French labour laws trigger immense protests

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
But we're still waiting for a million pro CPE demonstrators. Where are they?

They all have jobs or are attempting to study so they can get a job in the future. It seems that only the commies and other pinkos with nothing better to do bother protesting. Maybe they're afraid that if there is reform they'll actually have to get a job and get off of welfare.

[/FFZ]

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Oerdin


They all have jobs or are attempting to study so they can get a job in the future. It seems that only the commies and other pinkos with nothing better to do bother protesting. Maybe they're afraid that if there is reform they'll actually have to get a job and get off of welfare.

[/FFZ]

Interesting logic you're applying there...some people are just more politicised that other, and thus more motivated to act...

[Shi Huangdi]

Even if it is the case that companies often make irrational personnel moves, that doesn't mean they are going to look to do so. Firing a new employee after spending a ton of money training him might be done for some reason, intelligent or not, but I can't believe firms want to do that arbitrarily.

But again- even if companies never made rational personnel decisions, and they never considered the cost of firing a new employee immediatly after training, my point still stands. The prospect of not being able to fire a employee(with a good reason or not) if he is unwanted, or the prospect of having to pay significant costs via bureaucratic hurdles or the threat of legal action to fire an unwanted employee, represents a risk and a cost for an employer. The greater costs you give to something, hiring in this case, the less you'll see it.

You can see this in world statistics where among developed economies, the countries with the most flexibile labor markets usually have the lowest unemployment rate.

Personally, I think the job of re-integration should be the state's more than the company's.

I think you have the right idea, it is better for the burden of supporting workers above what they would already make at market level to fall on the society as a whole, so that the costs of supporting that worker are distributed throughout and you can be sure to never create any incentives against hiring new workers.

However, it is false to say that French companies can't layoff employees when things go wrong.

If there weren't significant costs to firing employees in France, then why is there all this controversy, if all this would do is formalize the current situation for workers?

If all this is doing is making it clear that France does not mandate job stability, then that would be a good thing, if it did not create significant change but advertised to international firms considering employing Frenchmen that France did have flexible labor laws.

That's the idea defended by the "social right-wingers" (supposedly Villepin's wing), and the socialist party. However, as a commie, I think the evolutions we're witnessing here are a logical -hack, obvious - consequence of globalized capitalism. And that if we don't enter a different paradigm, we're bound to see our working conditions erode further and further.

Sure, but in the mean time, international competition is there whether you like it or not. The European economy is very integrated. If you have a rigid labor market, and the UK has a loose labor market, you are creating a big incentive then for firms to locate inside of the UK instead of in France.

[Shi Huangdi]

Also, laws that make it tougher to fire people are going to necessarily have an out of proportion effect on the lowest in a society. Regarding students who are the most academically gifted, or who are from a wealthy family and thus may have connections inside companies, those students are the most likely to find a job in spite of a labor market with high unemployment. And those fortunate students who do a find a job then benefit from the government mandated job stability.

Workers who have little skills, connections, and who may be disliked by racists within a country, are the ones likely to suffer most in an economy with high unemployment. If native born Frenchmen have difficulty finding a job, what chance does an Arabic immigrant who is not too good at speaking French have?

It does seem to mistake sense that the protestors are students and not muslims in ghettos as was the case last time.

Now, if the state shouldered the costs of reintegrating workers rather then companies, as Spiffor suggested, we would not risk using a policy that would have an unfair impact on the disenfranchised.


Also, LoA, I don't find it really useful to talk about technical terms or formal economic models when talking to people who lack formal training in economics.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

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

is it more important to have an 'equitable' tax system thats higher, on average, or an 'equitable' tax system, that has a lower rate, on average? growth gives you the second.

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.

but without those profits, and that mass job creation, there wouldnt be any rights to fight over, and no corporate profits to be given to the workers.

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.

people only 'innovate' what they can make money on.

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.

and lets face it, soaring profits allow you to constantly add increasing wages, etc to the workers. no profits = no more rights for workers. its that simple. and soaring profits exists only when there is growth.

Also, LoA, I don't find it really useful to talk about technical terms or formal economic models when talking to people who lack formal training in economics.

the problem is that this happens:

you say X
I say no, its Y
you disagree
then I show what my reasoning is based on (the economic model)

I prefer to cut out the middle parts

[DanS]

Apparently, the protests have turned violent.

That's just wrong.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/23/news/france.php

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Oerdin


They all have jobs or are attempting to study so they can get a job in the future. It seems that only the commies and other pinkos with nothing better to do bother protesting. Maybe they're afraid that if there is reform they'll actually have to get a job and get off of welfare.

[/FFZ]

Not really... as stated, most universities are blocked right now. Pro-CPE students can demonstrate... well if there are enough.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

if by most, you mean 15 out of about 80, then I would agree with you (down from 21 yesterday)

thats from le Monde.

[DanS]

The best of French youth...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Villepin knows he will not get reelected - no sitting PM has gotten reelected after provoking such long lasting strikes and protests, even after pulling back. Villepin knows this, since he wrote about it in his book. Since he has nothing to lose, I would think that he isn't going to give in.

[Arrian]

I have one comment:

I live in Connecticut. AFAIK, CT is a "work at will" state, which many people appear to be terrified of.

Yet I know for a fact that laying off people is difficult, and firing somebody... wow, that's really hard. My wife is a manager. Her department just went through a round of layoffs. Even here in teh evil capitalistic US of A, laying off somebody is not a simple undertaking.

Now, I happen to think the layoffs that have been happening are stupid... the top execs who make their millions determined long ago that the post-merger size of the IT department would be X, saving them Y dollars. Now they must get to X, regardless of any other considerations. And outsourcing, of course, is the cure to all ills. Except it's not, but shush you, it must be.

There is stupidity everywhere, in both corporations and government (both are depressingly myopic).

I think that (here in the US) high-level management needs to be far more accountable for the well-being of the company. This "I think I'll give myself a huge bonus in the same year I've laid off 10,000 workers" **** is outta control.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
I think that (here in the US) high-level management needs to be far more accountable for the well-being of the company.

But it's the companies that have the high-level managers that make the necessary cuts that survive and take over the other companies.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
then france can finally start to grow, and once again become europe's motor (le moteur d'europe.) instead of its sick man.

Are you talking about like 200 years ago or what?

[RGBVideo]

Once again, Shi Huangdi is the calm and rational voice of reason in the middle of empty partisan rhetoric

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


But it's the companies that have the high-level managers that make the necessary cuts that survive and take over the other companies.

There is a balance to be found. I don't oppose the cuts in principle (sometimes such cuts are really necessary). I oppose the cuts w/o ANY accountability on senior management. The CEO doesn't take a pay cut. If he gets let go, he gets the proverbial golden parachute. That's the part that pisses me off.

Layoffs are sometimes necessary. I just wish the shareholders held the guys who managed the company into that position more accountable. But that would require... well, a lot of things, probably. An active board of directors w/integrity for one thing. More employee share ownership for another. Unions too... except that it is unclear to me that a powerful union actually results in what I'm aiming at (see, for example, GM*). It's complicated and stuff

-Arrian

* - I'm not blaming GM's woes on the union(s). They had a hand in it, but it's mostly on management. All I'm saying is that there is more to what I'm after than just a powerful union.