You thought that it was a partnership, the intimate links that bind together government and private industry in the Fifth Republic. In fact, it is more like a golden triangle, a dubious money-go-round in which the representatives of French government, industry and labour conspire together to support each other financially in the management of France’s decline.

After the eruption of the EADS stock trading scandal, in which the entire management of Europe’s top aerospace company was accused of profiting from a trickle-down of insider information, now French unions are under suspicion of taking funds from employer organisations.

The suspicion originates from a dossier under investigation by French magistrates and compiled by Tracfin, the money-laundering investigation unit of the French police. It concerns the withdrawal of €5.6 million (£3.8 million) from the bank account of L’Union des Industries et Métiers de la Métallurgie (UIMM), the engineering employers’ organisation.

The cash withdrawals by Denis Gautier-Sauvagnac, the president of the organisation, took place between 2000 and 2007 and excited the suspicion of a BNP bank employee, who, unconvinced by the explanation that the money was for social welfare purposes, notified Tracfin.

According to French press reports, the police are discounting any motive of personal gain and are focusing on “ financement occulte” of a trade union by the chief negotiator for an employers’ organisation. Uproar followed publication of the story by Le Figaro, which has provoked calls for more disclosure and transparency from leaders of trade unions and bosses’ organisations, including Laurence Parisot, head of Medef, France’s CBI, and François Chérèque, the secretary-general of the CFDT union.

Ms Parisot has said that Medef has no involvement in the matter, although Mr Gautier-Sauvagnac occupies an important postion in the organisation and remains in his job while the inquiry continues. Mr Chérèque said that his organisation had not taken a single euro of the suspect funds, but he hinted at an underlying problem by calling for reform of trade union funding.

It is a mess because the French union movement cannot fund itself from members’ subs. These represent no more than half and in some cases as little as 15 per cent of a union’s income. Union membership represents about 8 per cent of the French workforce, compared with more than a quarter in Britain, and the diminutive roll call does little to explain the high profile of the trade union movement in French society.

For the top five unions, those deemed to have been “patriots” in the fight against Fascism in the Second World War, the right to represent a workforce is presumed in law. These organisations can negotiate with an employer regardless of the extent of their membership within a workforce. So how do French unions bridge the yawning gap between their political influence (guaranteed by the State) and their underlying economic weakness?

It brings us back to our golden network of power and money. A big portion of the income of France’s main unions, the CGT and the CFDT, comes from the State - such as payments for training union officials acting in labour tribunals and other official capacities. France’s budget for 2008 includes €29 million for “ dialogue social” and there are reckoned to be about 5,000 individuals working full-time for unions but who are, in fact, remunerated by the State at a cost of €158 million, according to a 2006 report commissioned by the Government on the financing of the French union movement.

The justification is the discharge of various duties and functions deemed socially useful, but there is a risk that the extensive support may be a misuse of public funds. None of it is subject to any formal audit because unions are not required to publish accounts. If this is business as usual for the French union movement, why, you may ask, is it causing a problem today?

No one knows the truth behind the curious cash withdrawals by the UIMM president, but an outsider might speculate that the timing of the investigation is interesting. On October 18, the French trade unions have called for a day of action against the Government in protest against President Sarkozy’s labour reforms, notably his plans to scrap the pension privileges of workers in nationalised industries, who benefit from early retirement at 50 on generous terms.

The unions are hoping for a big display, a traditional flag-waving, take-to-the-streets campaign against a Government “in league with the bosses”. It is a French ritual, this strike, but it poses a potential threat to a Government that needs public acquiescence, if not support, for its plans to dismantle laws that buttress France’s labour aristocracy.

The October strike begins to look a bit silly when you begin to understand the golden triangle, the networks within networks, and that Peter is paying for Paul’s protest against Peter.

Foreign observers have always marvelled at France’s partnership between government and business. The smooth transition of French civil service mandarins into top jobs in banks and industrial companies and their subsequent seamless return to high-level public service seems so effortless.

We know now that the real effort is being made by others, the ones without government jobs and privileged education. Mr Sarkozy is making a small start by attacking the unions. He should not stop there. He should go right to the top.

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive