This interview was conducted on the eve of a meeting of Prime Minister (CSV), OGBL Secretary General and LCGB National President on 14 January 2025. The aim of the meeting was to ease tensions between the government and the unions. At the end of the meeting, it was decided to convene a roundtable on the thorny issue of the organisation of working time. We caught Back after the meeting for a quick final word: she said she was pleased to have “a prime minister who listened.” “For once, we had the impression that we were understood,” she said, noting a change in Frieden's attitude. So much for form--as for substance, however, Back remained cautious, stating that both the OGBL and the LCGB remained mobilised.
Paperjam: What will the major social issues be in 2025?
Nora Back: I see five. For me, the most urgent issue is collective labour agreements (CLAs). Faced with a European directive requiring 50% of the country to be covered by CLAs, the government has decided to give employees working alone in companies the power to negotiate such agreements. For both the OGBL and the LCGB, this is inconceivable. It would threaten the Luxembourg social model. Since this announcement, we have had no discussions with the labour minister, . Yet this is an issue that should be dealt with as part of a joint social dialogue. Then there’s the issue of pensions. This was ignored during the general election campaign and is not an urgent matter. The way in which this issue is being handled is symptomatic of the government’s method: you make an announcement, then you consult everyone--except the unions, who are the ones primarily concerned--and then you decide. We have also seen this on the issue of opening hours in the retail and craft sectors. The organisation of working time will be another key issue over the coming months. On this issue, if I refer to the coalition agreement, the government is totally on the side of the employers. As is the case on many other issues.
I get the impression that the government is not ready for dialogue.
The final area of concern is maternity and sickness insurance. The National Health Fund has identified a deficit in the budget, a deficit that has arrived faster than expected. Here again, I don’t know where the government wants to go. But here, we have joined forces with the employers on the board of directors to ensure that the budget is balanced not by making savings on benefits, but rather by extracting all the expenditure not directly linked to health, the so-called ancillary costs such as maternity costs. For a long time, we have been calling for these expenses to be covered by the State budget and not by the CNS. After all, maternity is not an illness.
These are the priority issues for me--issues on which I get the impression that the government is not ready for dialogue.
In your opinion, is social dialogue deteriorating in Luxembourg?
That’s how I feel. And it’s not an emotional reaction. You only have to read the campaign programmes of the CSV and the DP and then the coalition agreement to see that their positions are very far removed from ours. Right from the start, we expressed our distrust.
With the previous government, we had many meetings of the tripartite coordination committee. The tripartite is really the preferred tool of successive governments in times of crisis. But not for Luc Frieden. His government has no desire to convene tripartite coordination committees. Look at the issue of energy prices: the whole system of protection against price rises was decided at a tripartite meeting. The system was extended without consultation. This is symbolic of a method of government in which decisions are taken unilaterally. And this can be seen in many other areas. Of course, in the end, it’s up to the government to decide. But previous governments have never acted in this way. Ever.
What do you think of the proliferation of roundtables since the government took office?
Roundtables are not social dialogue. What’s more, we’re not invited. That’s what happened with housing. Not inviting the unions is a very symbolic thing… We are not against consultations and debates open to the general public, but this must not be at the expense of the three central players in the Luxembourg social model: employers, unions and the government. Les forces vives de la nation as they used to say--particularly as, when it comes to pensions, it’s these three players who finance the system. It is those who pay who must decide together.
Isn’t launching a major consultation on pensions a way of anticipating and overcoming the stalemate that seems inevitable between the stakeholders within a tripartite?
That’s exactly it. It’s a way of diverting attention and masking the fact that there will never be an agreement on the subject between the two major players, unions and employers. It’s a show. But beware: trying to silence the intermediary bodies is harmful, damaging behaviour. Emmanuel Macron tried it in France. We can see the results. If we really want to hear what people think, we should hold a referendum! For our part, with --national president of the LCGB--we would prefer a tripartite approach.
You criticise the government’s desire to open up collective bargaining to company delegations and neutral delegates. But isn’t that desire an acknowledgement that employees are no longer unionised?
