French Protest New Labor Law

It seems that the unions and students are doing all they can to make the government remove a new employment law that 'allows employers to dismiss people under 26 at any time during a 2-year trial period'. Now, I don't know how much paperwork and hassle an employer had to go through before, but this doesn't sound too bad. If you're a good worker, the boss won't fire you.

Nonetheless, spoiled students are taking to the streets to protest the fact that they could be fired, and are demanding the law be repealed before talking about it. Does anyone think these students are pursuing justice, or just their own selfish ends? After all, this will certainly help France's dismal unemployment rate among the young.

Link

A telling quote:

Quote:

---

But the law allows employers to dismiss people under 26 at any time during a 2-year trial period and that would destroy job security, critics say.

"I would say 'no' (to a job offered under the law) because I would have no security for two years," Jerome Desprol, 24, told Reuters.

---

Heaven forbid you'd need to work hard to make sure you didn't lose you job ad didn't have the gov't telling your boss they couldn't fire you!

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Heaven forbid you'd need to work hard to make sure you didn't lose you job ad didn't have the gov't telling your boss they couldn't fire you!

---

i'm sure that before this law was in place, people under 26 were being fired for the usual circumstances.

methinks they (students/people under 26) just want a longer commitment from businesses to provide career opportunities. the 2-year revolving door doesn't seem to accomodate that.

with relaxed labor laws there will be more dynamism in the job market, companies can be more flexible in wages and awarding merits. eventually the french will no longer be afraid of not having the same job for 20 years and know that if they get laid off they can get another job in a year or less if they have the right skills and ambition. they could even have the opportunity to actually leave their job and apply for another one if there is a salary and intellectual incentive.

so i see both sides of the issue, and don't fault french students for their point of view (keep in mind that even french high school students are unionized and you'll better understand the mentality of it all)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

It seems that the unions and students are doing all they can to make the government remove a new employment law that 'allows employers to dismiss people under 26 at any time during a 2-year trial period'. Now, I don't know how much paperwork and hassle an employer had to go through before, but this doesn't sound too bad. If you're a good worker, the boss won't fire you.

Nonetheless, spoiled students are taking to the streets to protest the fact that they could be fired, and are demanding the law be repealed before talking about it. Does anyone think these students are pursuing justice, or just their own selfish ends? After all, this will certainly help France's dismal unemployment rate among the young.

Link

A telling quote:


Heaven forbid you'd need to work hard to make sure you didn't lose you job ad didn't have the gov't telling your boss they couldn't fire you!

Crazed Rabbit

---

Bout time someone does something to burst those spoiled kids bubbles. Only guessing here but since some kind of law was required to allow people to be fired before 2 years, that they were somehow protected from being fired from being hired on. Seriously they all need to come down to Texas were we have the right to work act, you can be fired for whatever reason, whenever. Good law, helps employers get rid of the idiots and spoiled drunken college students.

Last I heard in some parts the protests were getting close to being riots, guess burning some car's will truly get their point across as to why they need job security, lawsuit money.... Seriously though French students protesting their shields to reality, nothing new here. Welcome to the world, its a hard place.

These are not spoiled students demanding socialistic protection. They are demanding basic protections.

In 2004 business could dismiss employees for needed reasons. For economic reasons (layoffs) the company must try to find a way to save the jobs (job sharing, redeploying employees, etc). If they prove that they have tried to save jobs but economic realities prevent that then they are allowed to lay workers off.
For personal misconduct workers were guaranteed a chance to explain themselves, as well a period before they would be forced to leave. Companies often gave dismissed employees a warning before dismissing them.
French Labor Laws at Invest in France

The law is being protested because
"It gives the employer the right to terminate the new hire's employment within two years without having to give any reason."

which allows employers to end job contracts for under-26s at any time during a two-year trial period without having to offer an explanation or give prior warning.

The law gives employers the ability to fire a worker for no reason, and with no warning.

Ok it appears I need to revise my previous statement. About an hour ago the protest became violent. Bravo french students you don't get your way so you throw a fit, very mature. Their way way to spoiled, thinking a job is forever and secure from when your hired.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JimBob
The law gives employers the ability to fire a worker for no reason, and with no warning.

