“Of course, it is better to take on this responsibility for controlling our employees rather than confinement, but we have the feeling that it is a disguised obligation on the part of the government”, reacted on franceinfo Dominique Carlac’h, president of D & Consultants, vice-president and spokesperson for MEDEF, and advisor to the CESE, about the compulsory health pass in companies. A meeting was held on Monday, December 20, in the morning, between the social partners and the Minister of Labor Elisabeth Borne.
Franceinfo: How did this meeting go with Elisabeth Borne?
Dominique Carlac’h: It was not a lip-service meeting, but there is a certain pressure from the government and a responsibility that will weigh on companies regarding this new protocol. We are fully aware of the deterioration of the health situation and of the risk posed by the Omicron variant. The Minister was reminded that companies are already subject to a strict protocol that they scrupulously respect, and that they are not places of contamination. Making the health pass compulsory in all companies seems to me to be a way for the government to impose a disguised obligation through companies.
You say it would be better to impose a real vaccination obligation rather than going through it?
The onus is on government to make vaccination mandatory, not on the corporate world. If this measure of health pass in the company was decided, knowing that several trade unions have a reserved or even unfavorable opinion, we insist on several fundamental points. Already the penalties for business leaders for failure to control the pass are absolutely disproportionate as they have been envisaged at this stage. One year in prison and a fine of 45,000 euros is absolutely disproportionate. The sanction for employees of contract suspension must have an end, because if an employee does not wish to submit to the controls, his employment contract will be suspended.
“Controls must be realistic: it is illusory to control employee passes every day.”Dominique Carlac’h, Medef spokesperson
Is this applicable today in France, a country with 25 million active employees?
We know very well that this will be complicated for a certain number of employees. For example a truck driver: by nature, he is itinerant, so how can he be controlled? It’s the same for a salesperson, also itinerant. We cannot engage the responsibility of the entrepreneur on this, because it is too complicated. If we ask the employee who is not vaccinated to stay at home, I am not sure that this encourages vaccination. All the employers ‘and unions’ organizations were relatively in agreement on this point this morning. If it’s to keep everyone at home while they wait for it to pass, that’s not a good solution either. Of course, it is better to take on this responsibility for controlling our employees rather than confinement, but we have the feeling that it is a disguised obligation on the part of the government. It is illusory to think that we will manage to put this in place by the end of the week with all the modalities involved. At best, the government will manage to set these terms in January.