The French SNCF state railways system is admirable - with fast clean and efficiently run trains. But this Tuesday, all this changed as rail workers began three months of two-day strikes.

The rail strike is the first major challenge to the labor reforms that President Emanuel Macron promised last year in his successful bid for the Élysée Palace. Macron is only the latest leader to try to tackle France’s highly restrictive labor laws and generous working conditions. It is hard for employers to fire workers and in 2000 the maximum hours that could be worked were cut from 39 to 35. The first has had the effect of limiting hiring because, even in good times, companies were reluctant to take on workers that they could not lay off if market conditions turned sour. The result was a steady rise in unemployment, which peaked at 10.5 percent in the summer of 2015. It has since declined but still stands at over eight percent.

Yet remarkably, official figures show that French productivity is among the highest in developed economies. The British, with their entirely liberalized employment market and lower labor cost, are less productive, despite working considerably longer hours than those of French employees. Though some economists doubt the veracity of the numbers, it is clear that many French workers are glad to do overtime to boost their earnings.

What is interesting about the SNCF strike is that strikers have not focused on working hours and pay but on what they claim are Macron’s plans to privatize SNCF. The price of excellent rail travel in France is low for passengers but high for the French taxpayer. The state company has debts in excess of $56 billion and no chance of reducing that amount from its revenues.

Macron’s administration has denied that it has any scheme to dispose of the train system. The unions may have focused on the alleged privatization because public opinion, not simply as expressed by the vote for Macron’s policies but also by recent opinion polls, suggests that there is widespread support for radical labor market reforms. Less clear is backing for health and welfare changes that would raise the retirement age from 62 and allow someone to stay in work beyond the present compulsory retirement at 67 to 70. France’s persistent government deficits have a great deal to do with the generous state featherbedding.

It is an interesting fact that union membership in France is not high but key sectors of the economy such as transport and power-generation are strongly unionized. Thus, the unions can currently exert considerable clout when they want to. To this should be added the traditional militancy of French farmers. They have a tradition of taking to the streets and blockading motorways, while the police look on and hold back from removing obstructions. Therefore, the wider challenge to French authorities has always been considerable.

Past governments have retreated in the face of such action. Nicolas Sarkozy was the last president to be elected on a platform of radical labor market and social welfare reforms. But even before the inevitable confrontations could get properly underway, France fell victim to the global economic crisis, which brought its banking system to the edge of collapse.

Now in better times, Macron is trying again. He clearly has a battle royal on his hands.