|
HI!
Some of you might have read or heard about what is going on in France atm.
For those who have no idea what its all about : to make it simple, the government passed a law allowing companies to fire people under 26 without reasons. That law or work contract is called the CPE (Contrat première embauche).
In a country where companies hardly ever recruit young people, that law is supposed to make it easier and cheaper for them to do so (therefor creating new jobs, in theory at least), but at the same time making jobs more and more unsecure.
BUT!
I have been reading a lot of bullcrap in the international press, and quite some foreign friends of mine have been asking if I had been burning cars too.
WRONG
There is shit happening in Paris, but the people plundering the shops and burning cars are not related to the actual students movement.
I myself, living in a city of 300 000 inhabitants (namely Tours, center region)have not seen any kind of material destruction.
However, my university has been occupied (by us) for the last 6 weeks, and we have daily fights against cops. This is mostly because the government thought it would help to repress brutally our movement by sending in those "anti-riot cops" (dunno how to call them in english) to simply hit us hard and capture the leaders.
Since the very first day we have been struggling against cop violence and after 3 weeks we figured that if the government used violence against us, there was no other way for us to respond with violence too.
In most cases, when a students demonstration meets a police blocking, people will put their hands up and start singing either pacifist or revolutionary songs (depending on the days mood). Since the police will charge as soon as they spot any sign of "provocation" (whatever those might be), it is really hard to avoid streets fights.
However, and this is something that is actually rare, there are more injured cops than students, simply because we now respond to their acts of violence, and the imbalance in numbers gives us a clear advantage, even if the cops are armored with shields, kevlar and armed with gas bombs and those really hurty "sticks" ^^.
Anyways, i have taken a few pictures of what has been going on, however there are no pictures of violence since i dont really have time to take photos then ;P
Various pictures of a demonstration in Tours
As you can see there are not only students since a large part of the lower and middle classes joined the movement.
http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/2266/20060318fotoz00089nh.jpg
http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/3840/20060318fotoz00147sh.jpg
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/765/20060318fotoz00182zh.jpg
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/6259/20060318fotoz00119fx.jpg
Demonstration in front of my university
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/591/20060318fotoz00192zh.jpg
Students assembly in my uni discussing and voting on what actions to take
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8669/20060323fotoz00011bu.jpg
Some friends and me tagging the streets and drawing marks of "corpses", symbol for those who "got killed by the CPE" and injured by cops
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7291/20060318fotoz00065qp.jpg
Ok, now this is me after a night at the university. Forgive my uglyness, we spent the night fighting off cops who wanted to retake the university, smoking a lot of pot and drinking like hell to stay awake ;D
http://img156.imageshack.us/my.php?image=20060318fotoz00033nr.jpg
A little personal story: one of the very first demonstration, as we were besieging a police station to force them to release the hostages (heheh ;D), a cop simply hit me in the face (for no obvious reason, I wasnt doing anything agressiv) with his shield, literally ripping my lip apart. Without even thinking I 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. As i realized what i had done i was like "hmm weak" and started running like a madman, and I spent 1hour running around non stop while being hunt by 5 cops. Eventually I escaped, but two weeks later i still had a huge mark on my lip. The thing making me feel good is that the policeman probably was hurt a lot more, since it looked pretty bad 8D
Aiight, feel free to discuss and I hope other french people will share pictures or stories ;D
|
asddf for some reason the pictures links r retarded lemme fix it
|
So responding with violence helps you'r cause? Maybe you should buy a gun and get yourself a kill and get you some more bragging rights. Othervise I agree with you'r cause, that law is stupid as hell.
|
no, violence doesnt help at all, but what do u want us to do oO u cant just stand there and get raped
and im not bragging i dont think my experience is anything special compared to whatever french students or others are experiencing atm
|
Don't back down dude! Your cause is justified, keep on fighting!