---

If they act like this in work they don't deserve warning, they dont deserve a reason. Seriously burning car's to get your point across, only in france. More riots in Paris, I hope those students think it was worth it. Wonder if those politicians will blame rap this time.

Well it's been four months already since we last had a good riot! It's been a long winter, too cold to take to the streets and protest something.

Villepin can shove his CPE (new employment law) up his you-know-where. If he wants less youth unemployment, let him make a law that relaxes employment rights for over-26s. They are the problem. Holding on to jobs for thirthy years without actually doing anything for the last 25 years. Oh, the number of times some lazy old guy, who has lost all interest in his job since 1979, made me wait for three weeks for a bloody stamp, when any ambitious 22 year old could have done it in five minutes. :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Ok it appears I need to revise my previous statement. About an hour ago the protest became violent. Bravo french students you don't get your way so you throw a fit, very mature.

---

The riots are not the work of students. The 'casseurs', the rioters are a peculiar assortment of extreme right-wingers, extreme left-wingers, the usual international anarchists/ anti-globalist crowd, and hooligans.

They really need to get out of the ossified Gallie mentality.

that businesses need to go through so much paperwork before sacking one person in the old system may have meant it's easier to leave people where they are than the hastle to make sure that everything has been done to protect the jobs. So, employment before efficiency then.

Companies have no desire to sack productive people if they need them. Training someone else isn't easy, and if one person already knows what they are doing it makes sense to keep them doing it.

So the students want jobs for life and of course 100% employment. Many would call this unreasonable, but the French have managed to persuade others to pay for their inefficient farmers, so why not the rest of their economy?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Villepin can shove his CPE (new employment law) up his you-know-where. If he wants less youth unemployment, let him make a law that relaxes employment rights for over-26s. They are the problem. Holding on to jobs for thirthy years without actually doing anything for the last 25 years. Oh, the number of times some lazy old guy, who has lost all interest in his job since 1979, made me wait for three weeks for a bloody stamp, when any ambitious 22 year old could have done it in five minutes. :furious3:

---

That's exactly my position. I don't see why someone over 26 should be difficult to fire if they do their job badly but someone under 26 should be able to be fired easily.

It is not wrong for people to want to have some form of security in their jobs. Americans might think it is fine for people to work on wages which are so disgustingly low people need to work 18 hours a day to make ends meat and have people fired not because they are rubbish in their jobs, but simply because big business wants even bigger profits, but I thought in Europe we did things differently. As a result of doing things differently we have a much fairer society and France should be proud of the way they do things. Being 'competitive' internationally is not the only measure of a country, you do not have to be a world leader economically to offer a good life for your citizens, just look at the scandinavian countries. A measure of a country is how you treat those most vulnerable in your society and how fair society is to all, not how much money the top earners are making.

People - especially those starting in their careers: 20 - 26 year olds - should have job security if they have done nothing wrong. When a business takes someone on they have to honour the contract they give to the person they employ, if they are not sure they can manage to have an extra worker there is a simple answer, don't employ one! People talk about giving flexibility and being fair on business but what about worker flexibility and fairness, government and society should not pander to business but should look after workers, without workers after all, business can't make their disgustingly huge profits.

If the law goes through French society looses, if you want an American system you will inevitably have to go the whole way, one law makes little difference. The reliance on simply economic outlooks on society leads to an unfair and disproportional society, which is to the detriment of everyone.

i agree with JAG well mostly. While I beilive you shouldnt be coddled. Texas right to work law is the only low point of Texas. While firing for no reason dosent happen often it does happen and usually its becuase an older manger or CEO thinks the young a young up and comer will unseed him. One of the reasons my dad likes were he is in his company is becuase he makes the CEOs money so they wouldnt want to fire him. Upper mangement in companies is a blood sport.

I dont understand why young people should have different working conditions,then anybody else.The conditions should be the same no matter what is the age of the worker.If they are discriminated becouse their age,i think they have every reason to protest.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAG

It is not wrong for people to want to have some form of security in their jobs. Americans might think it is fine for people to work on wages which are so disgustingly low people need to work 18 hours a day to make ends meat and have people fired not because they are rubbish in their jobs, but simply because big business wants even bigger profits, but I thought in Europe we did things differently. As a result of doing things differently we have a much fairer society and France should be proud of the way they do things. Being 'competitive' internationally is not the only measure of a country, you do not have to be a world leader economically to offer a good life for your citizens, just look at the scandinavian countries. A measure of a country is how you treat those most vulnerable in your society and how fair society is to all, not how much money the top earners are making.

