Face with the massive influx of contractors in the civil service in recent years, many academics have taken interest in the subject. What lessons can be drawn from their research?
The issue of contractors in the civil service has been more prominently featured on the scientific agenda over the past ten years. When I started my work in 2013, I sought to analyze public employment by its margins, examining the effects that contracts could have on the professional trajectories of the agents involved, as well as on the statutory system as a whole. One striking observation was how gradually, what used to be called non-permanent employees, viewed in social dialogue as statutory anomalies, became normalized. The management of contracts became just another form of management in the civil service, which, at the same time, trivialized the use of contracts.
Your work has allowed you to determine the reasons?
It is no longer a temporary phenomenon. The use of contractors in the civil service has now become a norm. All studies on the professional trajectories of contractors conducted by my sociologist, economist, and myself show that one can remain on contract in the civil service for a long time, sometimes even making a career without ever becoming a permanent employee. An interesting trend given that the socio-professional profiles of civil servants and contractors are often similar. Other research has shown that each administration can devise different management methods for contractors. For example, some academies offer permanent contracts to teaching contractors in situations of high tension, while in others, this is unimaginable.
Are we witnessing a dualization of HR management?
Some colleagues have studied flexibility and flexible management in public institutions, where contractors are concentrated, while ministries remain strongholds of civil servants. Beyond the presence of two distinct management methods, contractors are asked the same things as permanent employees: to have a public service spirit, to undertake similar missions, and workplace socialization leads them to become just like any other employee. Rather than the ethos of civil servants, it is more about the ethos of public service. However, when it comes to employment and career, it is a different story. In the surveys I conducted, contractors were selected for their skills, their ability to take on a position that should match that of a permanent employee. But they could start working without even signing their contract. Also, negotiating salary, presented as one of the advantages of a contract rather than a status, is rarely possible because there are local management frameworks that determine salary levels and progress, limiting the scope for negotiation.
There is always a suspicion that contractors are less competent because they have not been through the strict selection process of permanent employees.
Can we go as far as to say that it is a “second-class” civil service?
Not entirely, as “similar grids” have been set up, with seniority progression, though much slower than for a permanent employee in the equivalent position. It should be noted that salary renegotiation is not automatic in most cases. Social protection is lower, there is no statutory bonus, and the precariousness bonus was only introduced in 2019. In terms of mobility, contractors are at a disadvantage as permanent employees are always given priority, as well as promotions. Above all, there is still a suspicion that contractors are less competent because they have not gone through the stringent selection process of permanent status.
Public employers often claim that contractors can stand out, especially in terms of remuneration. Do you agree?
As mentioned earlier, salary negotiation and renegotiation are not automatic. The INSEE conducted a longitudinal statistical analysis showing that even after becoming permanent employees, contractors never catch up in terms of salary with permanent employees. In terms of management, the difference in status changes everything. A manager can hardly pressure a permanent employee, whereas they can easily threaten the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract or non-conversion to a permanent position. In the testimonials I collected, HR services were often seen as poor managers during this delicate period at the end of a contract, as agents are rarely notified three months before the end of their contract, as required by law.
Contractors are often treated as if they are always temporary.
Are there still challenges in mastering HR management for contractors?
Paradoxes in the public service remain numerous. When new laws aim to promote interpublic function mobility or public-private mobility, the effects are still minimal. The statutory culture strongly influences HR management in the civil service, and most HR managers are not trained in managing contractors. Things are evolving, however: there are more and more dedicated training offers for managing contractors and dedicated positions in administration charts. Nonetheless, contractors are often treated as if they are always temporary.
Studies show that they are often not really temporary. Have your research allowed you to observe this phenomenon?
Absolutely, numerous research works like statistics from the DGFAP show that most contractors are not temporary. In a survey, I met agents who obtained a permanent contract after six years of various fixed-term contracts, only to realize that a permanent contract is far from being a competition to the official exam. It places the employee in conditions where the career is much less favorable than that of their permanent colleagues. This leads contractors to take internal exams to finally be treated on an equal footing with permanent employees.
Interview by Marie Malaterre.
