OGBL president Nora Back criticised the government for ending social talks without agreement, accused it of siding with employers, and vowed unions would defend modern working-time proposals through mobilisation if necessary.

Back argued the Standing Committee on Labour and Employment (CPTE) is effectively a "mini social round" chaired by the Labour Minister Georges Mischo, repeating the same dynamics that, in the unions' view, derailed talks. She said the government had already made up its mind before the third social round, making the subsequent CPTE format pointless.

The OGBL, she added, refuses to provide a façade of consensus that could be used to justify cutbacks, but this is not a "policy of the empty chair": the union will submit detailed proposals on working-time organisation to the minister, explain them publicly, and mobilise if necessary.

What changed between July and September

Back recalled that after the long first round on 9 July, all sides had said the goal was a final agreement. The unions accepted the idea of discussing working time in the CPTE only if tripartite-style negotiations were genuinely back on track and if any outcome would be signed by all three partners.

By the time talks resumed on 3 September, she said, understandings from 14 July had disappeared and the promised follow-up in a larger social round was no longer on the table. In her view, this showed the government had planned from the outset to listen and then decide alone.

Government and employers' positions

The conversation turned towards cited statements by PM Luc Frieden and the Minister of Health and Social Security Martine Deprez that positions had moved further apart, with unions seeking to revisit elements of the 2012 pension adjustment and employers rejecting contribution increases, so further talks had "no value".

Back countered that in Luxembourg's social model opposing positions are normal and have historically been bridged. Stopping talks, she said, was the wrong choice. She also argued the government had tilted too far towards employers at the start of its mandate, hardening positions and "poisoning" the atmosphere.

Unions say they offered compromises

Back maintained that OGBL and the Luxembourg Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (LCGB) showed the most willingness to compromise during the rounds, tabling counter-proposals and trade-offs until late in the final session, only for the government to decide unilaterally. The unions, she insisted, still support Luxembourg's tripartite model, provided it produces a decent agreement for all sides.

Back said the unions have pages of ideas on working-time organisation and will present them to government and the public. If the government truly wants a modern labour market that boosts the economy, she argued, employers should also back measures that improve conditions for workers.

She welcomed the government{s openness to bilateral talks with unions, noting the Ministry of Labour is seeking dates, but stressed that a real tripartite with a binding end-result remains the preferred route.

On conflicting messages about 'modernisation'

Amid public claims and counter-claims, such as alleged proposals for a 52-hour week, denied by employers' leader Michel Reckinger, Back said it is time for everyone to state their positions clearly on issues like maximum hours and breaks. If employers now say they do not want longer maximum hours, she takes that as progress.

But she warned against dressing rollbacks on Sundays off, eight-hour days and paid leave as "modernisation", arguing that some proposals amount to rowing back to the last century.

The next milestone is the quadripartite meeting on 13 October, where unions will be present.

Watch the full interview here