Michèle Sinner examines the escalating conflict between the unions and the government that ultimately sparked Saturday’s large-scale demonstration.

The demonstration begins at 11am on Saturday at Luxembourg City train station. From there, the joint union front of OGBL and LCGB (Luxembourg's two major trade unions) will march towards the city centre. But how did this mobilisation come about? In the third part of our retrospective, we focus on the Prime Minister’s State of the Nation speech and the reactions it provoked.

The summary is: the unions are angrier than ever. On 23 May, RTL reported: “they will not return until a tripartite meeting is convened to discuss these key issues”. OGBL and LCGB slammed the door and announced they would withdraw indefinitely from all social dialogue platforms, including the permanent committee on employment, the Economic and Social Council, and any exchanges with Minister of Social Security Martine Deprez. According to the unions, the Prime Minister’s speech was the final straw.

Meanwhile, employer representatives – such as UEL Director Marc Wagener – reiterated their preference for less regulation in collective agreements. “We already have nearly 60% coverage by collective agreements. When you consider that we have the highest minimum wage, wage indexation, revaluations, and one of the strongest labour law systems anywhere, that’s significant. On top of that, every collective agreement must cover 13 points, all in favour of the employee.”

These indicators suggest that the social partners were not as aligned in the Prime Minister’s working groups as his speech implied.

In early June, the Prime Minister invited the unions and employers to a meeting on 9 July – about a week after the planned demonstration – at the State Ministry. Although the meeting involves all three parties, it is carefully not referred to as a “tripartite” to avoid giving that impression. OGBL and LCGB declined to say whether they would attend, pending the outcome of the protest.

This move also seems intended to prevent the civil servants' union CGFP from joining forces with the other unions – a worst-case scenario for the government. Not long ago, the three unions had jointly submitted a report on pension reform proposals. At that time, CGFP had hoped the changes would only apply to the private sector.

CGFP has since decided to hold its own protest against reforms to public sector pensions, offering the government one last chance at the 9 July meeting – after which they too will only negotiate within a formal tripartite framework. CGFP President Romain Wolff stated: “It’s the government that is dividing society. It’s not up to us to deepen that divide. That’s why it might be time for us all to stand together – but one step at a time.”

Faced with poor results in recent political opinion polls – where 60% of respondents supported the unions – the Prime Minister struck a more conciliatory tone just before National Day, saying in an RTL interview:

“We’re simply looking for people to work a bit longer – and they will still have plenty of retirement time. But, and I want to stress this ahead of the 9 July meeting, we are of course open to discussing other options. The important thing, as we said during the election campaign, is to ensure the medium- to long-term stability of the pension system.”

OGBL and LCGB moved even closer together in the lead-up to the protest, founding the Union des syndicats one week before the demonstration. Whether this is a negotiating tactic or the beginning of long-term cooperation remains to be seen, but the two unions plan to campaign together in the next round of workplace elections.

Meanwhile, employers can be just as combative. UEL President Michel Reckinger accused the unions of having coup-like intentions on this very station: “I believe the main aim of this demonstration is to bring down the government. That was their plan from the start. Even during the presentation of the coalition agreement, Nora Back was already referencing the Yellow Vests.”

This conveniently forgets that employers themselves have pushed for regime change – for example, through initiatives like “5 to 12” or “Luxembourg 2030”. Reckinger also accused the unions of complete obstructionism:

“They walked away from the negotiating table. Why? Because they refuse to talk about reforms. For them, any change is a red line. They want everything to stay as it is. But that gets us nowhere.”

Of course, the employers also have their red lines – such as opposing any increase in pension contributions, even minimal ones.

Whether the public will follow the government’s call to stay at home, or feel even more compelled to take to the streets, will become clear at Saturday’s protest at 11am.