EPTOn March 25 2006 07:38 distant_voice wrote:
I take it you're an idiot. all you post is bullshit.
I take it you're an idiot. all you post is bullshit.
Yeah I am. But I rather be an idiot than a German.
Social movements in France - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
doedrikthe2nd
Sweden981 Posts
Yeah I am. But I rather be an idiot than a German. | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
I definitely think economy should not always be favored over social responsibility. In general people with families or any adult around that age should not have to worry about losing his job on a day-to-day basis simply because the company is allowed to fire him anytime. I'm happy that there are laws about this because even though economy would grow - it does not make society better (usually those two are well connected but not on this one). HOWEVER. I don't think a students daily worry lies in the fact whether or not he will lose his job. Students don't have jobs that they have to build upon the rest of their lifes. They work in sectors of which they think and know it will NOT be their future. In general I doubt a student is really that affected by his employer being able to fire him easily. Especially not if it is also easier to find another job. Students are very flexible and when we are talking about jobs for people under 26 we're are nearly always having in mind those jobs that are merely temporarily anyway. Now with this in mind I do think the possibility to hire and fire students under 26 (which is guaranteed to cause economic growth) MIGHT actually be a good one. There isn't so much social responsibility in the firing of students in my opinion. They got crap jobs anyway and don't really care where they work as long as they earn a couple pennies to finance going out in the weekends. When on a horizontal scale students improve from this measure maybe it's not such a bad idea after all. I feel that, because alot of people are thinking of their parents or others with long term jobs, when they say it's inhuman to be fired without a reason - they are not taking in consideration the state of a student. Who is nearly never focussing on a job that he will continue to do in the rest of his life and does not need stability at this point of his life as much as he will need further on. | ||
|
lil.sis
China4650 Posts
On March 25 2006 07:49 distant_voice wrote: all those who still believe that lowering taxes and helping the industry in general will generate more jobs should think again: a big (if not the biggest) german bank made a profit worth several billions and still fired hundreds of people this year. this is no exception, many companies make profit and still fire their employees. its simple keynsian economics labor is a factor of production, lower costs of factor of production, production increases | ||
|
Chobohobo
United States945 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
What's up with the french are always trying to vote themselves rich? Maybe your vision of the world is a little messed up. And no this law doesn't make perfect sense, hence the reason why so many people object to it. There's alot to consider before implementing such a controversial law. | ||
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
On March 25 2006 09:22 Taiche wrote: Excuse me, but where the fuck did you read that stupidity ? -_-; This is total bullshit, people got 1 day of holiday less, period. No one "ignored the law" like you said and if they did they either spent 1 day of holiday or lost money on their paycheck (+ risked troubles like being fired). And this latest kind of people did NOT represent half of the population  There were no classes in the school where I worked on that day. I wouldn't have been able to get to Bayeux without having a car. I did not need to read about it. the rest is here: (german) http://www.heute.de/ZDFheute/inhalt/16/0,3672,2298416,00.html (english) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4550353.stm complete bullshit? maybe 50% was exagerated, maybe it was restricted to certain groups, I'll give you that. "Millions of French Workers" going on strike because they get one holiday less still says something about the french society. something positive imo. | ||
|
NpG)Explosive
France994 Posts
On March 25 2006 05:09 iD.GioM wrote: uhm Agone wtf oO i cant say what is going on in other cities or universities, but here in Tours we vote every monday for/against another week of blocking, and the result is very clear, there is no manipulation or whatever it just turns out we are about 3 times more people for the blocking than people against it.. and obviously I do know quite a few students are against it because they r scared about their own little lifes and studies, but they are allowed to speak in assemblies like everyone else so i dunno what ur talking about oO those people claim to be the "silent majority", but i dont see why they should be silent if theyr so sure to be the majority =P few days ago there was a demonstration of people against the blocking, guess what there were 300 people there =P kinda of funny compared to the 10 000 people in the streets the saturday before Even more funny is that noone demonstrated in favor of the blocking as far as I know. Talking about the votes, here in Rennes, it depends on the results. If the majority votes against the blocking, the university is opened for one day. If the majority votes in favor of the blocking then the university is closed for two or three days. How fair. | ||
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
On March 25 2006 09:39 lil.sis wrote: its simple keynsian economics labor is a factor of production, lower costs of factor of production, production increases I don't really understand what you're trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that if a company makes profit, but doesn't distribute it among it's employees or the society something's wrong. Profit to make a small group of people so rich that the majority of people have to live in the dumps is wrong. I'm not saying it's wrong that people that work more, and work harder get somewhat richer than people who work less and are less qualified. When people who don't get the opportunity to work hard and often have the same status as your average bum something's wrong. Using robots and machines to do all the work is great, it's less work for humans. If using them means that a small group of people possess all the goods because they possess the workers it's wrong. and an increase in production is not necessary. we already produce more than enough goods to end world hunger now and here if we distribute what we have justly. continuous endless growth = cancer edit: obviously all that is only wrong if you think that everyone should be treated equally and have the same rights. | ||
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
On March 25 2006 09:29 doedrikthe2nd wrote: But I rather be an idiot than a German. please continue to demonstrate your idiocy. | ||
