TelQuel: Can you explain what is now referred to as the « Sekkouri Method, » which helped break the eight-year deadlock on Organic Law No. 97-15?
Younes Sekkouri: It’s not my method but rather the approach adopted by the government as a whole, as the implementation of this draft law involves the mobilization of a significant part of its members.
The core idea behind this approach was to open dialogue with the unions, which was far from simple. This process lasted over 20 months and involved more than 65 meetings with unions, employers, and government consultations. We had to collaborate with various departments to build a shared vision and convince all stakeholders. Just with the Head of Government alone, we held around fifteen one-on-one meetings, in addition to broader meetings involving all government members.
The main objective was to thoroughly revise the draft law as it was submitted to Parliament in September 2016, which had remained unaddressed by previous mandates due to a lack of stakeholder acceptance. Our approach is based on sincerity and authenticity, with the goal of making this project genuinely owned by everyone. The stakeholders involved are experienced, and this issue is part of their core identity. Given the critical importance of the matter, it was essential to act with honesty, free from manipulation or political maneuvering, in the best interest of the country.
“Throughout the discussions, even the most skeptical eventually acknowledged the sincerity of the government’s efforts”
However, seeking consensus around the general interest remains a complex challenge, as everyone has their own interpretation of what that means and can lean toward favoring one stakeholder over another. This required extensive listening, the absence of ego, and no political maneuvering. At no point did I attempt to use provisions against any party. This approach eventually paid off, as throughout the discussions, even the most skeptical acknowledged the sincerity of the government’s efforts. These efforts were tangibly reflected in the proposed amendments.
We also respected the time needed for reflection and institutional processes. For example, when two opposition groups requested the referral of the Economic, Social, and Environmental Council (CESE) in July, before the end of the spring session, we immediately accepted their request, even though it was not mandatory.
We also committed to waiting for the opinions of the CESE and the National Human Rights Council before proceeding. Furthermore, in committee, when opposition parties requested an extension of the deadlines for submitting amendments, we granted their request.
Subsequently, it was necessary to continue listening. I took the initiative to engage directly with party leaders, parliamentary group officials, and deputies to demystify the subject and convince all stakeholders that it is not the government alone that imposes the rules. I also reached out to labor unions, asking them to provide specific recommendations for each opinion from the CESE, which they had unanimously adopted.
Our approach was also marked by honesty. For example, an article had been unanimously adopted stating that employers could not replace striking workers during a strike. However, a member of my team pointed out a case where a hotel owner had hired interns to replace striking workers. The government therefore proposed an amendment to explicitly prohibit the hiring of replacements, including interns, during a strike.
“The foundation of this approach is to break away from a bargaining mindset and adopt a genuine negotiation logic”
The foundation of this approach is to break away from a bargaining mindset and adopt a genuine negotiation logic. Bargaining involves exchanging interests, but the rights of citizens cannot be bargained with—it’s a matter of ethics. Negotiation, on the other hand, seeks to identify common interests. My role, as the person responsible for this reform, is to better understand the concerns of all parties to propose areas of common ground.
In summary, the method is based on abandoning political calculations, manipulation, and fruitless confrontations to build spaces for dialogue that, while imperfect, allow progress to be made in the public interest.
Did you take into consideration the opinions of the CESE and the CNDH, as well as the amendments proposed by political parties?
Yes, absolutely. We have taken into account the opinions of the CESE and the CNDH, as well as the amendments proposed by the various political groups. For example, the content of the first article of this organic bill directly aligns with the recommendations outlined in those opinions. The same applies to Article 4, which extends the right to strike to professionals, self-employed workers, independent contractors, and domestic workers, as well as categories previously excluded by the Labor Code, such as employees of mining companies and sailors. Furthermore, the revision of strike notification deadlines, a crucial point, was also part of the amendments introduced by the government in response to these contributions.
You have repeatedly expressed your ambition to ensure broad consultation around this bill. However, it was ultimately adopted with 41 votes against. Why do you think the current version continues to face opposition from several political groups?
It is indeed difficult to reach a consensus when stakeholders have experienced decades of tensions. Social dialogue has been absent for long periods, which has exacerbated social tensions, particularly in the public sector, where some issues have remained unresolved. In the private sector, economic challenges have also contributed to the emergence of social conflicts. In this context, entering negotiations with positions so far apart makes the idea of an immediate consensus unrealistic.
However, the key was to reach a compromise based on shared values and methods, to produce a text aligned with 21st-century society. I believe this goal has been achieved. If the participants had not believed in the relevance of this approach, they would likely have left the room, and the majority could have imposed the law on its own. But such an outcome would neither have honored our country nor respected the efforts made to achieve genuine consultation.
