French labour laws trigger immense protests

[chequita guevara]

I imagine its a lot easier not being saddled with crushing student loan debt.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Particular market circumstances might compel doing that sometime, but if it is the case that a company need to cut labor costs to be competitive, then that's what they need to do.

It's not about competitiveness. When you spend more time in the corporate world, you will begin to see how ****ing insane it is. It' about tweaking the shareholders value, even if it ****s future profitablty. I can't tell you how many places I've worked where they will invest in new people, only to turn around and let them go. Even people who are irreplacable, who know the corporate software inside and out. It is not rational from the company's point of view, but they are forced to do it because of stock speculation.

I see no good reason why people should be sacrificed at the alter of speculation just because some wonks say it makes it easier for companies to hire people.

[Dinner]

It would seem the best thing to do is work for companies which have a large private investor who isn't just trying to create short term profits by sacrificing long term profits. A company where the founder or the founding family retain a significant share would seem like a good choice.

[Shi Huangdi]

I can't tell you how many places I've worked where they will invest in new people, only to turn around and let them go. Even people who are irreplacable, who know the corporate software inside and out.

You're taking your personal experience at extrapolating it to the entire economy. Companies that act in an idiotic fashion are going to inevitably suffer when they compete against other companies.

This isn't some controversial economic theory Che, this is common sense. If you were purchasing a service, wouldn't you be alot more hesitant to do so if it locked you into a long term contract, as opposed to one which gave you a trial period where you could could cancel without penalty?

I imagine its a lot easier not being saddled with crushing student loan debt.

You're right, and I'm glad to not be faced with that. A good friend of mine does have that problem though, and on top of that is stuck at a go-nowhere job at Home Depot and can't find any better work. The thing that would be really helpful for him, though, is if he were able to land a decent professional job with decent benefits.

Again, you can't be fired from a job you don't have in the first place. All I can say is I am really glad we don't have France's labor policies in this country.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
translation:

"the anti-strikers highlighted the fact that the students associations were 'minoirites" who were making the decision for going on strike for all 14 500 students"

"In Toulouse, and other places, the student associations are not representative of the student body, which creates tensions"

"Votes to end the strike were prevented in some universities. At Rennes-II, around 50 extreme left students prevented a vote from taking place. In Tours as well as Dijon, all votes in favor of ending the strike were not taken into account"

What are you trying to say? that the 800 richest students go to the GA and the rest stay at home?

Le Figaro is a crap journal, and everyone knows it. Anyone who has been to university GAs also knows that only a tiny fraction of the students show up. How you evaluate the legitimacy of a decision is usually how it is received by the rest.

[Dauphin]

When it comes to hiring and firing Che is correct in that often companies will fire someone (or many someones) even if it is counterproductive to long term business goals. In my experience it is more often to solve short-term cashflow issues than to affect shareholder value. It happens in firms and non-listed companies, where shareholders' stock speculations aren't a factor, just as regularly - if not more so.

Also it's to do with myopia. People think cutting costs automatically leads to increased profitability.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Dauphin
When it comes to hiring and firing Che is correct in that often companies will fire someone (or many someones) even if its counterproductive to long term business goals. In my experience it is more often to solve short-term cashflow issues more than a shareholder value issue. It happens in firms and non-listed companies, where shareholders stock speculations aren't a factor, just as regularly - if not more so.

Also it's to do with myopia. People think cutting costs automatically leads to increased profitability.

Fine then, assume a company is going to be stupid. Say a company prefers to fire workers as a response to short-term cashflow issues. Wouldn't that company be more likely to hire someone if they knew they could get rid of him later if they felt that was in their best interest, as opposed to meaning that if they hired someone it meant they were stuck with that person indefinitely?

[Dauphin]

I would think they would just pay a lower starting wage or make it a temp position in the contract - which may become permanent after a period of time.

[Dauphin]

If you have an employee, say 6 months, you know whether they can do the job or not. At that point you'd need a justified reason to get rid of them. e.g. market downsizing, misconduct.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Dauphin
If you have an employee, say 6 months, you know whether they can do the job or not. At that point you'd need a justified reason to get rid of them. e.g. market downsizing, misconduct.

That depends on the job. Some starting level professional jobs for college grads have extensive training programs that can go on for years.

[Dauphin]

They are usually subject to long-term contracts that state the conditions under which the employee can be sacked. For example, under my previous training contract I could have been sacked at any point should I fail an exam, even if I was 30 months into my employment.

Also, if I unilaterally left the firm it was possible for the firm to have the professional institute bar me from joining another firm to complete my studies and qualify.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You're not the only one scratching your head. Upon reading your post, I'm wondering where to begin...

[Two minutes pass. For real]

1. The ability to hire people does exist. The ability to fire people does also exist: only that you have to justify why you fire a person.
Among the accepted justifications for firing, there are economic reasons (drop in activity) or grave failure of the employee's.
Also, there are plenty of contract-types that allow to hire workers for a specific period of time, so that it matches a temporary increase in activity. I have a personal experience of this: the past two weeks, I have been working at a soon-to-be-opened store, where I got daily contracts and daily paysheets.

For the past 6 monthes, small businesses have enjoyed the kind of legislation currently debated with the CPE (i.e. they can fire without justification during the first two years of the contract - this small-business contract is called CNE). According to studies, this measure resulted in only a few jobs that wouldn't have been created otherwise. A large majority of the CNEs that were signed would have been stable jobs with guarantees instead, had that law not existed.

2 "France will still be more expensive then every where else to hire people"
Bull****.

3. BENEFIT

Absolutely, why are people so keenly in favour of continued casualisation of labour? It's become casual enough, and all that happens is that it is exploited. I will take the point when it comes to dismissal of incompetent employees, but this is the exception rather than the rule - give the vast majority of people security and gainful employment without the management bullsh*t that permeates every aspect of working life nowadays, and I guarantee the productivity rates would be massive - there is nothing that demotivates a workforce more than disloyal and useless management.

So hell yeah, employee rights should be fought for at every corner that they are under threat...I've seen casualisation constantly exploited and abused by companies - they want the work doing but won't make the commitment to the person - they need security to be able to do anything. The irony is too, I've seen this casualisation in my present workplace backfire far more on the company than on the casual employee who can take the valuable experience they've accrued with a blue chip pharmaceutical giant and use it elsewhere. It's the company that haemorrhages the experience...

The problem is the working of the present system, the constant merry-go-round of boom and bust. And large companies will do anything to shed responsibility where due, but where they owe it.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Dauphin
They are usually subject to long-term contracts that state the conditions under which the employee can be sacked. For example, under my previous training contract I could have been sacked at any point should I fail an exam, even if I was 30 months into my employment.

Also, if I unilaterally left the firm it was possible for the firm to have the professional institute bar me from joining another firm to complete my studies and qualify.

That's bleeding harsh - it also sounds like those stipulations run contrary to statutory law and I am surprised they would hold water.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Oerdin


As stated earlier students are not part of the count. These are numbers of people who are out of school and actively looking for jobs.

exactly so we had 30% youth unemployment in Australia but that's basically 30% of the 10% of kids looking for a job. the other 90% are still in school. Its a meaningless number in a developed economy.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
Riots in France!

PRAISE ALLAH