France on Strike

Remove all ads!

Well for me it means it's a trial period where you can be fired for whatever reason. In most jobs I worked in retail as a young lad, 3 months was the standard. This was accepted since it gave employers a good idea of habits, if needed though, it could be extended.

In the case of France, anyone from the age of 16 to 26 can be fired at any time, for no reason or justification, simply because they're young. The PM argues that it's to make employers more comfortable hiring young people (for some of the resons you mentioned for example). What is does though is give them carte balnche not to give someone deserving who is of young age, the rewards they deserve.

Say you start working for this company at 21. The standard agreement is that after one year of work you gain access to supplemental benefits, pension and other perks. The company has to pay for those things so it costs them money. Now, as an employer, why shell out all that money when you can just fire them, hire on someone new for another 11 months and then repeat? Can you see the problem here? It essentially punishes good employees who would be happy to have a long career with a company simply because of their age. Nothing to do with their company loyalty, job skills, qualifications or behaviour. All it is is to save a buck.

 

I was thinking along the lines of BTA.

Lets say you have a system that requires.

1. A lot of mandatory vacation. That means you may have to have more than one person to do any particular job as you can't guarantee that person will be there when you need them.

2. Very high payroll taxes. With so many people out on unemployment the government must raise money to support these people. Typically it is an employer tax on the current employees. So now #1 is forcing you to higher more people than you really want, but the taxes on the more people you hire make it more expensive.

3. It is very difficult to terminate an employee. So now you are stuck with an employee that is not productive or you don't need. If you do manage to get rid of him your unemployment tax rate will go up even higher and continue to cost you more money.

Not a very positive situation for a small business. Maybe a large company can survive it, but it would be brutal for a start-up/small business.

Now don't get me wrong, The U.S. model of everyone is an employee at will and can be fired at will isn't exactly a paradise. We work extremely hard with long hours for we have to constantly prove our worth to our employers. From an employer standpoint it works great as if you make a mistake on someone you can get a replacement until you get the "team" that you want.

I have often wondered how people used to working under the first set of circumstances would fare in the U.S.

 

And I thought we were the most notorious complainers.

There is a similar law en route here in Germany. But all employees will be subject to it, not only the young.

And no one complaines. Yet.

 

France history is filled with these kind of demands. They, like no one else I think, take very seriously their working rights. This law is a direct attack to their hard-earned rights. I think that working without knowing if you'll be there tomorrow leads to stress and depression and other illnesses, plain and simple. Also, people should double and triple check theories that say this right doesn't benefit but harm them in the end. These "economists" play very complicated mind games just to serve their employer's interests. And their examples are way far fetched (I can't believe it, when people don't want to see...).
Last thing (I feel this urge to play chess right now): why would you priorize a company (a non living entity) instead of people, many people? Sounds demagogic, but I think companies are running wild and they need more control, not more power.
PS: whenever France comes up as a topic of discussion it's funny to see how north american people react.

 

In New Zealand we have too much protection for employees by most peoples standards. It is almost impossible to fire people without catching them breaking some law or another. You need to issue so many warnings, both written and verbal and do a load of other paper work that it is usually more easier to give them a thing saying how great worker they are in hopes that they get hired by another company.

Going by the logic in the above quote, New Zealand would have very high unemployment levels. Last quater of 2005, New Zealand's unemployment rate was at 3.7%, which according to OECD standards places us as Fully Employed, and places us 4th best in the OECD.

Having grown up in this sort of environment, I think that there is a need for some protection upon the workers. The idea of an employer been able to dismiss someone because they aer wearing the wrong shoes or mad a bad joke or somesuch sounds horrible. Yet if the employee is been unproductive or creating a bad envronment to work in, then it must be easy for the employee to be dismissed.

I don't completely agree with what they have done there in France, but as I don't know the current situation I'm not going to say if I think it's a good or bad move. The age discrimination thing though is bad.

No matter if you look at it as a right or a privilage, it still is descrimination. I could look at voting in central elections as a right, yet I'm sure if we said that anyone with blue eyes could not vote that that would be counted as descrimination. Descrimination is treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit, which is exactly what this law is. It is saying everyone in this catagory (under 26) must follow this law, while everyone in this catagory (over 26) can follow this one. Discrimination. Bad.

 

Those provisions are a bit harsh, but I can't claim to know enough about the sorts of employee protections in French law to make a reasonable comment. That said, I hope it's nothing like the new IR provisions in Australia (which have, amongst other things, removed collective bargaining, required the Industrial Relations Commission to report weekly to the Workplace Minister on any noted workplace dissent or planned actions, and removed unfair dismissal provisions for businesses with less than 100 employees).

While I feel there are too many worker entitlements (or at least, that there are too many people too willing to abuse them), they exist to protect workers from their bosses due to the natural power imbalance that exists in the workplace. I think it's much too hard to fire someone from the public service, though.

