Is AFP becoming a “toxic” workplace?

The word toxic may seem over the top… especially for employees who believe that AFP has a special culture that is overall good. But following the November 14 email from our CEO Fabrice Fries and the statement by management on Inside, SUD urges staff to reflect a bit. In our view, these cryptic messages necessitate clarification to avoid adding to the anxiety already present within the Agency and stigmatizing victims of workplace suffering.

In its statements management left an important thing unsaid: the labor inspector warned that several people working at AFP are in such a state of suffering that they might carry out suicide threats. This is an incredibly serious warning, and management took steps such as closing off access to the terraces on the fifth, sixth and seventh floors after it became aware of the threat on November 6.

Management also called an extraordinary meeting of the Works Council (CSE) on November 13 to meet with the labor inspector to get additional information about the severity of the threat, to review the emergency measures it had taken and inquire whether she believes additional emergency measures should be taken.

The labor inspector declined requests to provide the names of these people or the services they work in due to professional confidentiality obligations. SUD considers inadmissible demands the labor inspector break confidentiality and insinuations that she will be responsible for not assisting someone in danger if someone commits suicide. The labor inspector indicated that she refers anyone who invokes suicidal intentions to appropriate medical professionals and ensures they are not isolated.

The labor inspector said she cannot provide the names of the people at risk to AFP’s doctor, even if she is also bound by professional secrecy, as she needs the consent of the people concerned. Most haven’t consented. The labor inspector also indicated that management should have a good idea of who might be at most risk from her numerous communications with them in recent months.

The labor inspector questioned whether AFP was taking the question of workplace suffering seriously. She informed the CSE last year that she had 20 cases from AFP. In April she told us it was 30. Several weeks ago it appeared in the media that the number has risen to around 40. Despite this considerable increase, management didn’t take any action. We believe that it was only an explicit warning that there was a risk of suicides that prompted a reaction.

Emergency measures must be followed up

But at the CSE meeting on November 13 management wanted to focus only on emergency measures. The labor inspector, however, urged management and staff representatives to address the underlying issues that are causing workplace suffering. While not minimizing the importance of taking emergency measures, she said AFP needs to tackle the reasons why some 40 employees have sought her out.
 
She identified the following problems:

• Repeated conflicts with managers
• Professional isolation, marginalization
• HR management that is discouraging or repressive
• Tendency to dismiss internal alerts
• Failures to address alerts
• Biased or one-sided internal investigations
• Lack of confidentiality

The labor inspector also singled out journalist mobility and the lack of career management as a source of suffering. She also indicated that she believes that workplace suffering is due to structural problems at AFP, dismissing suggestions that it may be due to problems all media face or wider problems in society.

AFP’s management insisted it has taken measures in recent years to improve many of the things pointed out by the labor inspector. So it has. But the labor inspector stated she has the impression the situation at AFP is worsening, not improving. In particular, she criticized AFP for allowing “toxic managers” to continue managing people. SUD denounced the costly and ineffective coaching courses that the AFP sometimes orders to curb toxic behavior by managers.

Our impression from the extraordinary CSE meeting is that management is not willing to confront the underlying problems that are causing workplace suffering. But that impression is not based solely on the meeting. In this year’s annual wage and working conditions talks SUD proposed creating a bilateral commission to review the situation of staff whose careers have stalled in order to find solutions such as training and missions. Management dismissed the proposal, saying “particular attention will be paid to the situation of these people as part of the staff review.” This is clearly insufficient.

We anticipate criticism for openly speaking about the suicide risk and that management may say that it did not do so, or detail the emergency measures it has taken, in order to avoid aggravating the situation. However the labor inspector emphasized the need to collectively acknowledge the suffering of these colleagues. SUD believes that the situation needs to be discussed in an open and transparent manner to help the victims of structural problems at the Agency and for the Agency to reform itself. We should avoid allowing these people to be represented as fragile and needing medical help. That subtly shifts responsibility on them for the situation. Any employee could find themselves fragilized by such a situation and we shouldn’t allow them to become ostracized again.

Many compare AFP to a family, so let’s try to face and overcome these difficulties together without stigmatizing anyone. Everyone can follow the recommendations of our CEO, who urges us to look out for one another. But it is AFP, as an employer, that must ensure the health and safety of its employees and implement a long-term strategy to achieve this. It is even more important that we begin to do this as AFP enters a new wave of reorganizations as we cut posts which risks creating more tensions in the services.

Paris, November 18, 2025
SUD-AFP (Solidarity-Unity-Democracy)