The perks of working for EDF or "how heating a swimming pool is cheaper than boiling an egg"

"The real public service scandals" was a recent 40-page pullout in the weekly magazine Marianne, in which some light was shed on a number of issues usually under-reported (or largely ignored) by the mainstream media in France.

Schools, hospitals, the police, La Poste, SNCF and others were treated to a pretty thorough analysis, as was one of the nation's "international stars", the utility giant Électricité de France.

It makes fascinating reading.

Electricity prices for households in France are among the lowest in the European Union, but that could well change over the coming few years with a cumulative hike of around 30 per cent forecast by 2017.

Great!

While the rest of France will have to live with the increase, employees - past and present - of EDF, essentially a "public" company, will retain some level of protection.

Yes EDF is still a "public" company.

Although it pretty much operates to all intents and purposes as what might be perceived a "private" company or "limited liability corporation", the state still retains almost 85 per cent ownership.

Anyway, that's rather an aside.

Or is it?

Because wielding so much potential political influence, surely successive governments (and not just the current one) should at least have tried to put an end to a practice which no longer seems to be warranted but also seems downright illogical and not to say unreasonable: the perks enjoyed by the company and its employees.

Since 1946 the company's 300,000 current and retired employees have benefitted from privileges that might have been equitable when introduced but surely now lack credibility.

There is for example the 90 per cent reduction in the amount they pay for each kilowatt-hour of electricity.

Put another way, as it was in a report from the Cour des comptes or Court of auditors in February 2013, EDF employees pay a price per kilowatt-hour that's 16 times less than the average cost to the public.

Confusing figures perhaps but they all add up.

And there's more.

EDF employees don't just pay lower prices for electricity for their main residences.

Oh no.

If they're lucky enough to own a holiday home, the same benefits apply. And even apparently when they rent a house for a couple of weeks while on vacation.

That annual €74 subcription charge? Waived.

In the end, says Marianne, "at such prices, heating a swimming pool (for EDF employees of course) works out less expensive than boiling an egg (would do for everyone else).

But for justification as to why such advantages have remained at current levels since 1951 for electricity and 1962 for gas (yes, for historical reasons employees at GDF-Suez are also treated as a special case) union bigwig at Confédération française démocratique du travail (French Democratic Confederation of Labour, CFDT) Dominique Bousquebaud,  has the following explanation.

Try not to choke as you read.

"The system compensates for the fact that the salaries in the public sector are lower than those in the private and it helps attract better qualified workers," he says.

"It's a way today to compensate for the lack of profit-sharing that can be found at a high level in all major private companies."

Except, once again as Marianne points out, the Cour des comptes says that in fact salaries at EDF are slightly higher than in the equivalent private sector.

There again what does the country's body for auditing public institutions know?

If you want to read more about the tax breaks, the money lost to social security and how successive government have done little or nothing to alter the privileged status of EDF and its employees, try getting your mitts on the May 11-17 copy of Marianne.

Happy reading.

Now does anyone know of an opening at EDF?

Daniel Schick interviews Fleur Pellerin - racist and misogynistic or simply provocative?

Fleur Pellerin isn't exactly a household name in France - well not yet.

But that could be about to change especially after she was named to the government in June, taking over the portfolio as junior minister for small and medium enterprises, innovation, and the digital economy.

Fleur Pellerin (screenshot Europe 1 interview)

By way of a bit of background, Pellerin is 38 years old, was born in South Korea and abandoned on the streets of the capital Seoul when she was just three or four days old.

At the age of six months she was adopted by a French couple.

She's bright, very bright even - Pellerin passed her baccalaureate aged just 16 - and has the profile typical of a high flier; a graduate from the prestigious École supérieure des sciences économiques et commerciales (ESSEC business school), Institut d'études politiques de Paris and, of course, the École nationale d'administration.

She has worked at the Cour des comptes (the French court of auditors) and during François Hollande's presidential campaign was his digital economy advisor.

Oh yes - and even though she has never been back since she left, Pellerin is something of a national heroine in South Korea.

Why the potted history?

Well, so that you have a clue as to how talented she is and are able to put into context what was arguably one of the most impertinent beginnings to an interview when she appeared on Europe 1 national radio on Monday.

Just look how journalist Daniel Schick - in an attempt to tease out of Pellerin the reasons behind her appointment - started the interview.

"Do you really know why you were chosen," he asked rhetorically before launching into a number of factors that might or might not have played their part in Hollande's decision.

"Is it because you're an attractive woman from a minority background that's not particularly well represented?" asked Schick

"Is it because you're an example of a successful adoption process or perhaps a strong signal being given to Asian markets," he continued.

"Or is it because you're good at what you do?"

Yes that really was the opening gambit to what, let's face it, could only get better.

Pellerin replied with aplomb that Schick hadn't exactly started the interview off well, in fact quite the opposite.

"You've begun badly," she laughed.

"I would like to think that the president and the prime minister appointed me for my abilities and commitment," she said, before continuing comfortably with the rest of Schick's interview, part of a series which allows listeners to get to know more about an invited guest - and not necessarily along the most conventional of lines.

(Take a listen - it's well worth it)

Schick's rather inelegant start wasn't to the liking of all though, and in particular Laurence Rossignol, a Socialist party senator, who said his questions had been insulting and bordering on racist.

"The misogynist who interviewed Fleur this morning was offensive," she Tweeted.

"Europe 1 should fire him."

And Rossignol wasn't alone in not appreciating the manner in which Schick had begun the interview.

Other reactions on the Internet included "rude", "stupid" and "shamefully macho".

The only person who didn't seem to take any real offence at what had been said was Pellerin herself - both during and afterwards.

She has made no comment.

Schick is known for being provocative - posing the sorts of questions that are bound to displease in a manner which won't always be appreciated - either by the guest or the listeners.

For example early on in an interview with Jean-François Copé, the leader of the centre-right Union pour un mouvement populaire (Union for a Popular Movement, UMP) a couple of weeks ago Schick "asked" him whether it was really possible to be a political leader without being either paranoid of manipulative - thereby implying that Copé was both.

But did he go just a little too far with Pellerin?

Or is it all right for a journalist - in this case Schick - to ask whatever he or she wants in any manner deemed acceptable or not just to see how capable the interviewee is of handling the situation?


Extrait de l'interview misogyne de Fleur... par LeNouvelObservateur