|
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.
.........key word: contract
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.
So what you are saying is you could be working for 20 years at a company, which changes managers. The new manager doesn't like you and can fire you without having to explain himself? It just sounds very unlikely to me that people in that kind of situation aren't working under an employment contract.
|
That's exactly what I'm saying. If the employee is working in most jobs, which don't have employment contracts, that employee may be terminated. And you're 100% right it's very unlikely. But not because it's not allowed, but because of:
-Company policy
-Threat of litigation
-Bad publicity
Again, there's no value to firing that employee so it rarely happens. I'm willing to bet there's at least one case of a middle manager abusing his discretion and being canned himself.
EDIT: I want to be careful in a certain point about "not liking the employee", there are some exceptions as I posted about truly bad faith firings. Assuming it does not fall under those exceptions, the rule holds. I believe tension among co-workers is a valid reason for firing here.
|
Especially with lower schooled employees/jobs there's plenty of reason to fire someone if it's easy.
Of course if you are talking about jobs that require higher education then first of all they will be alot more likely to work according to contract, and second if they happen to be employed at will it is usually too expensive to throw away invested time and money. This employment-at-will regulation affects jobs on the lower end of society much more that those on top.
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.
I don't really see what you are saying here.. what's your point? The reason why you don't hear much about people being wrongfully fired is because:
1) Influential people work with contract in which it is clear what is and is not allowed
2) Those working under employment-at-will can get fired anytime and have no reason to object. Plus they are usually not important enough to be mentioned in the media.
Someone important enough to be on the news for such a thing will usually not be the kind of person that gets fired for the wrong reasons. All the times some non important people get fired you don't get to hear about.
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.
Didn't you just say they can be fired at-will? What do lawyers have to do with it if it's allowed anyway. What are they going to sue them for? (excluding the three major exceptions which are commonly known among employers)
The thing is.. if this system is so 'perfect' because unjust firings don't happen so much anyway, why do you need to use it in the first place? Whenever someone has a valid reason to fire a person it is possible to do so in any coherent economy. The point of the French law is that these rules are too complicated for simply student jobs and thus they think maybe it's a good idea to do without alltogether. I cannot image at all they would ever think of implementing such a drastic law for people older than 26.
|
I'll take the example of where I last worked, our local hospital (home health department). Even educated people like the managers/RNs/ are subject to employment at will, they do not work by contract. I will agree that it affects most strongly the low end where most of the jobs are AND the ones that aren't in the grip of strong unions. The demand for educated professions further lessens the likelihood the employer will fire them without a good reason, even though they can.
The reason I bring up litigation is that it's a massive deterrent effect. If it takes 20,000 dollars to get a case against you dismissed for wrongful termination, even if it has no merit, that's a hell of a hurdle. If the press is the 4th estate in America, attorneys are the 5th. I'm sure you've heard of the excesses of our legal profession in filing baseless lawsuits. It's an easy thing to claim discrimination/retribution, which makes it expensive to deal with in court.
EDIT (to your edit):
I don't think the system is perfect, but I do think it's better than requiring employers to keep unproductive workers by making it far too difficult to fire them. The thing is that the bar is always set higher than the absolute limit of firing. It would be irrational in monetary terms for an employer to indiscriminately begin firing people for no reason for strictly personal reasons, or for small mistakes. If people here are filing wrongful termination suits with our rules I can hardly imagine the hoops a French employer must jump to streamline his business.
While I am sure there are unjust firings here in the USA, I do believe that the system strengthens the economy and allows more opportunity for people to find new jobs.
I don't think I've taken much of an opinion on this French law itself because my only knowledge of it comes from short newscasts about the riots. The analysts seem to be saying it would make the job landscape there more like our own, at least for <26 year olds. I suppose I can understand the feeling of entitlement and security that their system provides, but from an economic standpoint it seems better to allow the market to grow on its own. The French people will decide that for themselves, however.
|
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.
this is exactly what i was refering to
|
On the one hand you got people afraid of being fired for their whole life, and the other side is afraid to do so because of insane lawsuits costs.. Honestly though that doesn't sound like such a nice system to me.
But I guess it's not that different then from what they want to do in France. Mostly because as for the higher paid jobs in America the lawsuits are making sure people don't just get fired like that, and the lower paid jobs kind of resemble the under 26 law they're introducing over there.
