research is based on a case study of a manufacturing firm. The author examines the ways in which local actors evolved from the negotiation over the implementation of the 35 hour work week to the development of new relationships between the employees and their employer. In this specific case study, the negotiation actually ended up lengthening working time. This result does not deny the importance of working time legislation but it does call into question the capacity of local unions to achieve in collective bargaining the objectives set out legislatively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".