Can one claim that an agreement applies... while simultaneously issuing instructions not to implement it? That is the crux of the matter.
For several days now, Management has been reaffirming that the remote work agreement remains fully applicable.
At the same time, numerous reports from the field indicate instructions aimed at systematically limiting remote work to one day a week, regardless of individual circumstances.
If these practices are confirmed, a dangerous contradiction arises. On one hand, it is claimed that the agreement remains in full effect; on the other, conditions are being created that make its implementation impossible.
This is a dangerous game!
A collective agreement is not a public relations exercise; one cannot affirm it in words while undermining it in practice.
It represents a mutual commitment between Management, trade unions, and employees.
At FO, we will never confuse operational objectives with the undermining of a signed agreement. If work organization requires changes, these must be discussed, negotiated, and openly addressed—without attempting to circumvent the rules.
Beyond the issue of remote work, a far more fundamental question arises: what is the value of a promise made?
What trust can employees place in the agreements signed today if, tomorrow, their implementation depends on contradictory instructions?
Social dialogue is not based solely on the signing of agreements; it relies primarily on their faithful implementation!
It is this good faith that fosters trust. And it is this trust that, for years, has enabled employees to commit themselves far beyond their mere contractual obligations.
Commitment cannot be mandated; it must be built.
When employees trust the company, they innovate, take initiative, share their skills, and spontaneously give their best.
FO will succumb neither to cheap populism nor to stagnation! We will continue to demand the faithful implementation of agreements, in the interests of both the employees and the company.
For a global company like Airbus cannot continue to claim it upholds an exemplary social model if it circumvents the agreements it signs with employee representatives.
Playing a game of cat and mouse puts the Airbus social model itself at risk by undermining its credibility.
And when a social model loses its credibility, trust vanishes, and resignation sets in.
At FO, we know full well that resignation always paves the way for disengagement—or even radicalization.
That is why FO will shoulder its responsibilities and refuse to accept the establishment of a model that has destroyed so many industries and companies!