I know very well economy is _the_ drive for a gain in welfare, however at some point you do have to choose between what will actually make people happy; tiny increase in possible income, or personal security. I think alot of people (hence the riots in France) prefer job-stability in their lifes over a small percentage rise in income. The reason why all countries should try to enhance their economies is because of a gain in welfare for their citizens. If you can obtain an increase in your economy, but it causes more depression amongst people, you are not making the right move simply because your GDP is rising. Economy is to help people live their lifes, not to have it control them.
But as I said I'm not really against (I haven't figured it out which side I'm on) the law they introduced in France. However, unlike in America, the reason why I'm not against it is that it concerns students (who have prospect to a high-end job later in their lifes) and student jobs (which are temporal anyway). If it starts to interfer with those low-payscale workers that will have to struggle all their lifes to find jobs I do not think it's an appropriate way of dealing with our society and its individual quality of life. I also don't think you should be able to fire some high-end manager without any reason at all. Basically the only target group I'd be okay with being subject to this law is students.
|
On March 25 2006 03:57 iD.GioM wrote:
and we have daily fights against cops.
as we were besieging a police station, a cop simply hit me in the face with his shieldI simply hit him back REAL hard in the face, since he wasnt wearing his helmet right (stupid asshole) I hit his mouth and he started bleeding like hell.
Way to roll bro, fuck tha' police.
Also, GJ showing the rest of the world that you frenchies aren't 100% pantywastes.
|
I like the balance struck where employers who would fire people indiscriminately are rightly afraid because there is no value (indeed negative value!) in their action, but employers with a reason are not (because the value of firing > cost of litigation * probability of success).
I think I may always prefer freer markets in which continual growth raises the standard of living (although it sacrifices the present for the future) rather than creating economic stagnation. But there are good policy arguments to be made for a more comprehensive government safety net that takes the best care of its citizens now. I think it's clear where we both stand on that issue 
|
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.
this is a good point, someone young, such as a student, always as the opportunity to find a job dong almost anything...however it would still be very annoying not knowing if you would have a job to pay student loans/car insurance/other fees if you could just be out on a whim.
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
re!
Well things arent really calming down here
yesterday there was the biggest demonstration since the beginning of the whole thing
According to police officials 500 000 people were demonstrating in the whole of France, 3 million according to the syndicates, so the most precise estimation is probably around 2 million people (Agence France Presse).
We voted about the blocking in my university again it will continue until next monday (then we ll hold another vote).
Got no time to answer to everything so ill pick a few:
JCA, call me naive if u want to, but I dont see why I should be forced to choose between 2 political ideologies when I feel both are partially or completly retarded (especially the people representing them) oO
Naz, the contract is not really applying to students but more to young people who r done with their studies and are trying to get their first "real" job. So its not like this contract only applies to low student jobs ;o
"frenchguy" please, its easy to always sum it up to the "anarchist party student movement", but maybe you should look again and notice students are not the only ones disagreeing, and in fact THE MAJORITY of the french population disagrees with Villepins politics concerning the CPE (64% of the french pop. in the last surveys -> http://www.lemonde.fr/web/infog/0,47-0@2-3224,54-754914,0.html)
to some guy who said I sounded like a commie ;P I'll say it again: I dont like fighting cops, I dont go out with the aim of wasting cops, I do not enjoy violent acts and will certainly not use violence unless really forced to.
|
Don't use violence to prove your point!!!!!!!!!! Martin Luther Kind Jr. did it with his peace movement of goodness! do it again! fighteth the power!
|
Naz, the contract is not really applying to students but more to young people who r done with their studies and are trying to get their first "real" job. So its not like this contract only applies to low student jobs ;o
But if they find a job at 24-25, stay there till 26, things change right? Under that age I doubt they're done with studies anyway. Finding your first real job under these circumstances isn't all that bad when it becomes permanent after some time.
|
I like it, i like it alot!
What i like the most about your struggle is that you universitykids arent the ones who will hurt the most from this new law, its the ones who arent educated, and yet there you stand~
Like it alot!
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
Korea (South)1897 Posts
Well unlike chibi I do read all the posts *wink* ~.^
that begins said,
to just look at in terms of the actors:
for the student's i dont' think its just a matter of economic stability; but that somehow they have been identified as part of the 'expendable' part of the economy and society.
