Labour Rights

Protests are sweeping France as anger over conditions in schools meets frustration with high living costs and a government accused of doing little to address problems facing people.

About 550,000 people demonstrated nationwide on Saturday, according to the Interior Ministry. Most marched peacefully, while a small minority attacked buildings, looted shops and clashed with police, who fired tear gas and charged protesters.

Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu said 1,200 people were arrested and 150 police officers were injured. Behind the confrontations lies a political crisis, fuelled by anger at deteriorating services and overstretched household budgets, and compounded by a sense that France’s political institutions offer little hope of change.

Here is how school blockades became a nationwide movement – and what that means for President Emmanuel Macron.

How have the protests spread, what are protesters demanding?

The movement began last month in high schools in Paris’ working-class northern suburbs, where students protested against teacher shortages and poor facilities. School blockades and demonstrations later spread to cities including Bordeaux, Rennes, Nantes, Lyon, Lille and Marseille.

Saturday brought together students and trade unions, alongside supporters of the “yellow vest” movement that emerged in 2018 to challenge rising living costs and economic inequality.

Emile Chabal, a professor of contemporary history at the University of Edinburgh, told Al Jazeera the demonstrations were “the logical outcome of a series of protests” stretching back to the yellow vests.

That movement was driven by financial pressures and resentment at “the French presidential system”, he told Al Jazeera, alluding to a structure which often leads to the election of a centrist candidate, such as President Emmanuel Macron.

Saturday combined those longstanding grievances with students’ anger at deteriorating state schools. The yellow vests had demanded better public services.

Bringing students’ grievances together with wider social demands, therefore, represented “the worst possible outcome for the French government”, Chabal said.

Students’ immediate demands concern conditions in France’s lycees (public high schools), which generally educate pupils aged 15 to 18. They want smaller classes, enough teachers, better buildings and less exhausting timetables. Their complaints also reflect broader concerns about whether the state can provide the education and opportunities young people need.

But for workers, including school staff, the dispute also concerns wages and the resources available to deliver public services.

The school protests coincided with a nationwide public sector strike against the government’s budget plans. Bringing all these concerns together under one umbrella represented “the worst possible outcome for the French government”, Chabal said.

It comes as the proposed 2027 budget includes a 54 billion euro ($60.8bn) package of cost-cutting and tax measures, which the government says is necessary to reduce France’s deficit. The proposals include freezing the pay scale used to calculate civil servants’ basic salaries, which unions say would be the fourth consecutive annual freeze.

Donatella della Porta, a sociologist and political scientist, said students were inspiring wider mobilisation around inequality, cuts to public investment and democratic rights, with demands for social welfare spending rather than militarisation.

“They do not want to fight wars; they want a different future,” she told Al Jazeera.

She also linked the movement to young people’s mobilisation over Gaza, with Palestinian flags appearing at demonstrations across several European countries.

How has the government responded?

The government has focused its immediate response on public order, with President Macron saying those responsible for violence would be “prosecuted and punished”.

His comments came as a fire largely destroyed the historic town hall in the city of Limoges, while public buildings and shops were attacked elsewhere.

But those involved in violence represent only a small minority of the much larger mobilisation. Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of the left-wing France Unbowed party, has accused the government of repressing school students and allowing the confrontation to intensify.

His argument reflects a wider political dispute about whether the government treats the protests chiefly as a security problem or addresses the grievances that have brought different groups together.

Experts say France’s problems extend beyond disagreement over individual budget measures and reflect deeper discontent. Emile Chabal, from the University of Edinburgh, said political paralysis since the 2024 parliamentary elections, which left no bloc with an outright majority, had created “an environment in which no political party or movement is able to channel social discontent”.

That fragmentation makes it difficult to build a durable agreement on spending, taxation or public services. It also leaves protesters questioning whether changing governments produces meaningful changes in policy.

The protests are also “a tough blow for Macron”, Chabal said, whose promises of youthful energy and a reformed, dynamic France have been undermined by “his inability to articulate his political project and his deeply unempathetic persona”.

Chabal added that the unrest included violence sometimes seen on the fringes of French demonstrations, with direct-action tactics associated with the yellow vests. Targets included shops and, more unusually, public buildings. He described the destruction of Limoges’ town hall as particularly significant because of its place in France’s civic history.

Other researchers emphasise the role of policing. Guya Accornero, a specialist in social movements at Lisbon’s University Institute, said previous confrontations had created lasting tensions between protesters and police.

During the current protests, a 15-year-old lost a hand to a police stun grenade, while a 14-year-old suffered a shattered jaw after being struck by a tear gas canister fired at close range, according to Human Rights Watch. The organisation condemned excessive force against children, saying the demonstrations had been overwhelmingly peaceful.

“Young people have been violently repressed also when using non-disruptive tactics,” she told Al Jazeera.

Who could benefit politically?

