French labour laws trigger immense protests

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by C0ckney
owed by whom exactly?

at the end of the day spiff you work in a job that pretty much anyone could do and that you won't be doing for long in any case. so why shouldn't your boss be able to fire you for any reason, or no reason at all, it's hardly an 'abuse'.

What about dependents and family, about the roof over the head on which there is a mortgage. Whereas the wealthier can just take without worry. Of course it's a damn right, anyone who puts into society at least deserves some security and remuneration in return. Remember, companies have social responsibility.

i've had plenty of rubbish jobs in the past but i can assure that not one of my bosses has ever given a flying fcuk about my politics or anything like that. as long as you turn up on time, do your job reasonably well and don't whinge all the time, they're happy to keep you on, i can't believe it's any different in france.

Well as your politics are extremely compliant and favour the current status quo, you would naturally have no problem...

[kato-uke]

The CPE is as precarious a condition as my day-to-day contract. If I told my boss (who likes me, because I work well) that I'm a commie, there is nothing against him calling Manpower and saying "tomorrow I'd like to have X part-time workers. Spiffor needs not apply".

Manpower

never going to work for them again, since they botched up a job for me once - they had a contract with a company, which went till a certain day, with my contract with Manpower of course extending past that - no one told me though that i had been reassigned.

btw, do these labour-for-rent companies (Manpower) have to pay you while they don't have a job for you - in France? (over here in Germany, they have to pay in full, calculated on a 35-hour work week)

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
What about dependents and family, about the roof over the head on which there is a mortgage. Whereas the wealthier can just take without worry. Of course it's a damn right, anyone who puts into society at least deserves some security and remuneration in return. Remember, companies have social responsibility.

spiff's got a wife, kids and a mortgage, well that's news to me...

he's doing a low-skilled, casual job, which by his own admission he'll quit as soon as finds something better. why does his employer owe him anything besides his wages etc.?

Well as your politics are extremely compliant and favour the current status quo, you would naturally have no problem...

the point (as if you didn't know...) is that i could of been a communist, a member of the national front, or an islamic fundamentalist for all they knew, but they never asked, why? maybe because they DON'T CARE...

[ajbera]

Question regarding French labor: unemployment rates aside, are there any prohibitions against working 2 or 3 jobs to earn extra money? Any prohibition against overtime? If you just decided to go into business for yourself, is it relatively easy or do you have to jump through hoops?

No real bearing on the topic at hand, but I'm just curious.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by C0ckney


spiff's got a wife, kids and a mortgage, well that's news to me...

That's not my point, or are you conveniently ignoring it?

he's doing a low-skilled, casual job, which by his own admission he'll quit as soon as finds something better. why does his employer owe him anything besides his wages etc.?

Again, I am not referring to Spiffor, but the principle is, if someone has a job and poses no problems and the company is solvent, there should be no reason why the employment is not continuous...I certainly do not think that the welfare of people should be dependent on the whim of the boss and his personal preferences. But again, you never answered the point, did you?

the point (as if you didn't know...) is that i could of been a communist, a member of the national front, or an islamic fundamentalist for all they knew, but they never asked, why? maybe because they DON'T CARE...

Same here, and I am not willing to divulge that kind of information to my employers. Ask yourself why...

[Imran Siddiqui]

the principle is, if someone has a job and poses no problems

Define 'poses no problems'. What about Kid's example?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


What about dependents and family, about the roof over the head on which there is a mortgage. Whereas the wealthier can just take without worry. Of course it's a damn right, anyone who puts into society at least deserves some security and remuneration in return. Remember, companies have social responsibility.

Please enlighten us about what social resposibilities companies have besides providing jobs fitting their needs.

[David Floyd]

Please enlighten us about what social resposibilities companies have besides providing jobs fitting their needs.

The only other social responsibilities I can think of are complying with the law and providing a return on investment to the shareholders and investors.

As for companies caring about political beliefs, they don't, up until the point when you are voicing your political beliefs on the clock in a matter detrimental to productivity or the company as a whole.

Saying you are a communist is one thing. Saying that you are a communist and everyone should revolt against the evil capitalist bosses while on the clock is quite another. One is harmless, the other can incite other employees. While the government certainly can't prosecute you, your company should be able to fire you.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by David Floyd


The only other social responsibilities I can think of are complying with the law and providing a return on investment to the shareholders and investors.

There are several types of stakeholders besides shareholders.

For example, an industrial company will need to ensure good environmental practice to keep local residents happy, even if its not legally required to. You could say it makes financial sense for the shareholders if the company keeps stakeholders happy, but they're often seen as distinct from a business perspective.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Dauphin


There are several types of stakeholders besides shareholders.

For example, an industrial company will need to ensure good environmental practice to keep local residents happy, even if its not legally required to. You could say it makes financial sense for the shareholders if the company keeps stakeholders happy, but they're often seen as distinct from a business perspective.

That might happen, but rarely since the laws usually are ahead, and I seriously doubt that it was such things that was bothering PH.

[Dauphin]

It was an example, you can use your imagination. Think about the cases when major firms pull out of a relatively small town where lots of people are employed.

These things work on the smaller scale too.

[Dauphin]

Interestingly many company mission statements make comments about social impacts that they have or want to make, beyond legal and shareholders' requirements. They believe they have or are perceived to have such responsibilites.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Dauphin
It was an example, you can use your imagination. Think about the cases when major firms pull out of a relatively small town where lots of people are employed.

These things work on the smaller scale too.

That has also happend here, but it actually doesn't make sense. Often it's a matter of survival for the compaby to move - typically leaving some administrative, designing and development jobs back. Of course it sucks for those fired, but what is the difference if the company dies in a year or two because it didn't move ?

[David Floyd]

For example, an industrial company will need to ensure good environmental practice to keep local residents happy, even if its not legally required to. You could say it makes financial sense for the shareholders if the company keeps stakeholders happy, but they're often seen as distinct from a business perspective.

Good point, and I agree with you.

I don't think a company has a responsibility to lose money or make bad business decisions in the name of "social responsibility/progress", though, which was what I was really getting at.

[David Floyd]

They believe they have or are perceived to have such responsibilites.

Rather, I think they believe that they will lose money if they don't do certain things. There's a difference. The ultimate responsibility of any business is to, well, remain in business and post a profit each quarter.