Whether or not their current job is transient or not, they are being targeted as a group. The effect of this is that when they graduate from University, they are subject to further instablity and that can be unsettling, even if it is economically reasonable for the nation.
I think one can argue it either way on an economic platform or societal one, but one thing is for sure, the French government should have not implimented like this. Perhpas some type of progressive introduction with worker from under the age of 21, then 24, then 26. Whereas economic theory may say this policy will increase labor flexiblity the real purpose of labour flexiblity is to increase productivity (I know this doesn't seem to add up, when labour flexiblity is usually related to cutting costs, but principley all things are done for productivity).
But in French society this might not be the case, whereas those workers who do not have some level of stability may be far less productive and committed to work.
Also, if people under 26 can really be fired for no reason, then it could lead to explotation of people who really want to keep their jobs and are willing to do anything to do that. And im not talking about sexual exploitation, but in South Korea, poeple work from 7/8 in the morning to 8/10 in the evenings on a regular basis (with no overtime) in order to ensure they dont' get fired or get the promotion at the right time. And this doesnt' stop at 26, its goes until people retire.
Of course France and Korea is quite different, but its all relative, I mean for another person to hold your economic security until 26; that would means likely you'd have to prepare for the worse; in a sense as people save more, the consumer spending would decrease and that would really fuck the economy even more. But i guess at the heart of it, its a matter of being identified as an expendable part of society, no matter how economically resonable it may seem.
For that, I say, gogo with the revolt, and if the outcome is a more reasonable policy that considers the young French workers with some fail safe options; then so much the better!
|
Here, i go too.
I m French as u can see in my nickname and i m an officer of police in PARIS.
1. I m against this new law.
why?:
CPE will creat some employements and so rate of unemployement will go down.
Because if a Boss isnt sure that he can creat a job with this sort of law, he will try and see if it is good for him to get a guy. But the problem is for not qualified, low or middle qualified jobs. The poor guys never get a fixed job with this sort of law. they never get credits to buy a car or house from banks, because a boss will dismiss them before 2 years.A boss will prefer to have a slave and wont risk to lose money to stop ur employement contract.In our times, Boss havent morality. So u dont dream they have. they willl automaticly stop the contract before theses 2 years.
2. Stop to say bullshit about "police riots".
i m in and i can tell u, <<students>> can help criminals to work safely. Some youngs plundering the shops and burning cars and students are blocking police forces.
For exemple, Yesturday, i ask to leaders of students to move place because there is a supermarket who is attacked. And those idiots sit on ground...they dont obey, they protect criminals by their action, i tell to my guys to use gas bombs to clear place to go at this supermarket. After this, the problem was <<students>> have fighted against u... when u hit a cop, u are anymore a poor student who is injured by police, u are a criminal at our eyes who attack the police, and maybe we will rape u hardly at this moment.
ps:Sorry for my english, i m beligue in spanish and german. i have learned english on internet. =)
|
i smell a revolution
lapse into communism kkthx, then maybe i wont have to learn your language anymore in school ^_~
jkjk
hope everything works out well
|
OMG gosu a police officer willing to talk 8D
KKKKK!
so! I do understand the issue with those "criminals" taking advantage of the situation and the difficulty of the police actions in such conditions. And yes I know the official reason for the police presence is always to make sure security is provided.
But then ask yourself why those students you were talking about prefered to let the criminals do their dirty job rather than to listen to the police? Maybe coz ur the kind of people who will start shooting gas bombs when not listened too....
However, something doesnt make sense in ur argumentation:
U say im a criminal because I hit a cop that hit me first? Then if I am, why arent policemen considered criminals too? If you believe that the privilege of being a cop is that u can hit and injure citizens while you are untouchable yourself, then ur exactly one of those stupid assholes officers who consider loud singing as "a provocation to the police forces" in order to be able to randomly hit people.
But yea, nice to see you agree with me on the CPE. Everytime im facing cops im always thinking "FFS dont they have kids? Dont they care about their futures? How can they charge us if they know their own children might be among us?"
Anyways I hope u wont shut down the dialogue immediatly, like u people tend to do ;O
"LA POLICE! AVEC NOUS!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