|
doedrikthe2nd
Sweden981 Posts
On March 25 2006 10:21 distant_voice wrote: please continue to demonstrate your idiocy. Haha. Come man, take a joke. However, you must admit that he sounds kinda like a commie when he writes stuff like "we fight the police woho!". | ||
|
DTDominion
United States2148 Posts
On March 25 2006 10:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I'd rather not live in a country where you have to worry about your job every day of your life until you retire. What's up with the french are always trying to vote themselves rich? Maybe your vision of the world is a little messed up. And no this law doesn't make perfect sense, hence the reason why so many people object to it. There's alot to consider before implementing such a controversial law. You can say all you want about "worrying about your job" but I assure you that just isn't the case here unless the person works in a low skill job, in which case they can easily procure a new job while collecting unemployment in the meantime. | ||
|
Frenchguy
France77 Posts
Concerning the law in itself I have no particular idea. But, since the government embodies the majority, we should respect it and try this law. In France there is always a lot of fucking wanna-do-again the 68's revolution with their anarchist slogans and their misinformation campaigns; everytime a government wants to try something new they demonstrate and go in strike. As a result we do nothing and the high unemployment rate remains. If you listen to people in highschool who demonstrate, their argument is: I won't be given a loan to buy a car because of this law... I just hope the French Prime Minister will keep his project and not withdraw because of 0,5 millions of demonstrators, including highschool stutdents who don't know what it is about | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On March 25 2006 10:33 DTDominion wrote: You can say all you want about "worrying about your job" but I assure you that just isn't the case here unless the person works in a low skill job, in which case they can easily procure a new job while collecting unemployment in the meantime. I don't think you understood what the French law is about, neither did the person I responded to. He made a wrong comparison between France and America. Commonly you can't lose your job in developed countries (including USA as far as I know) without a good reason. That's what they're trying to change in France for people under 26. | ||
|
TheGreatOne
United States534 Posts
| ||
|
[angst]chraej
1445 Posts
yeah, nazgul, in the US there is and there isnt job security relative to what doing/who you are working for/what kind of job etc. For example, layoffs at Ford motor company, they had to cut jobs and downsize alot of their organizations, however in general you cannot just be fired for no reason. | ||
|
inkblot
United States1250 Posts
| ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7226 Posts
On March 25 2006 12:17 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I don't think you understood what the French law is about, neither did the person I responded to. He made a wrong comparison between France and America. Commonly you can't lose your job in developed countries (including USA as far as I know) without a good reason. That's what they're trying to change in France for people under 26. Plainly wrong. Only a small % of jobs here are actually contracts. In the USA almost every worker/employer relationship is "employment at will" meaning either the employer or worker may end employment at any time for ALMOST any reason or no reason at all. The only reasons you can't get fired typically involve discrimination/retribution. Changing a welfare state like France to our sort of freer markets will, at first, create a storm of firings while companies streamline themselves, but after that things become very stable. Employers do not want to spend money training workers just to fire them, and then spend more money training their replacements. As long as you do your job well and maintain professionalism your job is "safe". Employment at will is not a scary system by any means, and I'm surprised at the news reports that thousands of the young French workers are resorting to violent riots in its wake. | ||
|
[angst]chraej
1445 Posts
if i go into work my employer cannot come up to me and just say "meh, today i decided to fire you" | ||
|
lil.sis
China4650 Posts
and the employee can terminate employment at any time for no reason, unless they are in a contract | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7226 Posts
On March 25 2006 12:47 [angst]chraej wrote: not true, almost any reason or no reason at all??? if i go into work my employer cannot come up to me and just say "meh, today i decided to fire you" Wiki (At-Will Employment):Some courts saw the rule as requiring the employee to prove an express contract for a definite term in order to maintain an action based on termination of the employment.” Id. at 603, 292 N.W.2d at 887. Thus was born the U.S. at-will employment rule, which allowed discharge for no reason. This rule was adopted by all U.S. states. It was not until the case of Petermann v. Intl. Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouseman, and Helpers of Am., Local 396, 174 Cal. App. 2d 184, 344 P.2d 44 (1959) [1], that the first judicial exception to the at-will rule was created. Wiki (At Will Employment): However, since this doctrine was developed in the late 18th century, several developments have occurred in American law, both at the state and federal level, which restricted the rights of employers to terminate at will. For example, courts have generally limited the rights of employers to terminate for bad faith reasons, such as employees reporting their employer's misconduct to appropriate authorities. Anti-discrimination laws also have restricted the rights of employers to fire persons from identifiable groups, such as women or African-Americans, or persons who are disabled, or pregnant women. As I was saying, there are some exceptions (generally discrimination and retribution, don't know about others) but yes you can be fired for no reason in many jobs in USA. The point is that even under such a system you won't because it's not in the employers best interests to do so. Many companies will self-limit their discretion so that a manager who has a bad day doesn't cost the company money, but the fact is they do retain that right almost everywhere. The only time I hear about someone who was fired for no reason is on the news that they are suing based on wrongful termination and the facts come out the real reason was one of the reasons that weren't allowed. The fact is people get fired for economic reasons or not doing their job well, that their bosses CAN fire them at any time has never meant they WILL. As long as there are lawyers, it's hard to imagine companies abusing their discretion in firing decisions. | ||
| ||