There is no clear answer from the experts who spoke to Al Jazeera. Paul Smith, an associate professor in French history and politics at the University of Nottingham, believes far-right leader Marine Le Pen stands to gain.

“I see only one beneficiary and that’s Le Pen,” he told Al Jazeera, suggesting the unrest could also damage Melenchon’s presidential prospects.

Chabal cautioned against assuming a far-right gain, but he said fear of disorder had historically benefited conservative or centrist parties in France, including after the 1968 protests.

Le Pen has not entirely dismissed the protesters’ grievances, describing them on X on Saturday as “legitimate social demands”, while claiming they had been “held hostage by the far left”.

The far-right may seek to reap the rewards of public discontent, but experts say it is more likely to channel that anger towards immigration and the scapegoating of migrants, rather than blaming the structures of neoliberalism and capitalism for the protesters’ woes, as Melenchon has suggested.

With a presidential election due in April 2027, candidates face competing pressures, demonstrating that they can restore order while convincing voters they will address the conditions behind the mobilisation.

The challenge, Chabal said, is how to create change in “an environment in which no political party or movement is able to channel social discontent”.

Visa probe also targets universities for allegedly exploiting international students to reduce US wage costs.

The United States government is suspending several major tech companies, including Adobe and Microsoft, from a programme that gives skilled foreign workers a path to permanent residency amid allegations of fraud.

This comes amid pressure by the White House on companies to hire more Americans. “Our message to Microsoft is: You’re a great American company, but you’ve got to hire great American workers,” US Vice President JD Vance said at a news conference on Thursday.

Vance added that the Redmond, Washington-based tech giant laid off 6,000 American workers, while obtaining 6,300 H-1B visas and almost 3,000 green cards.

“You cannot lay off American workers and replace them with foreign indentured servants,” Vance said.

“When someone comes in, they are completely subordinate to that company. If they lose that job, they have to leave the country.”

Across the tech sector, there have been more than 131,000 layoffs in 2026 alone, according to Layoffs.fyi, which tracks job cuts across the tech and startup industries.

Neither Adobe nor Microsoft responded to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling also said that several major information technology firms will be suspended from the programme as well. Among them are Indian tech giants Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services.

The Department of Labor also said it had uncovered $22bn worth of visa fraud.

“Today we are protecting something far more valuable than any dollar amount. We are protecting the American worker,” Sonderling said.

During the news conference, officials also announced a crackdown on alleged J-1 visa fraud involving nine universities, including MIT, Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Cal State, amid allegations that they brought in international students to undercut US wages. A J-1 visa allows foreign nationals to enter the US temporarily for education or cultural programmes. Universities use these visas to bring in international PhD candidates or scholars.

Vance claimed that when schools employ an American as a researcher, that person earns $20,000 more than someone brought in under a J-1 visa.

Al Jazeera asked for data supporting this claim, but the White House did not respond.

Microsoft’s stock slumped 7.5 percent on the heels of the news, while Adobe was up 4 percent in midday trading on Thursday.

Toronto, Canada: As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney races to make the country less dependent on the United States, attract billions in new investment and get major projects built faster, his economic overhaul is running into resistance from a group that says it wants many of the same things: organised labour.

The latest clash, over the right to strike, comes after months of mounting pressure on Ottawa from Washington, DC.

US President Donald Trump, since taking up a second term in office last year, has imposed steep tariffs on Canadian goods and weakened trade agreements – perilous moves as Canada has historically sent close to 80 percent of its exports to its southern neighbour. He has repeatedly piled on with the tariff threats to make Canada the 51st US state.

Canada has responded with retaliatory tariffs, while a broader movement to “Buy Canadian” has taken hold. The hockey-inspired “elbows up” — meaning a readiness to defend against an opponent — has become a national rallying cry.

With trade talks stalled since August, Carney has moved with urgency to shore up the economy and invite new investments. Last month, he announced Bill C-39, known as the Building Canada Strong Act, promising to bring “speed, certainty and predictability” to investors.

Along with measures to speed up approvals for major projects, the bill would also give Ottawa clearer powers to intervene in legal strikes and lockouts in federally regulated workplaces — a provision that has put Carney on a collision course with unions.

Canada’s largest unions have come together against the changes. The largest, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), had its national executive go as far as voting to defy the bill’s proposed limits on the right to strike if it passes Parliament without amendments.

CUPE National President Mark Hancock credited Carney’s handling of Trump and said the union’s 800,000 members, who work everywhere from hospitals to schools to municipal services, want to be part of “Team Canada”.

“But at what cost?” he said in an interview with Al Jazeera.

A fight over the right to strike

The controversy centres on Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, which already gives the Labour Minister broad powers to step into disputes if needed to maintain “industrial peace”, end work stoppages and force the two sides into a binding arbitration.