One of your stated goals from the beginning of the consultations was to ensure access to the right to strike for all workers. Do you believe you have achieved this objective with the text adopted today?
Yes, absolutely. The work we have done has made the right to strike accessible and recognized by all concerned citizens. I am convinced that, if we act collectively, this right will be exercised in a civilized manner and will become a normal, integrated part of daily life. Once this law comes into effect, it will indeed apply to all workers, thereby solidifying this achievement.
Won’t it be necessary to strengthen the ministry’s human resources with more labor inspectors to ensure mediation in case of disputes between employers and employees?
Yes, labor inspection is a central pillar, but its role must evolve to meet current needs. Labor inspectors in our country do remarkable work, even though their conditions are not always ideal. When compared to a country like Spain, which has fewer inspectors than we do, it’s important to recognize that contexts differ: the size of the informal sector, the distribution between rural and urban areas, and the use of technology all play a key role in the effectiveness of inspections.
However, this is not just a matter of numbers but of mission. Here, inspectors do not focus solely on labor inspection but also handle mediation tasks for which they are not compensated. I have asked the head of government to seriously consider enhancing their role, as they carry out these responsibilities with great professionalism. If we strengthen mediation, we can minimize conflicts.
To achieve this, inspectors must be properly equipped and provided with the necessary tools, a matter that has remained unresolved for 15 years. We have initiated internal work to address these challenges. I have asked the inspectors for patience, explaining that we have a unique opportunity to enhance their role, especially in light of the current transformations.
One of the major changes in this new version is the extension of the right to call a strike to all unions. Don’t you think this provision could create tensions with the most representative unions during its review in the Chamber of Advisors?
Not at all. In fact, it was the representatives of the most representative unions themselves who requested this expansion, and for a very simple reason: it is essential to ensure a fair and open playing field for all. We cannot establish a framework that favors one union over another. All the work I have undertaken in this ministry is based on a stance of balance and impartiality toward the unions.
I have met not only with the most representative unions but also with those present in the Chamber of Advisors, as they offer invaluable insight into the specificities, statuses, history, and collective memory of each sector. It is therefore crucial to provide them with the necessary support and better organize this field through the adoption of a law on unions. This structure will help build trust and strengthen union dynamics in a transparent and equitable framework.
Indeed, the opposition has called for the development of a framework law on unions and mutual societies, considering it a necessary prerequisite for the successful reform of the right to strike. Where do we currently stand regarding these two texts?
In 2022, we initiated our first social dialogue, which lasted for two months. During this dialogue, we adopted a new approach aimed at institutionalizing discussions, with the goal of bringing all parties together around a shared dynamic, regardless of economic contexts. We established a precise schedule with clear, signed, and dated commitments, which marks a first in Morocco.
“It was crucial for me that the adoption of this law not be perceived as a response to the ongoing strikes, but rather as a thoughtful and structured reform”
Certainly, the deadlines set were ambitious, but we chose to encourage stakeholders to commit to closer timelines rather than postpone these issues indefinitely. Our message was clear: you are not required to trust the government from the outset, but we are proposing a methodology that places all major issues on the table from the beginning of the mandate. We have achieved a great deal, though much remains to be done, as we started from a very insufficient baseline.
In the hierarchy of priorities we established, the law on strikes came first, followed by the Labor Code, the Electoral Code, and finally the law on unions. The goal was to give stakeholders time to prepare for union reform, particularly by renewing leadership, to avoid too abrupt a change.
The strike law required significant time and effort, particularly because we had to manage a context marked by several strike movements. It was crucial for me that the adoption of this law not be perceived as a reaction to the ongoing strikes but rather as a thoughtful and structured reform. This demanding process has laid the groundwork for upcoming reforms, including those concerning unions and mutual societies.
Concretely, who can now call for a strike in the public and private sectors under the provisions of this bill?
Today, under the provisions of this bill, several actors can call for a strike depending on the context. For a national strike, whether in the public sector, private sector, or both, only unions with national representation are authorized to do so. In the case of a sector-specific strike, such as in education, healthcare, or a public institution, the unions represented within that specific sector can initiate the strike without restriction.
For a strike within a company, the right belongs to the most representative unions in the company, typically two unions, based on the representativeness threshold set at 35%. In the absence of union representation, a general assembly mechanism has been established. In the previous version of the bill, this mechanism was restrictive, requiring 75% employee participation, a 15-day advance notice to the employer, and the submission of identity documents with signatures. These conditions have been significantly relaxed: the rule now relies on a participation threshold of approximately 35%, accompanied by a simple report.
