France Retreats! French Labor Law thread pt deux...

[Fake Boris]

The funny part is that a lot of people are still pissed at the new proposition... Bordeaux III reconducted the strike today.

[Imran Siddiqui]

JohnT! I'm disappointed! Everyone know it is "France Surrenders!"

[JohnT]

Actually, "France Retreats" was taken off a CNN news-tape crawl.

[Imran Siddiqui]

CNN

They must be wine and cheese eating surrender monkies too!

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
CNN
They must be wine and cheese eating surrender monkies too!

Yep. What's your point?

[GePap]

It was a stupid law to begin with- the second they decided to aim it only at the young they gave the oposition the perfect excuse, the Ozzy excuse, discrimination.

[LDiCesare]

Err, no. Not only in case of an economically-motivated layoff. The CPE/CNE's trial period allows the employer to fire an employee without hving to give any reason.

Err yes.
Read the Conseil Constitutionel:

en cas de licenciement pour motif disciplinaire, l'employeur a l'obligation de mettre en oeuvre la procédure prévue par les articles L. 122-40 à L. 122-44 du code du travail ; qu'il ne pourrait s'y soustraire que par une violation de la loi qu'il appartiendrait au juge de sanctionner ; que l'éventualité d'un détournement de la loi lors de son application n'entache pas celle-ci d'inconstitutionnalité. (§15)

Translated that means: In case of disciplinary firing, the employer must use the procedure of the work code. This means the law doesn't allow you to fire someone without protection: 2 months of warning, convocation to a meeting, written notification of the reasons, well the regular stuff.
This law is stupid and useless because it doesn't bring anything to the employee and nothing to the employer. But it's not the monster law that media and students have made it to be.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Err yes.
Read the Conseil Constitutionel:

Err, no.
Read the conseil constitutionel:

21. Considérant, d'autre part, que la faculté donnée à l'employeur de ne pas expliciter les motifs de la rupture du " contrat première embauche ", au cours des deux premières années de celui-ci, ne méconnaît pas l'exigence résultant du cinquième alinéa du Préambule de la Constitution de 1946 ;

(said preamble says: )

5. Chacun a le devoir de travailler et le droit d'obtenir un emploi. Nul ne peut être lésé, dans son travail ou son emploi, en raison de ses origines, de ses opinions ou de ses croyances.

Basically, only disciplinarian layoffs (faute) would have had to be explicitely motivated, according to the Constitutional Court (because of previously existing laws). All other forms of layoffs wouldn't require the employer to give his reasons. Of course, an employer who doesn't want to be bothered by his employees could have said that the layoff wasn't disciplinarian, but for a vague "something else" he doesn't have to explain.

[Pekka]

France will be a thrid world country once Asia gets it going. And I will be laughing hard as hell.

[LDiCesare]

Basically, only disciplinarian layoffs (faute) would have had to be explicitely motivated, according to the Constitutional Court (because of previously existing laws). All other forms of layoffs wouldn't require the employer to give his reasons.

We agree here, but a "vague something else" would still not do. There's a law that says that you can fire only for disciplinary or economic reasons (paragraph 2 of the article 8 of the law).
Mind you, the employer would still be able to fire someone without saying why, and the fired employee would have to say in the courts that it's been for an illegal reason (the only change being that the reason needn't be written). Thus yes there could be abuse, but it wouldn't be that worse than the current situation: If the reason was licit, the employee would lose in the courts anyway. The bad thing in the law is that, if someone wants to fire an employee for reasons which are not valid, the employee will be more frightened to go to the court and be less likely to appeal and win. Thus the law is only useful for employers who would like to get rid of their remployees for reasons deemed illegal. Therefore the law is useful only for people who intend to break other laws, thus it is stupid and bad. Note that I see other reasons hy this law was bad, but I don't think making the firing of people easier is necessarily bad. Just the way it was done here is utterly crappy.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

5 just says that you cannot be discriminated against by the employer, and that you have an obligation to work, and a right to get a job.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by GePap
It was a stupid law to begin with- the second they decided to aim it only at the young they gave the oposition the perfect excuse, the Ozzy excuse, discrimination.

What's next? That they'll complain pensions are age-discriminatory and everyone should have one?

[Agathon]

I don't think the French are the ones that have to worry, nor any of the other Europeans.

After all, they aren't the lazy fat ****s who are living on a veritable mountain of borrowed foreign money.

[Colon™]

France is just as screwed in the face of the yellow menace as the US is.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Colon™
France is just as screwed in the face of the yellow menace as the US is.

Have I been transported back to 1898?