Blue Laws, French-style

BLUE LAWS? Most in the U.S.  have either been repealed, declared unconstitutional, or are not enforced, but they haven't all disappeared. They persist, in the U.S. and all over the Western world. Even in post-Revolution guillotinons-les France, where separation of church and state is, in theory, sacrosanct.

Blue laws were created to enforce religious (Christian) standards and ensure the observance of Sunday as a day of worship or rest, and to that end, restrict Sunday shopping.

I'm most familiar with the Massachusetts Blue Laws, which place restrictions on business openings on Sundays and holidays. In the past, retailers weren't allowed to open before noon on Sundays, but a 1994 change to the Massachusetts' laws permits retailers to open at any time on Sundays without specific approval by the Department of Labor, and without a special local police permit.

[Amusing aside: click on the link dumb laws in Massachusetts to go to a web site listing laws such as the following, not necessarily Blue Laws, but well deserving of a brief aside: 

At a wake, mourners may eat no more than three sandwiches. 
Snoring is prohibited unless all bedroom windows are closed and securely locked. 
An old ordinance declares goatees illegal unless you first pay a special license fee for the privilege of wearing one in public. 
Taxi drivers are prohibited from making love in the front seat of their taxi during their shifts. 
All men must carry a rifle to church on Sunday. 
It is illegal to go to bed without first having a full bath. 
A woman can not be on top in sexual activities. 
No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car. 
Tomatoes may not be used in the production of clam chowder. 
Quakers and witches are banned.

A few comments: 1) even though I love a good Manhattan chowder, if you don't get the tomato-chowder law, you're clearly not a Yankee; 2) the law banning witches probably has no real impact on the activities of those practicing the craft (my brother can verify); 3) the ban on going to bed without a full bath is eco-insensitive; and 4) the law permitting snoring in premises where the doors and windows are locked down tight should in fairness be extended internationally to protect those inside the premises as well. Snoring is not culture-specific...sigh.] End aside, back to France.

A semblance of Blue Laws exists in France, as well as in other European countries. If you've ever visited France, you know that most retailers are closed on Sundays, especially in the tiny towns and villages around the countryside. They close up shop at 7 p.m. on Saturday and don't re-open before Monday or Tuesday morning. Sunday shopping is supposedly a no-no. However (surprise, surprise) there are exceptions in certain zones and municipalities of larger cities like Paris, Marseilles, Lille, Nice, Bordeaux, and in numerous smaller cities that have been declared as tourist sites. And most major stores across France open on the Sunday just before Christmas. Are you noticing a trend here? "Money, money, money...it's a rich man's world"

French supermarkets are allowed to open on Sunday mornings but have to close by 1 p.m. En principe, hypermarkets are not allowed to open. In 2009 French laws were relaxed to allow all stores to open in tourist areas; pre-2009 only sports, toys and cultural shops could open. Now clothing stores open every Sunday in hot spots such as the Champs Elysées and La Défense in Paris, for example...  

So why can supermarkets open Sunday mornings but not hypermarkets? Because French laws governing Sunday shopping are convoluted. Articles L.3132-13 and R.313-8 of the code stipulate that only establishments whose exclusive or principal activity is the sale of retail foodstuffs have the right to open on Sunday mornings.

The French hypermarket Cora, similar in size and style to a Fred Meyer/Walmart store in the U.S., is testing that law in the south of France, and the CGT (Confédération générale du travail = French trade union) is taking legal action. If you read French, check the article in last week's Midi Libre: "Bataille de procédure autour de Cora Alès" 

CGT attorneys are requesting that Cora cough up facts and figures concerning employees and sales affected by the Sunday openings, which continue despite the legal action underway. Cora is countering by arguing that it doesn't need to provide any such information since the request is inadmissible and illegitimate. Their attorney is claiming that the requested data is highly sensitive information.

One figure Cora is willing to share: 53% of its sales are alimentary. Will this suffice to successfully challenge the current selective Blue Law allowing benefits to some establishments while barring others? Apparently the law does not clearly state exactly what percentage of sales must come from foodstuffs to qualify the establishment as one whose primary purpose is alimentary. I warned you: French laws are convoluted. Legalese is legalese; like witchcraft and snoring, it is not culture-specific (mes excuses to all my attorney friends, whom I hold in the highest respect). 

The court date is set for early September. Meanwhile, Cora Alès remains open Sunday mornings and the Alèsiens are shopping. They don't look particularly blue about it either.

Take a look at the employees, though: Sunday shoppers require Sunday employees. The rise of establishments open on Sundays is provoking a devaluation of life outside the workplace. That's the real bottom line. Social benefits fought for hard and long are being lost as France backs up to a world of privileged power, where too many of its citizens are forced to play a hardball game of work or sink.

Blackmail in D.C.

Le Monde diplomatique's Serge Halimi recently published an insightful analysis of President Barak Obama's back-peddling during recent debt negotiations between the White House and right wingers. My translation of the editorial appears below, along with the original French.

août 2011: Chantage à Washington

August 2011: Blackmail in Washington D.C.

by Serge Halimi

Where the reduction of the American national debt is concerned, the dispute placing President Barack Obama in opposition to the Congressional Republican majority conceals what’s really at play: giving in to adversarial blackmail.  Mr. Obama immediately conceded that more than three quarters of the budget for the next ten years – 3 billion dollars – would come from budget cuts to social programs. The American right wing could have settled for this win but it always wants more, even at the risk of losing popularity.