This reform aims to make the right to strike more accessible and aligned with international standards while encouraging prior negotiations so that striking becomes a last resort rather than an immediate response to conflicts. The goal is to simplify the process while promoting constructive dialogue beforehand.
So, once this law comes into effect, will it mark the end of grassroots movements?
According to this bill, only unions and the general assembly mechanism are authorized to organize a strike. This is based on a fundamental principle: striking involves responsibility. If some individuals who might have previously turned to grassroots movements do not identify with a union, they still have the right to make different choices, which must be respected. One of the guiding principles was to avoid enacting a law that would force individuals to join existing or dominant unions, as this would infringe on their freedom.
However, organizing a strike requires a recognized structure. This involves deliberate work, where demands are clearly identified and communicated. This approach ensures transparency and accountability in exercising the right to strike.
Globally, strikes are traditionally overseen by unions. While coordinations are not legally recognized, they do exist in society and should not be ignored. The framework proposed in this bill sets clear guidelines to ensure that those wishing to strike can do so legally, either through a union or within the framework of a general assembly.
The mechanisms introduced aim to expand the right to call a strike. In the public sector, this right is extended to all unions, providing a range of choices. In the private sector, the general assembly mechanism plays a key role for those who do not identify with any union. This general assembly, essentially a form of institutionalized coordination, is grounded in principles of responsibility, with clearly identified names and leaders.
The goal is not to deprive citizens of their choices but to ensure those choices are exercised within a structured and responsible framework. Additionally, it is crucial to allow the emergence of new forms of union representation for those who feel unrepresented by the current options. This is a significant responsibility for the state.
What measures has the government taken to guarantee the rights of both striking and non-striking workers while maintaining balance in professional relations?
The government has implemented several measures to guarantee the rights of both striking and non-striking workers while ensuring balance in professional relations. For striking workers, provisions have been introduced to protect their right to strike. Penalties and sanctions are now in place against employers who dismiss or take punitive actions against strikers. This addresses a common issue where striking workers are penalized, either through direct dismissal or abusive transfers, especially when employment contracts include clauses allowing reassignment anywhere in the country. Such clauses have sometimes been used as a pretext for indirect punishment, thereby limiting the right to strike. The new law aims to put an end to these practices by establishing a clear legal framework.
For non-striking workers, the law guarantees the freedom to work. Sanctions are also provided for anyone who prevents non-strikers from accessing their workplace. This measure aims to protect those who choose not to participate in a strike while ensuring the normal functioning of businesses and public administrations.
Overall, the goal is to create a balance that safeguards the rights of all parties while promoting the use of negotiation. By setting deadlines and emphasizing the benefits of constructive dialogue, the law encourages employers to collaborate with unions and striking workers to resolve disputes quickly, rather than allowing conflicts to escalate. Likewise, striking workers are encouraged to voice their demands through a union, where they receive stronger legal protection.
The text provides that striking workers can take legal action if their employer fails to comply with the law. Do you believe workers have sufficient guarantees to undertake this process without risking the compromise of their rights?
I believe so, the guarantees are sufficient. By specifying sanctions and prohibiting practices such as the dismissal or transfer of striking workers, we have introduced protections that did not exist before. This represents significant progress, although the process was not easy. These guarantees were included after extensive discussions and adjustments, and I consider them a solid foundation for protecting workers’ rights.
That said, only practical implementation will allow us to assess the true effectiveness of these provisions. It is impossible to fully predict how they will be enforced in practice. There will always be respectful employers and others less scrupulous, but if the number of violations decreases, it will be a genuine success. The key is that we have taken a step forward by establishing a clear and protective legal framework, providing workers with the tools they need to defend their rights without fear of retaliation.
Some voices in the opposition argue that this new version of the bill grants more rights to employers than to workers. How did you ensure a fair balance between both parties?
These criticisms are not entirely unfounded, and I have acknowledged this point by emphasizing that the balance is still subject to improvement. This is why I have clarified that the current version remains provisional. When the bill is reviewed in the Chamber of Advisors, we will reassess the entire chapter on sanctions to make the necessary adjustments.
That said, it is also important to note that certain particularly severe sanctions have been removed, such as those involving imprisonment or referrals to criminal penalties. These modifications reflect a clear intention to ensure a more balanced framework suited to the realities of professional relations. This process remains ongoing, and we will ensure that future adjustments reflect a fair balance between the rights of employers and those of workers.