People - especially those starting in their careers: 20 - 26 year olds - should have job security if they have done nothing wrong. When a business takes someone on they have to honour the contract they give to the person they employ, if they are not sure they can manage to have an extra worker there is a simple answer, don't employ one! People talk about giving flexibility and being fair on business but what about worker flexibility and fairness, government and society should not pander to business but should look after workers, without workers after all, business can't make their disgustingly huge profits.

If the law goes through French society looses, if you want an American system you will inevitably have to go the whole way, one law makes little difference. The reliance on simply economic outlooks on society leads to an unfair and disproportional society, which is to the detriment of everyone.

---

There's no reason to fear losing job security, if anything it will help. As for the age limitations, bad idea they should do it for everyone or no one discrimination! Job security is doing your job well, there's absolutely no reason why an employer would get rid of a good employee. Again if you are horrid at your job you should fear this law. There's no reason this wont help french society, employers will hire more becuase they know if times get rough they can let someone go. Sticking a broke employer with employee's because of beauracracy is a bad idea, it will only hurt your economy and the # of jobs. There's something good about the French system? Last I checked there was around 50% unemployment in some area's, wonderful systems works well. Last I checked the U.S.A. had a 5% unemployment system, boooo evil capitalims is destroying us....:shame: :no:

Quote:

---

When a business takes someone on they have to honour the contract they give to the person they employ, if they are not sure they can manage to have an extra worker there is a simple answer, don't employ one!

---

Congrats, you've outlined the problem; if a employer is making a big risk whenever they hire an employee, they will hire less people. And like it our not, working drives the world, as we can't all live off the government dole. So hiring more people makes the country better off. Of course, all employees should be easier to fire (they should have reason, even if its just that the employee is a poor worker).

And JAG, if France society is so great, why did they have all those riots 4 months ago?

Quote:

---

Oh, the number of times some lazy old guy, who has lost all interest in his job since 1979, made me wait for three weeks for a bloody stamp, when any ambitious 22 year old could have done it in five minutes.

---

Government worker or private sector?

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

This law will be good for the french. They've sent themselves to the bottom of the heap in Europe by going overboard on the socialism.

---

Oh ffs.
Stop banging on the socialist pls.
Try to understand that the types of government are very different from country to country.
Here the last couple of years the socialist where always in government and even though they made mistakes I believe that the combination Liberal/socialism we have here is most probably the best way to govern our country.
Besides don’t forget that socialism isn’t communism.
And Socialism here is prob very different then yours.

This got nothing to do with the topic but I had to get it off my chest.

With good talking socialism I totally forgot to give my opinion.

Although this law could (I’m saying could) make production rise with probably a very small percentage.
I fail to understand how this solves the youth work problem.
Besides this will lead to enormous abuse.
Firing for no reason at all does happen and more then you think.
Just annoyed by the young boy’s face could be a reason for that person to loose his job.
I’m completely against this law and like JAG said I feel it isn’t a very proud day to be a European.

I like how the defenders of the law all assume that firing onlyEVER happens when a person is doing a poor job. Get a grip. Fire people on thier 700th day on ther job, and secure a replacement who will be paid entry level wages. Fire someone for telling on the boss for screwing a cashier. Fire someone for your own career safety. That's what will happen.

A 2 year window is absolutely ridiculous, most companies in the US do a 90 day trial period, which makes perfect sense. After that, the rules depends on the company. Some use 3 strikes your out, and some use "at will employment" which means they can fire you anytime or you can leave anytime without notice and it not give you a bad reference -- and this is on the employment contract which you sign voluntarily -- but its not a LAW

Right to work is an entirely different issue that is about making a company NOT require you to join a union upon hiring, and instead making the union optional, it has nothing to do with this

I suspect this 2 year window will also be used to deny full benefits package. 26 year olds arent children, this is wrong.

