French labour laws trigger immense protests

[Lawrence of Arabia]

from Le Figaro, friday 17 march 2006

"les antigrévistes ont mis l'accent sur le caractère <> de l'AG de 800 personnes qui a décidé du blocage, au regard des 14 500 étudiants"

"A toulouse comme ailleurs, les AG ne sont effectivement pas toujours représentatives, d'ou les tensions grandissantes"

"Des référendums sur la poursuite des blocages ont par ailleurs été empêchés a plusieurs reprises. A Rennes-II, une cinquantaine d'étudiants d'extrème gauche ont empêché le scrutin. A Tours comme à Dijon, des votes favorables au déblocage de la fac n'ont pas été pris en compte"

[Provost Harrison]

En Anglais?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

"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"


i posted this on page 2

[Fake Boris]

There are going to be abuses everywhere. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of students in a country of 60 million inhabitants.
I could try to dismiss the whole pro-CPE movement by pointing the FN guys who beat a girl in Bordeaux II. Or the demonstrator that was (apparently) beaten to death by the police without reason in Paris.

What you need to understand is that you don't get 1.5 million people on the streets without some kind of significant support. Yes, in Bordeaux, some people unduly disturbed the student vote - and probably elsewhere. But we're still waiting for a million pro CPE demonstrators. Where are they? Honestly, it sounds like they're all stuck in the Figaro, *****ing endlessly about the commie students.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

uh huh, 1.5 million according to the protestors, half a million according to police. and today, 40 000.

it seems like villepin might just break the students/unions/ whoever else feels like they havnt had an extended vacation since the last strike three weeks ago. that would be very rare, but in the end, the right thing.

and then they need to move towards making it easier to fire employees, and railroad that through. and then railroad through cuts in unemployment benefits and length. and railroad that through if neccessary. then france can finally start to grow, and once again become europe's motor (le moteur d'europe.) instead of its sick man.

btw, i dont care about the violence. theres always those who take advantage. im talking about the fact that they are preventing classes from taking place, and the fact that they are against this proposal in the first place.

[Provost Harrison]

What's the point in growth if none of it benefits the populace but just a wealthy few. Let's face it, this is the reality of the situation, it allows a few a carte blanche to exploit the masses.

[C0ckney]

that is such a load of leftie crap.

[Provost Harrison]

I love your well balanced, thought our reply c0ckney...

[C0ckney]

i'm a great believer in calling a spade a spade.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

What's the point in growth if none of it benefits the populace but just a wealthy few. Let's face it, this is the reality of the situation, it allows a few a carte blanche to exploit the masses.

oh i dont know, here are a few reasons off the top of my head

1 - social security can be improved since there is more taxes being collected, and less unemployment benefits being paid out.

2- Kuznets curve shows us that in the long run, there is a trend of decreasing inequality due to economic growth.

3 - Kuznets curve shows us that in the long run, a richer country can devote more resources to being ecologically friendly

4 - when a country is in debt, growth allows it to pay it off

5 - in a global economy, with capital and labor being very mobile, a stagnating country will quickly see its best and brightest move off to places where they have a higher quality of life and better wages.

---

6 - if growth only benefited the rich, how can you explain the purchasing power gap between america's 10% poorest citizens of today with america's 10% poorest citizens of 1906? obviously, it benefits everyone, in the long run.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


oh i dont know, here are a few reasons off the top of my head

1 - social security can be improved since there is more taxes being collected, and less unemployment benefits being paid out.

Depends on how you apply taxation for the first part. But what is the point in having all this extra work if it is all casual and cannot afford most employees a decent standard of living or any long-term security. Let's be honest, that is what people need to have a decent standard of living.

2- Kuznets curve shows us that in the long run, there is a trend of decreasing inequality due to economic growth.

3 - Kuznets curve shows us that in the long run, a richer country can devote more resources to being ecologically friendly

4 - when a country is in debt, growth allows it to pay it off

5 - in a global economy, with capital and labor being very mobile, a stagnating country will quickly see its best and brightest move off to places where they have a higher quality of life and better wages.

Let's stop the theory, I am not a trained economist. But let's be honest, theory in a humanity only goes so far...the reality of the situation is quite different. Many of these problems are the result of a lack of any kind of solidarity on an international scale - the playing off of one nation against another to get the cheapest price, and ultimately maximising profit at the lowest possible expense. Do you think this is a sound basis for a global society to be run? I don't.

