France on Strike

Remove all ads!

Well this is interesting - I've never heard of a large percentage of the entire workforce of an entire country going on strike. It appears that the strike focuses on the new youth labor law. Specifically, a provision that states:

I'm no lawyer, but that seems clearly and blantantly illegal. Is that not the very definition of age discrimination (granted age discrimination usually affects older workers, but just because this affects young people doesn't mean it isn't discriminatory). You can read the whole article here.

 

There's a bit more to the law than that, from what I've heard. As I understand it, France already has a period of "training" employment for youths, and this law just expands that period.

 

How is that illegal? Virtually EVERY employee in the US is an 'at will' employee -- meaning you can be dismissed for any reason, or no reason, and at any time (you can also quit at any time).

That France offers protection for older workers is quite remarkable. It would be nice to have that kind of protection. The protection is a benefit -- having to wait to receive a benefit (a very common occurance) is not a violation of a person's rights. People need to differentiate between a benefit and a right (similar to the difference between a priviledge and a right which so many Americans seem to miss).

I think working for the government may have spoiled you....

 

That's not Aldeth's point, T2. The illegality comes from applying the law to everyone under the age of 26, as a special case. It's blatant discrimination. I don't think anyone has a problem with the notion of some kind of probationary period in a job, but the length of time and the way it's so specifically targetted against a section of the workforce based solely upon age seems really rather absurd. Which it is, as the whole thing's really been caused by France's utter unwillingness to take an economic reality check. Until now, they've just siphoned off cash from the EU money-go-round to fund all their ailing industries, and now that the new member states have arrived it looks like they can't keep it up any more. Hence, Chirac has had to rush legislation through that gives employers some kind of power, without time to go through consultation or really think about consequences.

It's all astonishingly half-arsed.

 

Plus it's against EU law to discriminate against any section of the population, but France once again has the opinion that EU law does not apply to them just everyone else.

 

T2Bruno - I must respectfully take exception to some of your comments. While the above quote is certainly true, considering that France passed a law specifically singling out people under 26 years of age with under two years work experience (which again, is targeting younger employees) suggests one of two things.

1. If France employees are "at will" just like US employees, then this law is redundant and completely unnecessary. If not, then this is clearly age discrimination.

2. Unless you consider all age discrimination suits to be complete bupkis (or really any discrimination suits at all for that matter), then an employee cannot "be dismissed for any reason, or no reason, and at any time". They may not need an explicit reason to get rid of you, but you cannot be fired based upon a discriminatory action.

Again repectfully, but what is that supposed to mean? It seems like a blatant cheap shot to me. Are you saying that working for the government we have different employment rules than those in private industry follow? Besides, it should be pointed out that while the federal government provides the funds that pay my salary, I work for a private firm that is contracted out by the government. Yes, I have government clearances and security badges, but technically, the federal government is my client, not my employer.

 

The Prime Minister of France is on record as saying that this new law will solve the crippling youth unemployment rate that is currently being experienced in France. The idea he says, is that having no pressure to keep a young employee will make employers more likely to hire them.

Now, while this is true, the concern is that it will created a generation of disposable labour. It does discriminate against a major segment of the population and can and will be abused. Companies that offer benefits after 3 months of employment can just fire the person and hire someone new, no reasons need to be given to the labour board or the employee.

I think more than even money, people want job security. Money is great, but if you can't keep your job to secure that money, what's the point? From a tax point of view, I think it will hurt France as well since the less time someone is employed, the less money they collect in taxes.

I also believe that if people under 26 aren't guaranteed any job security because of their age, they'll say screw it and live off pogie till they're 27, further taxing the government in welfare payments and draining more money away from lowered revenue due to no one under 26 working. I mean, why bother trying if the government is going to let employers shoot you down every couple of weeks/months/years?

Forget that you're skilled or fantastic at your job, you're fired because I don't like your shoes. Would you like to have that happen to you one day when you walk into work? Or how about security waiting to escort you and from the building. You walk in, they hand you a box with your belongings and back out you go. No thanks...

 

John Stewart's comment on this issue, after watching images of a million French youths rioting, smashing and burning everything in their path: "gee, who wouldn't want to hire these kids?"

The irony is that the law was put in place in an attempt to open up more jobs to the young workers of France! Prior to this law -- I assume -- a French company COULDN'T fire someone under the age of 26 for any reason they saw fit. Now they can and the kids riot. What a country.