You have introduced new rules to ensure the proper functioning of essential services during strikes. Could you provide more details on these provisions and how they will be implemented in practice?
We have established and approved, within the Social Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, a list of essential services where a minimum service must be maintained during a strike. During plenary discussions, we also included the services of Bank Al-Maghrib in this list. It is important to clarify that these provisions do not constitute a ban on striking in these sectors but instead establish a framework to ensure a minimum level of service in specific cases where public health, citizen safety, or the proper functioning of society could be compromised. This principle is already applied in certain sectors, such as healthcare.
A decree will be issued later to define the implementation details of these provisions. This process will involve consultations with unions and professional organizations, considering current practices and relying on benchmarks to create an initial framework that can be adjusted over time.
However, the identification of individuals responsible for ensuring minimum service will not be determined by the decree. According to the bill, this will be decided through an agreement between the employer and the party calling the strike. If no agreement is reached, the parties may appeal to a judge, who will make an urgent ruling.
Regarding the deduction of wages for striking workers, it has been proposed that a compensation mechanism through unions be established. Is this measure genuinely feasible for the government?
This proposal was put forward by deputies and is inspired by international benchmarks, particularly the German model, which has proven successful in this area. However, the German context is quite different from ours, with a high union membership rate, a well-structured union system, and a more advanced level of social and economic maturity, especially in the private sector.
“A union that organizes a strike should ideally be able to provide financial support to striking workers”
I have advocated the idea that we are open to this discussion, but within the framework of the future law on unions. Implementing a compensation mechanism for striking workers is a commendable idea, as it strengthens trust in unions and gives greater meaning to their representativeness. Indeed, a union that organizes a strike should ideally be able to provide financial support to the striking workers.
For now, this possibility deserves to be explored seriously. We will have the opportunity to debate it with the various stakeholders during the discussions on the union law. This will allow us to examine all implications and maximize the chances of success for such a mechanism within our national context.
After the adoption of the bill in the House of Representatives, do you anticipate potential resistance in the Chamber of Advisors, particularly from the unions that are strongly represented in this body?
I do not approach this issue with particular apprehension. My main goal is to maintain a critical distance in order to better understand the attitudes and positions of the various stakeholders, particularly the unions, who can sometimes express themselves in a very forceful manner. These reactions are understandable, as this bill touches on fundamental aspects of their culture, history, and identity. Understanding this allows us to de-dramatize the debate and approach it more objectively.
If I have a message for our social partners, whom I have come to know through social dialogue, it is to recognize that the current version of the bill is very different from the 2016 version, which posed real problems. They are invited to present their comments, share their vision to improve the text, and offer concrete examples drawn from reality. The challenge lies in our collective ability to engage in dialogue with a genuine willingness to listen and collaborate. The goal is not to achieve unanimous approval but to work in good faith to push this text to its limits, in order to extract the best possible outcome and propose a functional reform.
Finally, it is essential to reach an agreement on a moral contract based on three fundamental principles: protecting the rights of strikers, who are often the most vulnerable; ensuring the freedom to work and defending companies that respect the law; and, lastly, preserving the interests of society and citizens, particularly in their access to public services and their interaction with the functioning of the country. As long as this tripartite focus remains at the heart of the discussions, the rest can be debated and adjusted.
In fact, this constructive mindset allowed us to pass the first test in the Chamber of Advisors last Monday (January 6, 2025); after five hours of debate, we were able to build a consensus on the way forward for this bill in the second chamber. This enabled the commission’s work to be scheduled unanimously, and we are well on our way to having a responsible debate this January, which will place social dialogue at the center of its approach.
What are your wishes for 2025?
For 2025, the government’s goal is to consolidate the achievements made so far, whether in social areas, investment, or other sectors. It is a pivotal year where we must ensure that no one is left behind. It will be particularly decisive for NEETs (young people not in employment, education, or training), for whom we must offer concrete solutions in terms of employment and training. These initiatives, on which we are actively working, will be unveiled at the very beginning of the year.
“2025 must be a year where those who have not yet had their chance can finally envision clear and realistic prospects”
2025 must be a year where those who have not yet had their chance can finally envision clear and realistic prospects. This will require an innovative approach focused on employment, vocational training, and the promotion of social peace. To achieve this, it is crucial to strengthen an atmosphere of trust and encourage the development of the private sector, so that it can fully play its role in reaching two-thirds of total investment.
My wish for 2025 is to bring real hope, but based on solid and sustainable foundations. This year must be one of concrete opportunities, so that everyone can envision a better future, within a peaceful social and economic framework.
Written in French by Younes Saoury, edited in English by Eric Nielson