Beginning in 2024, Ottawa used the provision eight times to intervene in disputes involving airlines, Canada’s two largest railways, three major ports and Canada Post and again during the Air Canada dispute in 2025 when flight attendants went on strike.

Unions have challenged the use of that law in court and had hoped the proposed C-39 would restrict, if not repeal, that clause while businesses wanted it strengthened.

The bill does neither. Instead, it introduces two conditions that the government would have to fulfil first before turning to Section 107.

Before stepping in, the government would have to appoint a special mediator, wait for a public report and consider whether a work stoppage is hurting the “national interest”.

Once a strike or lockout is underway, the minister could direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board to get operations running again and impose a binding process, such as arbitration.

The government says those steps put clearer guardrails around a power that already exists, and Carney has said the bill “absolutely reinforces the right to strike”, according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Unions have rejected this defence, pointing out that the meaning of “national interest” would ultimately be decided by the minister. They also argue that the prospect of government intervention is bound to change what happens at the bargaining table.

“The political lesson that employers will draw from it is simple,” Larry Savage, a professor of labour studies at Brock University, told Al Jazeera. “Hold out long enough, emphasise the economic damage, and then Ottawa will remove the union’s leverage for you.”

Disruption, Savage said, is precisely what gives a strike its power. “Every effective strike is disruptive,” he said.

Unions say they have already seen employers expect Ottawa to intervene.

Teamsters Canada alleges the Canadian National Railway (CN) and the Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) railroad companies were counting on Ottawa to step in when they locked out thousands of workers in 2024. Section 107 was invoked within hours.

“Companies have gotten used to the idea that if there is a labour dispute, they can just wait for the government to intervene,” Christopher Monette, Teamsters Canada’s director of public affairs, told Al Jazeera.

CUPE said it saw a similar dynamic at Air Canada in August 2025. Hancock said bargaining stalled after more than 10,000 Air Canada flight attendants voted overwhelmingly to strike because the airline was “expecting the government of Canada to step in and end the strike” — an account Air Canada disputed.

Less than 12 hours after workers walked out, Ottawa invoked Section 107. Air Canada CEO Michael Rousseau later told BNN Bloomberg the airline had expected the provision to be enforced and did not expect a strike.

“That was why they didn’t have a strategy on how to deal with the strike,” Hancock said.

Building Canada faster

The fight over the right to strike is also part of a much bigger argument taking shape around Carney’s economic agenda: Who gets a say in how Canada should change, and how quickly, in the name of making itself less vulnerable to the US?

Critics accuse Carney of using the economic threat from the US to push through changes that go well beyond responding to Trump’s trade war.

New Democratic Party leader Avi Lewis has accused him of using the “fear and disorientation around the trade war to push through a series of unpopular measures that he did not run on, has no mandate for and would never get away with under normal circumstances”.

That tension was on display in Toronto just a week before C-39 was introduced. Inside Canada’s first national investment summit, hundreds of global investors met with government officials and executives as Carney pitched a country ready to build.

Outside, hundreds of protesters marched through downtown towards the summit’s opening gala under the banner “The Many vs The Money”. The rally brought together labour, Indigenous, environmental and migrant-rights groups, with signs and speeches taking aim at everything from fossil fuel and military projects to AI and the use of public money to attract private investment.

For unions, C-39 has sharpened that debate, pitting the government’s promise of greater certainty for investors against workers’ ability to exert pressure through strikes.

But Jim Stanford, an economist and director of the Vancouver-based Centre for Future Work, questions how much of an economic threat strikes actually pose.

While work stoppages can be costly for individual companies, Stanford said, “It is very, very rare that you would see a noticeable and sustained impact on GDP, employment or incomes.”

Production and transportation are often delayed rather than permanently lost, he added, with businesses catching up once work resumes.

Stanford also questioned the idea that strikes are driving away investment, noting that more than 95 percent of collective bargaining ends without a work stoppage and saying there is “no empirical evidence whatsoever” that strikes have reduced investment.

“This is more of the government giving some icing on the cake for business. It’s not that this has to happen or else our investment won’t work,” he said.

There is also an economic cost to weakening the right to strike, Stanford argued. Workers need bargaining power to win higher wages, which can support consumer spending, productivity and worker retention.

“It may seem like labour peace is a good thing, but if it means that a worker’s share of the pie shrinks, then this actually hurts the economy.”

For labour leaders, that’s where Carney’s economic push goes too far.

“Canada’s unions are part of Team Canada. We have our elbows up,” Canadian Labour Congress President Bea Bruske said in a statement. “But we can’t have our elbows up against Trump with our hands tied at the bargaining table.”

Savage said the government’s “Team Canada” rhetoric risks treating workers’ bargaining power as a national liability.

“I don’t think Canada becomes stronger by telling workers in ports or railways or airlines that their rights have to be surrendered whenever employers invoke competitiveness or the national interest,” he said.