The fact that people are rioting does not mean those people represent the millions of under 26s who live there. Personally, I don't know squat about youth culture in France, but this law seems to be a serious case of inequality, it will keep people for suing for wrongful termination.

I don't understand why there has to be a law with this ridiculous time frame and why companies can't just simply make their own probationary periods and/or at-will-work conditions. It sounds like companies want to have their cake and eat it too, they dont want to lose potentially good talent by having an unpopular probationary period, so they brownose the government to make it a law so everyone does it.

That would never wash here. Of course, I could also say the holocaust didn't happen and not be charged with a crime.

and while I'm at it, this is exactly the type of drivel that Unions here would go for, its odd that its opponents include unionists and that people assume all its opponenets ar uniuonists

I mean, what could be better for a unionist than gauranteed job protection and seniority protection against people who do a better job?

I'd also be curious to see the voter demographics of France, and how the young people there and the parents of young people would actually let their elected officials get away with this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cubeth

I think my statement was very relevant and on-point. It's socialist laws that have caused much of France's problems recently.

---

yup. But this law is a step in the good direction, if it works for denmark it works for france.

Am I missing sonmething? Prior to this was there some sort of law in effect in France that PREVENTED people from being fired because they sucked?

I simply don't understand how you pick an large segment of the workforce based on age, tell them that for the next two years on their job that doing a good job and the company enjoying financial success DOES NOT gaurantee employment, and expect a positive rise in employment and production.....

If anything, it will increase turnover -- both due to firings and due to people quitting for lack of loyalty (*hey, screw me screw you back*)-- , which may be good for businesses but its not good for the workers. (its very bad for business if the job requires more than a week of training)

This also reeks of subtley trying to force people into longterm employment somewhere becasuse they know if they start over they gotta do the 2 year probation all over again

If anything, lower ther age limit to 19 or something. 26....good grief, there are doctors and managers and police at that age

Well done Major Dump , you have gone through just about all the reasons why this law sucks bigtime .:2thumbsup:

Last I checked there was around 50% unemployment in some area's, wonderful systems works well. Last I checked the U.S.A. had a 5% unemployment system, boooo evil capitalims is destroying us....
Big Tex would you like to check which areas of the US have unemployment at the same levels as those areas of France ? :book:
There was one patrticular district in the news fairly recrently that had these same high levels of unemployment , but its been comprehensively fixed now as no one lives there . Its amazing how an evacuation can completely solve a districts unemployment problem .:laugh4:
So does that mean that your wonderful system sucks too ?

[QUOTE=BigTex]There's no reason to fear losing job security, if anything it will help. As for the age limitations, bad idea they should do it for everyone or no one discrimination! Job security is doing your job well, there's absolutely no reason why an employer would get rid of a good employee. Again if you are horrid at your job you should fear this law. QUOTE]


You, my friend, are an idealist. Doing your job well means very little in the large scale aspect of business vs cutting people for lower wage workers, vs cutting people because they are rabble rousers, vs cutting people because of who they associate with, vs cutting people for being "whistleblowers", vs cutting people so you can hire the blonde with big tits. All these things happen, and the last thing anyone needs is a law to empower practises that could be viewed as unethical or unsavory (firing people so you can hire cheaper help isnt necessarily unethical, depending on your view of business, hell even the military does it,) but let people be people, let them govern themselves, let them run their own businesses and answer to the public and the law and the bad press --- just don't make a law protecting them.

I guess social experiments are okay as long as its in favor of the almighty business and the almighty dollar.

And on a side note, what are typical benefits packages in France regarding insurance, stock options and 401ks etc??? I wonder what entities are hiding in the wings, just waiting to save money since less people will obviously be garnishing job perks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Last I checked the U.S.A. had a 5% unemployment system

---

Check again. The U.S. only counts those people on official unemployment benefit, i.e. for 6 months only - after that,you disappear from their statistics. If you count the real numbers of unemployed Americans, the figure is something like 16 or 18 million, equalling 10% or 12 % of the work force. As Tribesman pointed out, in some areas of the U.S. unemployment is 60% or higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Am I missing sonmething? Prior to this was there some sort of law in effect in France that PREVENTED people from being fired because they sucked?

