France on Strike

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Well this is interesting - I've never heard of a large percentage of the entire workforce of an entire country going on strike. It appears that the strike focuses on the new youth labor law. Specifically, a provision that states:

The new youth employment law would let companies dismiss workers under 26 without cause during their first two years on the job

I'm no lawyer, but that seems clearly and blantantly illegal. Is that not the very definition of age discrimination (granted age discrimination usually affects older workers, but just because this affects young people doesn't mean it isn't discriminatory). You can read the whole article here.

[Rallymama]

There's a bit more to the law than that, from what I've heard. As I understand it, France already has a period of "training" employment for youths, and this law just expands that period.

[T2Bruno]

How is that illegal? Virtually EVERY employee in the US is an 'at will' employee -- meaning you can be dismissed for any reason, or no reason, and at any time (you can also quit at any time).

That France offers protection for older workers is quite remarkable. It would be nice to have that kind of protection. The protection is a benefit -- having to wait to receive a benefit (a very common occurance) is not a violation of a person's rights. People need to differentiate between a benefit and a right (similar to the difference between a priviledge and a right which so many Americans seem to miss).

I think working for the government may have spoiled you....

[The Magpie]

having to wait to receive a benefit (a very common occurance) is not a violation of a person's rights.

That's not Aldeth's point, T2. The illegality comes from applying the law to everyone under the age of 26, as a special case. It's blatant discrimination. I don't think anyone has a problem with the notion of some kind of probationary period in a job, but the length of time and the way it's so specifically targetted against a section of the workforce based solely upon age seems really rather absurd. Which it is, as the whole thing's really been caused by France's utter unwillingness to take an economic reality check. Until now, they've just siphoned off cash from the EU money-go-round to fund all their ailing industries, and now that the new member states have arrived it looks like they can't keep it up any more. Hence, Chirac has had to rush legislation through that gives employers some kind of power, without time to go through consultation or really think about consequences.

It's all astonishingly half-arsed.

[DarkStrider]

Plus it's against EU law to discriminate against any section of the population, but France once again has the opinion that EU law does not apply to them just everyone else.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Virtually EVERY employee in the US is an 'at will' employee -- meaning you can be dismissed for any reason, or no reason, and at any time

T2Bruno - I must respectfully take exception to some of your comments. While the above quote is certainly true, considering that France passed a law specifically singling out people under 26 years of age with under two years work experience (which again, is targeting younger employees) suggests one of two things.

1. If France employees are "at will" just like US employees, then this law is redundant and completely unnecessary. If not, then this is clearly age discrimination.

2. Unless you consider all age discrimination suits to be complete bupkis (or really any discrimination suits at all for that matter), then an employee cannot "be dismissed for any reason, or no reason, and at any time". They may not need an explicit reason to get rid of you, but you cannot be fired based upon a discriminatory action.

I think working for the government may have spoiled you....

Again repectfully, but what is that supposed to mean? It seems like a blatant cheap shot to me. Are you saying that working for the government we have different employment rules than those in private industry follow? Besides, it should be pointed out that while the federal government provides the funds that pay my salary, I work for a private firm that is contracted out by the government. Yes, I have government clearances and security badges, but technically, the federal government is my client, not my employer.

[Istolil]

The Prime Minister of France is on record as saying that this new law will solve the crippling youth unemployment rate that is currently being experienced in France. The idea he says, is that having no pressure to keep a young employee will make employers more likely to hire them.

Now, while this is true, the concern is that it will created a generation of disposable labour. It does discriminate against a major segment of the population and can and will be abused. Companies that offer benefits after 3 months of employment can just fire the person and hire someone new, no reasons need to be given to the labour board or the employee.

I think more than even money, people want job security. Money is great, but if you can't keep your job to secure that money, what's the point? From a tax point of view, I think it will hurt France as well since the less time someone is employed, the less money they collect in taxes.

I also believe that if people under 26 aren't guaranteed any job security because of their age, they'll say screw it and live off pogie till they're 27, further taxing the government in welfare payments and draining more money away from lowered revenue due to no one under 26 working. I mean, why bother trying if the government is going to let employers shoot you down every couple of weeks/months/years?

Forget that you're skilled or fantastic at your job, you're fired because I don't like your shoes. Would you like to have that happen to you one day when you walk into work? Or how about security waiting to escort you and from the building. You walk in, they hand you a box with your belongings and back out you go. No thanks...

[Sir Fink]

John Stewart's comment on this issue, after watching images of a million French youths rioting, smashing and burning everything in their path: "gee, who wouldn't want to hire these kids?"

The irony is that the law was put in place in an attempt to open up more jobs to the young workers of France! Prior to this law -- I assume -- a French company COULDN'T fire someone under the age of 26 for any reason they saw fit. Now they can and the kids riot. What a country.