 

I agree only with the underlying assertion that causes for employment rates are multifactorial.

About New Zealand, I know nearly nothing, except that once were warriors, women had earlier the right to vote, even if the played pianos, and lords had rings.... Ah, and that it has the reputation that after bad times in the 80s, it turned extremely liberal in the 90's. So, your labour-market is actuually liberal, isn't it ?


Well, I also wrote in my previous post that things in different places are different. Simple: Different places, different problems, different rules.

The beauty of logic lies in the eye of the beholder. I think your sophism isn't pretty:

1. Because in New Zealand people complain that in New Zealand employees are over-protected

2. While in reality, New Zealand's employees are not

3. It's wrong for the French to reduce employee protection.

I think the underlying error is: You think about New Zealand, instead you should think about France!

Now, living in the country that is in your OECD unemployment list, where New Zealand is 4, either right in front of you or right behind you and is named Switzerland, I can assure you that compared to Germany, France and Italy, emploees are substantially less protected.

So, now I venture an assertion: In countries like Switzerland and New Zealand, employees are not overly protected...

Which means they have a working labour-market

which leads to low unemployment rates.


And you know what's funny? That's exactly the reasioning of the OECD, the very source you quote. It's them, the guilty!

Don't quote their rank-listening if you are not acquainted with their reasoning or the role they play.

http://english.people.com.cn/200506/17/eng20050617_190743.html

 

would be a fitting face here. Not sure where you made the 2nd point from, out of my post. Prehaps there was some deep meaning in my writting that I didn't understand myself? New Zealand does have a lot of worker protection, the opposite to the way you describe Switzerland.

The report you quote there, while it does mention market reforms, I can't see it mention what market reforms. There are more ways of reforming an economy and law systems than by taking away workers protection, which can boost employment rates.

What I am doing here, in mentioning New Zealand, is showing an example where a country have both high worker protections and have a low unemployment rate. It is impossible to suggest a better system for France without looking at other examples, both of what works and what doesn't work. Prehaps impossible isn't the best word, but merely foolish.

Do not make claims like this, as there is no way to tell with my post that I do not know the role of the OECD, without making some vast assumptions, which are never good to make.

 

You are wrong. Compared to the average continental European country, New Zealand has a VERY LOW worker protection. To what did you compare New Zealand to ?

At least, the OECD says and everything I've ever read about New Zealand. And even more so, for the OECD and other like-minded, New Zealand is the proof that reforms are necessary and succesful to re-shape continental Europe and it's sluggish economies.

There were radical reforms in New Zealand, weren't they?

Look at the bold part, compare the date of the OECD suggestion, look at the date of the law in France. Think about "other groups". Check Youth unemployment in France.

1. New Zealand has no high worker protection, therefore your example fails.

2. The OECD actually encourages France to become more like New Zealand and France started small and hesitating steps to become more like New Zealand.

3. Will France ever become like New Zealand ? Hell no, the stop where it's good for them.

And vice-versa. Check your country according to the OECD compared to others.

 

According to an OECD report on "Employment Protection Regulation and Labour Market Performance" from 2003, on a scale of 0-6 on the overall strictness of the EPL (Employment Protection Legalations), New Zealand, in regards to permenant workers, rates in at about 0.75 whereas France comes in just over 1. Yes, there is a difference, but when compared to countries like the US, which rates in around 0.1, and Portugal, nearing the 1.75 mark, New Zealand and France are ralitively close. Overall, we do have much less strict EPL compared with most OECD countries, but I believe the law in France was more associated with permenant staff, if they are hoping to decrease their unemployment rate.

My first post was in comparison to what had been mentioned on the previous page, the US standards. And compared to them, New Zealand does have very strict EPL.

Depends what way you are using liberal. As mentioned in the other thread, there are many definitions of the word. But no, after extreme government control (wage/price freezers I'm sure that you will agree is extreme) in the late 70s there were some major market reforms in the 80s, which were cut half short due to some political nonsense in the Labour party (who were leading the changes).

 

Well, you quoted me in your inital post where I was talking about France. So, I assumed you were talking about France (and my logic).

Those reforms brought New Zealand a legendary reputation around here. And liberal (like I've posted in the other thread) according to continental terminology.

These numbers are close. I don't doubt your source.

I am guessing: Are those numbers from all 178 countries on these world ?. I thinka more closer look may be better, one only involving the industrialized nations. According to this one, the numbers for the overall protection are approx. USA 0.6, New Zealand 1.3, Switzerland 1.6, France 2.8 and Portugal, worst, 3.5

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/4/34846856.pdf

I think this text summarizes the situation pretty well.

http://europe.tiscali.co.uk/index.jsp?section=Business&level=preview&content=215412


So, you're right, New Zealand looks good among the English-speaking countries.

