[Source] Drawing on an unprecedented survey of nearly 4,000 private-sector employees in France, two professors and a student from HEC reveal that the experience of working life, far more than traditional variables (socio-professional category, income, qualifications), is a key factor in explaining radical voting behaviour.
Indeed, the workplace is a laboratory of trust. Relationships with colleagues foster a sense of trust or mistrust that extends to a broader view of others… and is reflected at the ballot box:
- supporters of the Rassemblement National (RN – far-right) are employees who feel isolated within their teams, suffering from a weak sense of belonging;
- they share more ‘closed’ attitudes culturally (against immigration) and economically (against redistribution).
- Conversely, supporters of La France Insoumise (LFI – radical left) feel a sense of solidarity with the collective, albeit angry at the system, whilst unaffiliated employees are apathetic, disengaged from the public sphere, and inclined to abstain.
This insight suggests that the quality of relationships and social cohesion within the workplace must be nurtured, as the issue goes far beyond mere well-being or performance: it is a democratic issue.
Understanding the radical vote
On the eve of the March 2026 municipal elections in France, HEC professors examined the rise of the Rassemblement National (RN). This party is not only gaining a foothold in areas hitherto considered impregnable strongholds, but is establishing itself as the leading political force among private-sector employees (25.5%), behind employees with no party affiliation (33%) and far ahead of other parties, including among managers. This undermines the stereotype of a party confined to the ‘losers’ of globalisation. But how does the RN attract employees from such diverse backgrounds?
The authors’ response: ‘Tell me how you experience your work, and I’ll tell you who you vote for. ’ For the anti-establishment vote, whether it benefits the radical left or the radical right, is determined not so much by one’s pay slip (or socio-professional category – CSP – or level of education) as by two far more subjective factors: interpersonal trust and life satisfaction. Yet these two variables are forged where we spend eight hours a day – in the workplace, in an atmosphere of cut-throat competition or a close-knit family.
Thus, it is by comparing work experiences not between socio-professional categories but within the same category that the authors explain why two colleagues, with equivalent jobs and incomes, may cast different votes.
Workplace experiences and political divides
1/ The difference between workplace electorates: social bonds. Centre/right-wing voters (particularly those of Renaissance – the liberal centre) thrive in an environment characterised by a largely positive experience: trust in the company, management, strategy and colleagues.
The employee who votes for RN is the only one whose trust in colleagues is negative. This mistrust is ‘horizontal’, reflecting a feeling of not being heard, a weak sense of belonging to the team, and a lack of mutual support.
The profile of the employee aligned with LFI is almost the mirror image: they feel strong ‘vertical’ mistrust towards the corporate institution and management, but high levels of trust in their peers.
2/ Recognition, aspirations, frustrations: the same anger, different targets. Among LFI supporters, frustration is existential: dissatisfaction stems from the gap between the aspiration for work that is empowering, socially useful, and “changes the world”, and reality. Among RN supporters, frustration is material. It centres on pay and prospects for promotion in a quest for recognition and a place in society.
3/ Non-affiliated workers are a case apart: their frustration is low not because everything is fine – on the contrary, they are just as isolated at work as their radical right-wing sympathiser peers – but because they have stopped hoping for change; they are ‘listless’.
4/ The RN is not a monolithic bloc. Analysis of employees supporting the RN reveals contrasting experiences: nearly 60% of ‘happy RN’ supporters and around 40% of ‘unhappy RN’ supporters – and this is not a question of managers versus workers. The former express support for the business world, whilst the latter aspire to a form of social protection (which, incidentally, does not make the RN’s task any easier when defining its economic programme). What unites this electorate is their rejection of immigration.
5/ Interpersonal trust predicts cultural openness. According to the authors, the most striking finding of the study is this: what predicts cultural attitudes, and in particular openness to immigration, is trust in colleagues, and more broadly one’s relationship with others, across all socio-professional categories.
This is why workplace wellbeing policies are essential – they represent a genuine democratic challenge.
These findings have significant implications for any attempt at democratic renewal, starting with workplace relations. Firstly, promoting recognition and social interaction in the office, workshop or shop will foster trust within the organisation.
But the isolation of employees goes beyond the issue of performance: every open-plan office where an employee eats lunch alone, every team where suggestions fall on deaf ears, every workshop lacking mutual support fuels widespread mistrust. This is why workplace well-being policies are essential – they represent a genuine democratic challenge. Indeed, a third of French employees do not identify with any political party and have withdrawn from both professional and civic life; this trend can only be reversed by restoring cooperation and trust in workplace relationships.
Conclusion: The workplace is a laboratory for social trust
The identity divide is not limited to pay or qualifications: it is rooted in the daily experience of the quality of social bonds at work.
Trust in colleagues predicts cultural attitudes and, in particular, openness to immigration, across all socio-professional categories.
The Radical Left is the most concerned about changes in the world of work (including AI) but overwhelmingly supports remote working. The RN overwhelmingly rejects it, seeing it as synonymous with even greater isolation.
One in three private-sector employees states they have no party affiliation. This corresponds to a ‘dull’ profile, disengaged from professional and civic life.
Policies on quality of life at work are not a luxury, but a genuine democratic issue. Because they strengthen bonds, they help to mitigate widespread mistrust.
What did we like about this document?
We find this document very well written, with clear findings, and utterly fascinating for the prospects it opens up for action within companies to promote democracy in society – and, conversely, for management methods to be avoided in order to prevent the rise of the far right.
In addition to the authors’ call for a better quality of life at work in general, it seems to us that the following actions within the company would be likely to strengthen democracy:
- ensuring that all roles within the company are, in their own way, interesting and rewarding. Mistrust towards colleagues stems from competition for positions. The fewer there are of both rewarding and interesting roles, the fiercer the competition to fill them – and thus the more each colleague becomes an enemy to be defeated, rather than a person to support and cooperate with. From this perspective, highly hierarchical and pyramidal structures that are controlling, with a marked separation between design and execution, are structurally a factor in such competition, and therefore in mistrust between colleagues;
- prioritising the collective over the individual, in tasks and evaluation. In particular, the methods that have been in vogue whereby, each year, out of 10 people, 1 is promoted, 7 remain in the same role and 2 are made redundant, are, from this perspective, as disastrous as they could possibly be.
We believe that the avenues opened up by this study provide arguments that trade unions could use to promote quality of life at work: as the authors write, this is not merely an internal company matter, but a significant issue of democracy within our societies.
What do we dislike or find disappointing about this document?
We are somewhat disappointed by the poor quality of the graphs presented, and by the fact that they are presented as images, which makes them unsuitable for translation.
Document reference
Yann Algan, Antonin Bergeaud, Camille Frouard (2026) La Politique au Travail - Vécu en entreprise et fractures politiques des salariés en France; HEC Policy Note, Mars 2026, https://hec-prod-drupalfiles.oos.cloudgouv-eu-west-1.outscale.com/s3fs-public/documents/HECparis-policynote-la-politique-au-travail-mars2026.pdf