[Carcaroth]

The UK is supposed to be having it's greatest strike sincce the general strike of 1926. Over 1 million council workers have gone on strike today because the government want to raise their pension age from 60 to 65 (like the rest of us poor sods)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4848584.stm

France's strike is no surprise really, after-all it is (insert any reason you like here,) The reason given on the radio was the fact it is March, and they always strike in March. Last year it was a sailors strike causing disruptions to the channel ferries (and the chunnel somehow) In 2004 it was an airport strike. (OK I admit, that was actually February). The French revolution has a lot to answer for.

[Harbourboy]

France's utter unwillingness to take an economic reality check

Um, like the rest of the Western world then?

they'll say screw it and live off pogie till they're 27

Who or what is pogie?

[Barmy Army]

Bloody French - always moaning about something!

[Istolil]

Who or what is pogie?

Sorry Harbs, pogie is a Canadian/Newfoundlander term for welfare/social assitance payments.

[Blackthorne TA]

Forget that you're skilled or fantastic at your job, you're fired because I don't like your shoes. Would you like to have that happen to you one day when you walk into work?

The thing is, this doesn't happen because these companies, no matter how horrible you think they are, are running a business, and it costs them to fire, interview replacements, rehire and retrain the replacement. So, unless you are such a screw-up that you are costing the company money with your "work", it is in their best interest to keep you on.

[Chandos the Red]

So, unless you are such a screw-up that you are costing the company money with your "work", it is in their best interest to keep you on.

That's only if they intend to replace you. A lot of companines are firing employees to save a few bucks. Wall Street applauds companies for firing people all the time - the more, the better. It's all about the price of the stock, not about the long term health of the company any longer. Too many top execs are paying themsleves with stock prices, and fleeing the scene, like theives, once the buzzards swoop in because of choices that paid off in the short term, but left the company in a bad long term position.

Another famous solution with this crowd is buy out a smaller competitor who is doing well, thereby eliminating the competition and aquiring a new customer base to make up for all the lost customers that they have pissed off with all their downsizing and outsourcing. Great system.

[T2Bruno]

Again repectfully, but what is that supposed to mean? It seems like a blatant cheap shot to me. Are you saying that working for the government we have different employment rules than those in private industry follow?

First , I must apologize for my pathetic attempt at humor, I was not meaning to offend. The federal government does provide excellent protection for most it's employees (management and professional positions are typically not protected). For most positions there must be cause to fire someone -- and the monsterous paper trail to justify such an action. Surely, you are aware of this and have seen it in action (my sister is a postmaster and can tell some good stories along these lines). Industry is not like this -- there are people in protected status who you must have cause to fire, everyone else is fair game. Employment rules are no different, but rules regarding termination are.

Back on topic: I see nothing wrong with establishing the protected status at 26 -- it's 40+ here in the states (and not easy to show discrimination until a person hits 50). I don't see it as discrimination. Being in a protected status is a benefit or a privilege -- one that I think should be delayed to beyond 30 for France (the labor laws in France made establishing a company there financially burdensome). The country must do something to help the companies operating out of France be economically feasible -- it is not feasible for a company to carry a dead-weight employee for an indeterminant amount of time. The age requirement makes this more reasonable as most young people have calmed down and are less of a risk to hire after they are 25 (there's a reason insurance drops at 25).

However, since most posters here are under 26 this action by France will be overwhelmingly trounced on this board.

Forget that you're skilled or fantastic at your job, you're fired because I don't like your shoes. Would you like to have that happen to you one day when you walk into work? Or how about security waiting to escort you and from the building. You walk in, they hand you a box with your belongings and back out you go.

This is a possibility for most of America (I'm sure my uncle could be fired from Nike for wearing the wrong shoes). People get fired all the time for 'not fitting in with the culture of the company.' Is it wrong? I don't know. But a corporation cannot allow one person to bring down the productivity of an entire office. It's not pleasant, but it's not illegal either.

[Istolil]

But the spirit of this law means that if you're under 26 and have done nothig wrong in any way shape or form, they can fire you. This is the problem they have with it, it gives companies way too much abusive power and employees no security whatsoever.

When a company must layoff employees, they usualy get a severance package or some kind of compensation as a thanks for their time given to the company. Companies can now just hire young people, fire them before they hit 27 and are entitled to benefits, pensions etc...to save money and line the pockets of the already well paid execs and managers. Talk about promoting company culture!

[Blackthorne TA]

You're only looking at it from the employee perspective though. Which is understandable since I doubt anyone on these boards runs their own company.

Let's say for the sake of argument large segments of workers under 26 are notoriously unproductive (while those over 26 are not). They go out drinking late the night before, they come in late to work hungover, take long lunches, chat around the water cooler all day etc. If you were an employer, would you want to take a chance on one of these people if you were going to be stuck with them by law as soon as you hired them? Even though there is probably lots of fine wheat amongst all that chaff, why would you take the chance as long as there were plenty to hire in the over 26 crowd?