 

How about making it illegal to fire ANYONE unless you have a VALID reason, instead of "the dude wore a black shirt". This **** is ****ed up, and they will do nothing but push lower wages even lower by passing this law.

 

How about allowing a company to fire someone for any reason. If that ex-employee feels he was fired unjustly, then he can tell his friends and organize a protest/boycott of the company that fired him. A peaceful protest; not smashing and burning. The French are certainly good at protesting and picketing, we've seen that.

When the company starts to see sales drop and even has a hard time attracting new employees ("I'm not working for you guys! You fired that one dude for no reason!) it will change its ways.

Option B: create more laws which ultimatley stifle the economy and job grwoth and then smash and burn stuff because you're unemployed and it's fun to get drunk with your friends and throw rocks at the police.

 

Because, all it does is infringe on Worker's Rights, push the minimum wages, and takes away even MORE power from the workers.

Except, the other way work. We have seen it work in several places, such as France, Sweden, and most of Europe, in fact. Taking AWAY rights from the public is NEVER a good thing.

 

We've seen it work? It's working so well in France that 25% of their young people are unemployed?

The scary thing about globalization is it's happening whether we want it to or not; no matter how much we protest, riot and burn down a Starbucks.

Companies, even French companies, will outsource jobs to China or India to save money. If their home country passes strict laws to prevent outsourcing, the companies will simply relocate to the Bahamas or another nation with little or no restrictions on labor. It's happening now and there's nothing that can stop save all 7 billion of us banding together. So while Paris burns 1 billion Chinese workers continue to make Nike sneakers...

 

The problem in France is not so much the worker's rights, but tha fact that almost 70 per cent of those who finish school go to a college/university. There is actually a lack of craftsmen there.

 

Wow, 70% is very high indeed. The number in the U.S. is a little under 50% IIRC. China is churning out college graduates at an unbelievable pace, but it still represents a small portion of the total population. In fact, only about 25% of China's population is college educated. However, for China, that means they have over 300 million college educated people. To put that in more practical terms, it means that China has more college educated people than the entire population of the United States - even if every man, woman and child in the U.S. had a college education, China would STILL have more.

But I cannot help but think that the lack of craftsen is France's sole problem, or even it's largest problem. It's not like that everyone who doesn't go to college learns a craft or trade. In fact, many more do not than do. Simply because in today's world, there's no need to have 30% of the population as craftsmen.

I should also point out that the reason I don't like the new law is the fact that it specifically applies to people 26 and under. The problem isn't that you can be fired for basically any reason - as T2Bruno correctly points out, that's how it is for 99% of the jobs in the U.S., and armageddon hasn't happened here - at least not yet. It's the fact that it appears that people of 27 years of age or older and given a signifcant advantage over those not in that category. It also seems like a classic case of the majority (workers age 27+) usurping rights of the minority (workers age 26-). Of course, it really shouldn't surprise anyone - politicians have an agenda just like everyone else, and they know the very people who are hurt by these laws are also those people least likely to vote. So you shaft those people who are going to have the least likely impact of YOU keeping YOUR job as a politician

 

Well, I don't think that you should compare US and french college/university. In France (as in one part of Germany's school system), you go to school for about 12 years. Only then you can begin a higher education, i.e. university or for a specific craft or trade. Finishing 12 years of school does not qualify for starting most full-time jobs.

College graduates in the US have roughly the same education as french or (some) germans who finish school.

So, you have very high and mostly specialised educated people, while US college graduates can (and do) apply for a broader range of jobs. They are more flexible.
Take me, for instance. I am studying political science only. While the curriculum is very broad, I would be hopeless as, say, a bookkeeper or company manager because I never learned the essentials for that kind of job. And no employer would consider employing me for a job I cannot do.

In the US, I may have studied political science mainly, and maybe business and whatever else in minor courses, so I'd be more flexible.

The work market in the US mirrors this. It is highly flexible.
In France and Germany, it is quite rigid. So, for 'Hire and Fire', you'll need enough jobs in the different branches that mirror the qualifications of the university graduates. That seems not to be the case in France, in contrast to Germany. We have to few university graduates and high unemployment rates in the low education sector.

This is a broad generalization and I don't guarantee for any mistakes. I'm not that intimate with french domestic politics.

 

It's the same in the US. After completing 12 years of education you go on to college. There are many jobs that do not require college or even graduating from high school for that matter -- I wouldn't want any of them personally.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. It is true that most high school graduates in Europe have a greater level of education as compared to US high school graduates. However, at the university level the American schools typically are more thorough and graduates from American universities are generally better prepared for graduate school (there are some notable universities in Europe where this does not apply). Certainly the French/German high school graduate is not even close to the average American university graduate.