Relative à la réduction de la dette américaine, la querelle qui oppose le président Barack Obama et la majorité républicaine au Congrès dissimule l’essentiel : cédant au chantage de ses adversaires, M. Obama a concédé d’emblée que plus des trois quarts de l’effort budgétaire des dix prochaines années, soit 3 000 milliards de dollars, proviendraient de coupes dans les budgets sociaux. La droite américaine aurait pu se satisfaire de ce triomphe, mais elle veut toujours plus. Y compris quand son intransigeance risque d’entamer sa popularité.

In December 2010, in a first buckling to pressure, the President of the United States opted to maintain the very unequal tax cuts of predecessor George W. Bush, for a period of two years.  Four months later, sounding like Ronald Reagan, Mr. Obama delighted in “the biggest annual reduction of expenditures in US history.” He continued negotiations with the Republicans of the Congress, announcing that he was prepared to be reprimanded by his party in order to get results. Result: more White House back-peddling…

En décembre 2010, cédant une première fois à sa pression, le président des Etats-Unis avait prolongé de deux ans les baisses d’impôts très inégalitaires décidées par son prédécesseur George W. Bush. Quatre mois plus tard, parlant cette fois comme Ronald Reagan, M. Obama s’est réjoui de « la réduction annuelle des dépenses la plus importante de notre histoire ». Il a ensuite enchaîné les cycles de négociations avec les parlementaires républicains, annonçant : « Je suis prêt à me faire taper sur les doigts par mon parti pour arriver à un résultat. » Résultat : de nouveaux reculs de la Maison Blanche…

The right wing is opposed to any debt reduction that would call for tax hikes. This preliminary condition may seem odd in a country where the avalanche of fiscal privileges heaped on the wealthiest results in a level of global deductions at its lowest point in fifty years. In reality, beyond a determination to target expenses only, Republicans want “to starve the beast,” that is, in the words of one of their strategists, “to reduce government to the size where [we] can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

La droite s’oppose à toute réduction de l’endettement qui passerait par un relèvement des impôts. Ce préalable pourrait sembler farfelu dans un pays où l’avalanche des privilèges fiscaux déversés sur les plus riches fait que le niveau global des prélèvements n’a jamais été aussi bas depuis cinquante ans. Mais, au-delà d’un entêtement à ne cibler que les dépenses, les républicains veulent en réalité « affamer la bête » — c’est-à-dire, pour reprendre l’expression d’un de leurs stratèges, « réduire la taille de l’Etat de façon à ce qu’on puisse ensuite le noyer dans une baignoire ».

How can the recent soaring of the American public debt be explained? Firstly, by the economic crisis, largely provoked by decades of financial deregulation. Secondly, by the consistent renewal of temporary tax reductions voted in 2001 (2,000 billion dollars income loss). And finally, by the post-September 11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (1,300 billion dollars). The party of Reagan and Bush nonetheless claims to resolve the debt problem by protecting both the rich, whom they call “job creators,” and the Pentagon budget, that has increased (in real terms) by 67% in ten years.

Or comment s’explique l’envol récent de la dette publique américaine ? D’abord par la crise économique, que la déréglementation financière des dernières décennies a largement provoquée. Ensuite, par la reconduction régulière des baisses d’impôts provisoires votées en 2001 (2 000 milliards de dollars de manque à gagner). Enfin, par les guerres de l’après-11-Septembre en Afghanistan et en Irak (1 300 milliards de dollars). Le parti de Reagan et de M. Bush prétend néanmoins résoudre le problème de l’endettement en protégeant à la fois les plus riches, qu’il appelle les « créateurs d’emplois », et le budget du Pentagone, qui a augmenté (en termes réels) de 67 % en dix ans.

Last April 5, Paul Ryan, president of the House Budget Commission, in fact outlined Republican projects for the coming decades. His plan proposes that public expenses, presently equal to 24% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), will not move beyond 14.75% of the GDP in 2050, with the maximum tax rate moving from 35% to 25% (the lowest level since 1931). All the tax havens for the privileged would be preserved, but health benefits for the elderly and the poor would be frozen.

Le 5 avril dernier, M. Paul Ryan, président de la commission budgétaire de la Chambre des représentants, a d’ailleurs détaillé les projets des républicains pour les décennies à venir. Son plan prévoit que les dépenses publiques, actuellement égales à 24 % du produit intérieur brut (PIB), n’atteindront plus que 14,75 % du PIB en 2050, le taux d’imposition maximal passant de 35 % à 25 % (niveau le plus bas depuis 1931). Toutes les niches fiscales des privilégiés seraient préservées, mais les remboursements de santé destinés aux personnes âgées et aux pauvres seraient gelés.

If Mr. Obama continues to avoid this battle, the social missions of the American government may very well soon look like the cadaver in the bathtub.

Si M. Obama continue à esquiver ce combat-là, les missions sociales de l’Etat américain risquent bien de ressembler sous peu au cadavre dans la baignoire.