[Istolil]

That could be resolved with a say 1 year probationary period or even a 3 strikes policy that clearly outlines certain behaviours etc...I'm all for the right for an employer to fire someone lazy, costly and unproductive, but guidelines need to be established in order to ensure fairness and equality for everyone invloved.

[Blackthorne TA]

Well, it sounds to me like it's a two-year probationary period... unless what you mean by probationary is that they must be kept for that long before they can be terminated.

[Iago]

It's no big deal and changes nearly nothgin, this law-change, actually.It's only a begining, hoped for or dreaded. For some, it's the beginning of the end to others, a very small of many needed liberalizations. The stated purpose of the law is lower unemployment of people under 30 and facilate their move into the workforce. (That's Europe, higher education and getting a job happens with 28)

In France, like Germany and Italy, employees are overprotected. Which turns out to be to their disadvantage. Because companies are unlikely to hire people they can only get lay-off of at high costs. This causes a reluctancy which keeps a lot of people unmemployed, because companies avoid unnecessary risk.

And as my professor for comparative law always insisted, one has to know were the problem is and know the whole law-system in theory in practice. Like if one compares one country that has a divorce rate of 50% with one that has a divorce rate of 2%, one has to check the annulation rate... that may very well be 48%.

French Companies avoid the employee-protection simply through only having work-contracts that are only for a time-period, like three months, six month or a year instead of hiring for a not determined time-period, which propably would in the end spell a much longer period of employment.

And to age-protectin and discrimination. To check that one had to take a look at the whole civil law pertaining to the employment-contract. But I guess, in the US, one doesn't get a pension with 40, like some in Italy do?

[Istolil]

Well for me it means it's a trial period where you can be fired for whatever reason. In most jobs I worked in retail as a young lad, 3 months was the standard. This was accepted since it gave employers a good idea of habits, if needed though, it could be extended.

In the case of France, anyone from the age of 16 to 26 can be fired at any time, for no reason or justification, simply because they're young. The PM argues that it's to make employers more comfortable hiring young people (for some of the resons you mentioned for example). What is does though is give them carte balnche not to give someone deserving who is of young age, the rewards they deserve.

Say you start working for this company at 21. The standard agreement is that after one year of work you gain access to supplemental benefits, pension and other perks. The company has to pay for those things so it costs them money. Now, as an employer, why shell out all that money when you can just fire them, hire on someone new for another 11 months and then repeat? Can you see the problem here? It essentially punishes good employees who would be happy to have a long career with a company simply because of their age. Nothing to do with their company loyalty, job skills, qualifications or behaviour. All it is is to save a buck.

[The Great Snook]

I was thinking along the lines of BTA.

Lets say you have a system that requires.

1. A lot of mandatory vacation. That means you may have to have more than one person to do any particular job as you can't guarantee that person will be there when you need them.

2. Very high payroll taxes. With so many people out on unemployment the government must raise money to support these people. Typically it is an employer tax on the current employees. So now #1 is forcing you to higher more people than you really want, but the taxes on the more people you hire make it more expensive.

3. It is very difficult to terminate an employee. So now you are stuck with an employee that is not productive or you don't need. If you do manage to get rid of him your unemployment tax rate will go up even higher and continue to cost you more money.

Not a very positive situation for a small business. Maybe a large company can survive it, but it would be brutal for a start-up/small business.

Now don't get me wrong, The U.S. model of everyone is an employee at will and can be fired at will isn't exactly a paradise. We work extremely hard with long hours for we have to constantly prove our worth to our employers. From an employer standpoint it works great as if you make a mistake on someone you can get a replacement until you get the "team" that you want.

I have often wondered how people used to working under the first set of circumstances would fare in the U.S.

[Fabius Maximus]

Bloody French - always moaning about something!

And I thought we were the most notorious complainers.

There is a similar law en route here in Germany. But all employees will be subject to it, not only the young.

And no one complaines. Yet.

[Liriodelagua]

France history is filled with these kind of demands. They, like no one else I think, take very seriously their working rights. This law is a direct attack to their hard-earned rights. I think that working without knowing if you'll be there tomorrow leads to stress and depression and other illnesses, plain and simple. Also, people should double and triple check theories that say this right doesn't benefit but harm them in the end. These "economists" play very complicated mind games just to serve their employer's interests. And their examples are way far fetched (I can't believe it, when people don't want to see...).
Last thing (I feel this urge to play chess right now): why would you priorize a company (a non living entity) instead of people, many people? Sounds demagogic, but I think companies are running wild and they need more control, not more power.
PS: whenever France comes up as a topic of discussion it's funny to see how north american people react.

[Blackthorne TA]

why would you priorize a company (a non living entity) instead of people, many people?

The main reason is the market is becoming more and more globalized, and as you yourself have noticed, not every country feels the same about these issues. So, anything that makes a company less competitive than its rivals jeopardizes that company and all those many people that work there. If a company cannot be profitable because of all the constraints their country's laws impose that another country's laws do not, guess what? There will not be a company to work for any longer (unless the government subsidizes it of course which happens a lot).