 

The UK is supposed to be having it's greatest strike sincce the general strike of 1926. Over 1 million council workers have gone on strike today because the government want to raise their pension age from 60 to 65 (like the rest of us poor sods)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4848584.stm

France's strike is no surprise really, after-all it is (insert any reason you like here,) The reason given on the radio was the fact it is March, and they always strike in March. Last year it was a sailors strike causing disruptions to the channel ferries (and the chunnel somehow) In 2004 it was an airport strike. (OK I admit, that was actually February). The French revolution has a lot to answer for.

 

Um, like the rest of the Western world then?

Who or what is pogie?

 

Bloody French - always moaning about something!

 

Sorry Harbs, pogie is a Canadian/Newfoundlander term for welfare/social assitance payments.

 

That's only if they intend to replace you. A lot of companines are firing employees to save a few bucks. Wall Street applauds companies for firing people all the time - the more, the better. It's all about the price of the stock, not about the long term health of the company any longer. Too many top execs are paying themsleves with stock prices, and fleeing the scene, like theives, once the buzzards swoop in because of choices that paid off in the short term, but left the company in a bad long term position.

Another famous solution with this crowd is buy out a smaller competitor who is doing well, thereby eliminating the competition and aquiring a new customer base to make up for all the lost customers that they have pissed off with all their downsizing and outsourcing. Great system.

 

First , I must apologize for my pathetic attempt at humor, I was not meaning to offend. The federal government does provide excellent protection for most it's employees (management and professional positions are typically not protected). For most positions there must be cause to fire someone -- and the monsterous paper trail to justify such an action. Surely, you are aware of this and have seen it in action (my sister is a postmaster and can tell some good stories along these lines). Industry is not like this -- there are people in protected status who you must have cause to fire, everyone else is fair game. Employment rules are no different, but rules regarding termination are.

Back on topic: I see nothing wrong with establishing the protected status at 26 -- it's 40+ here in the states (and not easy to show discrimination until a person hits 50). I don't see it as discrimination. Being in a protected status is a benefit or a privilege -- one that I think should be delayed to beyond 30 for France (the labor laws in France made establishing a company there financially burdensome). The country must do something to help the companies operating out of France be economically feasible -- it is not feasible for a company to carry a dead-weight employee for an indeterminant amount of time. The age requirement makes this more reasonable as most young people have calmed down and are less of a risk to hire after they are 25 (there's a reason insurance drops at 25).

However, since most posters here are under 26 this action by France will be overwhelmingly trounced on this board.

This is a possibility for most of America (I'm sure my uncle could be fired from Nike for wearing the wrong shoes). People get fired all the time for 'not fitting in with the culture of the company.' Is it wrong? I don't know. But a corporation cannot allow one person to bring down the productivity of an entire office. It's not pleasant, but it's not illegal either.

 

But the spirit of this law means that if you're under 26 and have done nothig wrong in any way shape or form, they can fire you. This is the problem they have with it, it gives companies way too much abusive power and employees no security whatsoever.

When a company must layoff employees, they usualy get a severance package or some kind of compensation as a thanks for their time given to the company. Companies can now just hire young people, fire them before they hit 27 and are entitled to benefits, pensions etc...to save money and line the pockets of the already well paid execs and managers. Talk about promoting company culture!

 

That could be resolved with a say 1 year probationary period or even a 3 strikes policy that clearly outlines certain behaviours etc...I'm all for the right for an employer to fire someone lazy, costly and unproductive, but guidelines need to be established in order to ensure fairness and equality for everyone invloved.

 

It's no big deal and changes nearly nothgin, this law-change, actually.It's only a begining, hoped for or dreaded. For some, it's the beginning of the end to others, a very small of many needed liberalizations. The stated purpose of the law is lower unemployment of people under 30 and facilate their move into the workforce. (That's Europe, higher education and getting a job happens with 28)

In France, like Germany and Italy, employees are overprotected. Which turns out to be to their disadvantage. Because companies are unlikely to hire people they can only get lay-off of at high costs. This causes a reluctancy which keeps a lot of people unmemployed, because companies avoid unnecessary risk.

And as my professor for comparative law always insisted, one has to know were the problem is and know the whole law-system in theory in practice. Like if one compares one country that has a divorce rate of 50% with one that has a divorce rate of 2%, one has to check the annulation rate... that may very well be 48%.

French Companies avoid the employee-protection simply through only having work-contracts that are only for a time-period, like three months, six month or a year instead of hiring for a not determined time-period, which propably would in the end spell a much longer period of employment.

And to age-protectin and discrimination. To check that one had to take a look at the whole civil law pertaining to the employment-contract. But I guess, in the US, one doesn't get a pension with 40, like some in Italy do?