I simply don't understand how you pick an large segment of the workforce based on age, tell them that for the next two years on their job that doing a good job and the company enjoying financial success DOES NOT gaurantee employment, and expect a positive rise in employment and production.....

If anything, it will increase turnover -- both due to firings and due to people quitting for lack of loyalty (*hey, screw me screw you back*)-- , which may be good for businesses but its not good for the workers. (its very bad for business if the job requires more than a week of training)

This also reeks of subtley trying to force people into longterm employment somewhere becasuse they know if they start over they gotta do the 2 year probation all over again

If anything, lower ther age limit to 19 or something. 26....good grief, there are doctors and managers and police at that age

---

It are still the compagnies that are providing the jobs. This law allows for more flexibility, why hire someone if you can't get rid of him in case he sucks? We euros aren't exactly competing lately as a market thanks to our great ways

Thanks to more than 100 years of union history and awareness, the liberal (euro-sense) french government cant just pass a law like that to please the companies - I hope this will have serious consequences

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Thanks to more than 100 years of union history and awareness, the liberal (euro-sense) french government cant just pass a law like that to please the companies - I hope this will have serious consequences

---

This law works great in your country Denmark. If we want to keep playing we have no choice, we are allready outproduced, and very soon we will be outclassed. Europe will have to change, if we like it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

This law allows for more flexibility, why hire someone if you can't get rid of him in case he sucks?

---

Sucking is already legal ground for dismissal under any European labour law, so your point is moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

We euros aren't exactly competing lately as a market thanks to our great ways

---

We are doing just fine. Eighty percent of European trade is within the EU anyway. And Europe's social climate gives it a huge competitive advantage over others. High levels of education, low levels of labour unrest, excelent infrastructure - what more do you want? Unless you want to mass-produce cheap towels or tin ducks that go 'Quack!' if you crank them up with a little key - in which case you might be better off building your factory in China or Malawi. In the long run, the Chinese wil adapt to our ways. Taiwan and the other small dragons already have. Taiwan is now closing its borders for cheap mainland Chinese textiles... :laugh4:

For once I agree with the French protesting. How many young people will be fired after 1 year and 364 days? Lots and lots. It's completely discriminating and will just cause even more of the able young French people to leave the country.

Sucking is already legal ground for dismissal under any European labour law, so your point is moot.


Ya, you can get rid of someone. But you have to pay a full year anyway. May be woot to you but for a business it's quite unreasonable when Asia is so close. Now the weight of economic grow will shred china to pieces, but we shouldn't be very arrogant when what do best is better done somewhere else.

And we aren't doing fine, we are barely catching up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It are still the compagnies that are providing the jobs. This law allows for more flexibility, why hire someone if you can't get rid of him in case he sucks? We euros aren't exactly competing lately as a market thanks to our great ways

---

So maybe the companies can grow some balls and fire people for sucking, instead of having the government pass a law that protects them for bad firings.

Whats the size relation of denmark to France? And how many companies in europe outsource to cheaper nations? Is lack competing in the world market due to local employees that suck, or due to the fact that you arent paying people in Guam 50 cents an hour to make your goods?


This has got to be the stupidest labor law I've ever heard of.

Free market works in business and competition the same way it works in labor relations in regards to prices and output. This is what will happen with a law like this:

First, the output of people OVER 26 will drop thanks to their newfound job security and the scapegoat under 26s who will always be the first to get canned in hard times or otherwise

Second, the output of under 26s is going to go down because now the status quo will be lowered from "give 110% at work" to the lowest common denominator of "whats the least amount of work I can do and not get fired". Under 26s who used to be superstars are going to see this law for what its worth and rather than outpacing their under 26 peers, they will simply try to meet status quo, because whats the point of going above and beyond in you will just get canned anyway?

It's sickening at what people justify for the sake of business and competitng in the world market and having a lower bottom line, its absolutely shocking at what people will do to their neighbors and countryfolk to make a buck. It's humans at its worst.

Part of running a business is accpeting that you will have asshats working for you, and making policies that help weed them out in the hiring process and terminating them when they fail to perform. If a business can't do this for themselves then they don't deserve to be in business.