And let's face it, amount of money is not the only thing, there has to be security and a decent standard of living within the society. This casualisation just creates a broader gap where on one level a group of society, and this is not just those who have not invested in themselves, but a whole sector of society get trapped out. Where I live now, although wages may have gone up, there are lot of casual labour with no real prospects or development for the people, accommodation costs a small fortune, so at the end of day, people are certainly not better off.

6 - if growth only benefited the rich, how can you explain the purchasing power gap between america's 10% poorest citizens of today with america's 10% poorest citizens of 1906? obviously, it benefits everyone, in the long run.

Because of the increase of rights of the working class, long fought for over the past century and alas, could be beginning to be eroded very quickly. The situation does not come down to that of economics, it either comes down to that of technological advancement giving a better standard of living to all, or the balance of forces within society. More rights and benefits have been extracted over the years...

[Fake Boris]

As PH said... if anything, economic policies were much more pro-capital in the beginning of the 20th century than they are today.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Depends on how you apply taxation for the first part. But what is the point in having all this extra work if it is all casual and cannot afford most employees a decent standard of living or any long-term security. Let's be honest, that is what people need to have a decent standard of living.

but wouldnt you agree that a lower level of taxation at all levels is better than a higher level at all levels, if social security services are at the same qualities in both examples? thats what growth gives you.

[quote] the playing off of one nation against another to get the cheapest price, and ultimately maximising profit at the lowest possible expense. Do you think this is a sound basis for a global society to be run? I don't.

lets be honest, there has been trade for the last 6000 years, and globalisation since the 1950s, and this seems to have worked, seeing how much the purchasing power of workers has increased since the 1950s, and how much better off we are now then 6000 years ago ( at all levels of society)

Because of the increase of rights of the working class, long fought for over the past century and alas, could be beginning to be eroded very quickly. The situation does not come down to that of economics, it either comes down to that of technological advancement giving a better standard of living to all, or the balance of forces within society. More rights and benefits have been extracted over the years...

it doesnt matter what the REASON is, the fact is that in the last 100 years, growth has meant that workers are immesurably better off now then than, which I guess you dont contest.

if there is no growth, then there is no extra benefits to be given to workers, no reason to go on strike since no profits are being made, no ability to reduce workweeks, since productivity isnt increasing. you think technological advancement isn't economics? its profits that drive technological advancement. and since technological advancement increases productivity, then having one necessairly means that there is growth which isn't due to 'workers rights'

'workers rights' doesnt make anyone better off if there is nothing more to be given to them. in a society that is not growing, the workers will get nothing more than what they have.

[Dinner]

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 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.

My own employer fired 6 people who were charging over head last January only to find out they needed all six of them for a huge project we're now working on. The company had some sort term cash flow problems (meaning they made a bunch of commitments which required cash NOW but for which the payout was some months away) so they canned some people. Two or three weeks later a bunch of projects ended up being late because they'd fired 3 out of 4 of our publishing & print staff and the 1 guy left couldn't keep up with the work load by himself, the network was on the fritz causing people to not be able to access needed data because they'd fired the IT guy, and it was hard to find admin help since they'd fired a few secretaries.

That was entirely avoidable if they'd planned cash flow and costs better so this was entirely a problem of the management's own making.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
but wouldnt you agree that a lower level of taxation at all levels is better than a higher level at all levels, if social security services are at the same qualities in both examples? thats what growth gives you.

That's a very one-dimensional argument. In reality there should be an equitable progressive taxation system.

It doesnt matter what the REASON is, the fact is that in the last 100 years, growth has meant that workers are immesurably better off now then than, which I guess you dont contest.

The reason is very important - without that struggle those rights would never have been won...remember emancipation of slaves, women's rights, 8 hour working day (if that still exists now), minimum wage, all long fought for, not economically reasoned for. It's all about the balance of forces and solidarity and people collectively fighting for what they need.

If there is no growth, then there is no extra benefits to be given to workers, no reason to go on strike since no profits are being made, no ability to reduce workweeks, since productivity isnt increasing. you think technological advancement isn't economics? its profits that drive technological advancement. and since technological advancement increases productivity, then having one necessairly means that there is growth which isn't due to 'workers rights'

No, it's innovation that drives technological advancement...profits just provide the funds. There are other ways to provide funds, you know - let's face it, profit has become the holy grail of modern society at the expense of all else.

'workers rights' doesnt make anyone better off if there is nothing more to be given to them. in a society that is not growing, the workers will get nothing more than what they have.

I bet that was said 100 years ago. The fact is, there is so much that still needs to be fought for, both in the west and around the world. And let's face it, those who profit the most off the backs of others aren't going to surrender those rights willingly, or their soaring profits constantly adding to the increasing wealth of the richest.