The unions are criticised for no longer being representative. Yet the turnout at the last social elections was the highest we’ve ever had. It’s paradoxical that, when the turnout at social elections was lower than it is today, the question of representativeness was not an issue during tripartite meetings. This is denigration pure and simple. Today, we are stronger than we have ever been. In 2024, we registered 10,000 new members. That’s a record! We are present in all sectors of the economy, even those traditionally resistant. We’re at Amazon, in the Big Four. Even estate agents have delegates!
So the question of representativeness is a false one for you?
We could turn this argument of lack of representativeness against the government and the UEL. We don’t do that because it would be something low and despicable. But the government is only elected by half the people who work in Luxembourg. More people vote in social elections than in legislative elections. And does the UEL really represent all the companies in Luxembourg? More and more SMEs in the trade and craft sectors are coming to us for help because they no longer feel heard by employer bodies that ultimately represent only the financial sector and the big multinationals. Not everything the UEL defends is in the interests of small businesses.
The aim of the government’s bill is to achieve better coverage through collective labour agreements. How could this be achieved without attacking the unions’ monopoly?
We have a number of ideas. Faced with a very heterogeneous economic fabric made up of many SMEs, the best way of extending the coverage of collective agreements is to have more sectoral agreements. The law should facilitate the negotiation of such agreements by obliging an economic sector, if we make a request for negotiation, to receive us.
We also need to do away with the employers’ fear of collective bargaining. For them, and this is deeply rooted in their psychology, a collective agreement necessarily costs money. The skin off their backs! But that’s not true. What matters to us is the harmonisation of existing rules and equal treatment. We need to overcome this fear and make the bosses understand that having a sectoral agreement can be a win-win situation. For example, it can put an end to unfair competition in a given sector. Sector agreements work in the cleaning and construction sectors. Why wouldn’t they work in the hotel and catering and retail sectors? That would be the royal road.
We could also imagine creating incentives for companies, such as reserving participation in public sector tenders to companies covered by an agreement. To bid, companies have to meet economic and financial criteria. Why not add social criteria? We could also imagine making public aid conditional on the existence of a collective agreement.
You have made work organisation a priority. On this issue, the unions are accused of being backward-looking and of wanting to put the brakes on any reform. How do you respond to this criticism?
They accuse us of being backward-looking and not keeping up with the times. But that’s forgetting that the unions have contributed to the modernisation of work. Just think of the rights to continuing training and leave. To say that we are backward-looking is an unacceptable argument. Especially if you consider that what employers want is a return to the 19th century! Longer working hours, shorter breaks between two working days, a return to the 44-hour week and more flexible working hours. It’s paradoxical. We don’t want to kill the economy. On the contrary, we want to revive it by creating working conditions that are liveable and fair for both parties. We need to give employees some predictability over their working hours. That’s the least we can do. Flexibility is all very well. But it has to work both ways.
Many individuals say they are prepared to work more and complain that the existing rules are too restrictive. How do you respond?
Sometimes you have to protect people from themselves. That’s our job too. If an employer is not constrained, they will run their business as quickly and efficiently as possible--and with no guarantees for employees. We don’t want shops to be closed all the time. But if they want to open at night or on Sundays, then they should be obliged to negotiate a collective labour agreement with us. And while the government must extend the network of collective agreements as required by the EU, the bill on Sunday opening times has taken this instrument away from us.
Sickness and maternity insurance in the red
Back points out that health insurance had a €100.1m surplus in 2023, a deficit of €37.9m in 2024 and, as things stand, a deficit of €160.7m in 2025. “Pensions is where they’re deploying their scare tactics, but that’s not the emergency,” she says. “Health insurance is.”
Organisation of working time
With regard to the organisation of working time, the government agreement provides for a number of reforms. “In consultation,” says the text.
Some of the main reform projects are still being drawn up by the government:
—revision of the legal provisions relating to collective agreements
—introduction of annual working hours
—reform of time savings accounts
Other reforms are now before members of parliament:
—the possibility for employees to work up to eight hours on Sundays, with all hours worked earning extra pay
—reform of opening hours in the trade and craft sector, with shops allowed to stay open until 10pm on weekdays
This article, , was written for the issue of Paperjam magazine, published on 29 January. The content is produced exclusively for the magazine. It is published on the website as a contribution to the complete Paperjam archive.
Is your company a member of the Paperjam Club? You can request a subscription in your name. Let us know via .