French labour laws trigger immense protests

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
who cares how significant the support is, they are still wrong. might doesnt make right.

They are not wrong in all respect; part of the support comes from people like me, who have had a long experience of the work in companies, and who cannot accept, as an employee or an employer, the firing without explanation or that it takes two years to discover that a guy does not work properly.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

yeah but who says they wont screw around for the next 50?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
yeah but who says they wont screw around for the next 50?

We will ask the next Prime Minister not to make decision before understanding how to explain it to the people.

[Dinner]

No fire, no hire. It's that simple.

It's not just getting rid of someone because they do bad work it's also "I make Cars/tvs/whatever the market isn't buying my stuff and now I need to lay off workers to prevent the company from going under". In the existing system that's very time consuming and very expensive so companies prefer not to hire unless they cannot avoid it. Take away some of the risks & expense and people are more likely to hire because after all if market conditions change then they can just lay off workers.

[Sikander]

We don't expect our representatives to be swayed by mob behavior, we expect more knowledge from them than the average mob member, and a lot more maturity. This is why we have lower bound age limits for these positions for instance.

[Dinner]

Well, Senators aren't supposed to be swayed they're supposed to be the higher body who looks after the big picture while Congressional reps get elected every two years so they're always looking to grandstand before the masses.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


They are not wrong in all respect; part of the support comes from people like me, who have had a long experience of the work in companies, and who cannot accept, as an employee or an employer, the firing without explanation or that it takes two years to discover that a guy does not work properly.

Can you understand that reacting to the economy may easily make an employee undesirable within two years because he isn't needed? Perhaps the company can't sell as much product, or perhaps their competition have increased their productivity to the extent that your company can no longer compete on cost without also increasing their productivity and letting some of their laborers go. This is a good cycle in the long run, as it means less work overall for the same output, but France seems to want to lock in the productivity levels of the past.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Well, Senators aren't supposed to be swayed they're supposed to be the higher body who looks after the big picture while Congressional reps get elected every two years so they're always looking to grandstand before the masses.

The age limit for Reps is 25, not 13.

[Solly]

The best job security is low unemployment. The French don't seem to want low unemployment.

[Solly]

I think this shows that economics should be taught along with numeracy and literacy. I could understand it if these kids dropped out of school at 16. But to have gone through a whole education system and still not be able to realise simple economic truths is weird.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Sikander


Can you understand that reacting to the economy may easily make an employee undesirable within two years because he isn't needed? Perhaps the company can't sell as much product, or perhaps their competition have increased their productivity to the extent that your company can no longer compete on cost without also increasing their productivity and letting some of their laborers go. This is a good cycle in the long run, as it means less work overall for the same output, but France seems to want to lock in the productivity levels of the past.

You misunderstood my point; firing because the company has economic problems is a very acceptable reason; I only demand that the worker be informed why he is fired. And I know that the problem in firing in France does not lye on this point, but because a lot of costs are associated with it. Suppress the costs (and the red tape) and companies will hire much more easily.

By the way I can understand that reacting to the economy etc, etc. But I am also convinced that too often top managements prefer the lay off method rather than a rational management of the work force. Justifying lay off as the best economic attitude is quite medieval.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


You misunderstood my point; firing because the company has economic problems is a very acceptable reason; I only demand that the worker be informed why he is fired. And I know that the problem in firing in France does not lye on this point, but because a lot of costs are associated with it. Suppress the costs (and the red tape) and companies will hire much more easily.

By the way I can understand that reacting to the economy etc, etc. But I am also convinced that too often top managements prefer the lay off method rather than a rational management of the work force. Justifying lay off as the best economic attitude is quite medieval.

I thought the reason that employers wanted this law is to reduce the costs of letting people go rather than avoiding the embarrassment of having to explain why.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Sikander


I thought the reason that employers wanted this law is to reduce the costs of letting people go rather than avoiding the embarrassment of having to explain why.

I would say that the employers did not supported this law because they only wanted to reduce the costs of letting people go rather than avoiding the embarrassment of having to explain why.

[LDiCesare]

I thought the reason that employers wanted this law is to reduce the costs of letting people go rather than avoiding the embarrassment of having to explain why.

DAVOUT's answer is correct, and I'll add a little to this:
Not explaining why is the only thing that was given to the employers. They still have (present, the law IS still there after all) to pay for firing, and the fired person gets paid (which is not the case with the CDI during the first 2 years). So this law hardly helped the employers, since it only allowed them not to say that they were firing someone for economic reasons. They still had to give explanations for other reasons (disciplinary) though it wasn't very obvious in the law or in the way it was advertised. As a result, the employers didn't really support that law, and the employees didn't either.

Give us a law that makes hiring and firing less expensive, and firing less of an administrative hassle, but still provide explanations to the employees if you have to fire them. The CPE failed on all accounts. I predict that the employers of CPE's and CNE's that will have fired their employee will fare badly in the courts because there's been a very bad communication about this whole law and the law hardly helped anybody.

[DanS]

From what I have seen, the CPE represented a very modest reform. If the French gov't can't even do this very modest reform in the face of high unemployment, then the result probably will be the French riding this situation out without reform and hoping for the best.