|
this law seems pretty ridiculous. I want some of what the french gvt were smoking
|
well economically seen its not ridiculous, it will indeed help companies growth but at the expense of what french people value a lot, which is job security
The ridiculous thing abt is that it just makes it easier for companies to fire, and therefor only INDIRECTLY easier to hire. In the end, its gonna look like this :
That woman is pregnant ? -> fired
Your sick? -> fired
You want holidays? -> fired
You disagree with your boss? -> fired
You are unhappy with ur working conditions? -> fired
|
even though i don't know enough about your situation and even though i don't necessarily agree with your position, i'm still glad to see that there are enough people in your country caring about politics and willing to stand up for their cause and to fight against the government. i know violence often just occurs in such cases, if you want it or not. policemen are usually only trained to deal with violence and fail at deescalating. whatever the background... it's good to see that ppl are still making a difference. ukraine, france, maybe belarussia. it's a good example for our american friends. =) probably just a matter of time until stuff like this reaches germany too (attac 4tw).
|
Wow. You have to explain a bit more about this law. I seriously doubt it's extreme like you illustrated. Either way, you will feel the pain now but if you really think about it, the young people stands to benefit from this. If you have the talent and the hardworkship then company will not let you go easy.
Australia just passed new industrial laws to give companies more power in workplace relations. Quite similiar circumstances wouldn't you say so? but i haven't seen anyone demonstrating here nor do i see the need for students to get involved in this.
last time Australian government took away student union's rights to collect fees from the student mass, there was riots but it was so stupid >_<.
|
Well if australian people agree with those laws or simply dont care its their business, there might be an ideological different between france's population and australia's.
And about the talent etc. yes its true but that only applies to well paid jobs and big companies, which are, in france at least, a minority. Most people work for small or middle sized companies, and those simply have to cut off costs, meaning hiring/firing people as they currently need it. Of course bigger companies have a different view on the matter.
Oh a funny fact: 2005 brought an increase of 50% in profit for france's 40 biggest companies. Meanwhile unemployement isnt really shrinking... yes, lets help companies even more, they sure need it ! =P
|
I love how you said the universities are blocked but omitted to say that far from all the students want that. I always find funny that some people who don't even admit that the others could have a different opinions and who deny them their most basical rights pretend then to fight for the democracy.
And I don't even speak of all the intimidation during the so called "Students assembly". those that agree with the CPE can't even speak. There were two universities near Bordeau blocked since several weeks, then some students asked that the vote could be made properly (that you could vote without the others knowing for whom you have voted (secret ballot)). Without any surprise the result was in favor of stopping the blocus. Another exemple? yesterday there was the Crous election. The Crous is a student organisation. UNEF, the union which is organisating the blocus, tried by all means to invalidate this election, by stealing urns (don't know if it's the same word in english: that's the box where you put the paper on which you have written your vote) voting several times etc showing one more time their conception of democracy.
And then we could speak about the various degredations in the universities etc.
So cop vilence? my ass.
|
There just seems to be a huge class division in your country now >_<. if what you said is indeed true then i really see no need for them to do this unless they are stepping up to compete with China. If you really think about, the jobs are always going to be there unless the companies went offshores. So, even thou people might get fired, there will always going to be enough jobs for everyone.
A smart government should always have a fall back plan to cover that so unemployment != riots but apparently its not happening in your country >_<
i always thought France is one of the top countries to have a high literate class. Just strange to see you out of all people to have this problem >_<.
|
you have perfectly right clause, kick those fucking police, burn the parliament and destroy the eiffel tower  (its such an ugly tower you can build a mermaid or stone stuff to replace it later )
|
Well more than 25% of the youngs (18-25 year-old) are unemployed in France, whereas the total unemployment rate is at 9.8%. That's because they don't have enough experience and so are not hired.
The idea was to allow them to be easily fired so that:
1) compagny would like to hire them even if they are inexperienced
2) they will get experience more easily
3) it will bring a bit of flexibility (so that compagny would not hesitate to hire somenone when they have the occasion since they could fire him if their economic situation becomes bad)
|
On March 25 2006 04:35 iD.GioM wrote:
The ridiculous thing abt is that it just makes it easier for companies to fire, and therefor only INDIRECTLY easier to hire. In the end, its gonna look like this :
That woman is pregnant ? -> fired
Your sick? -> fired
You want holidays? -> fired
You disagree with your boss? -> fired
You are unhappy with ur working conditions? -> fired
This is absolutely wrong.
You should read this.
|
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
about "degradations", if your talking about those images shown on TV of this minister showing the "ancient books burned and destroyed by students", that is just too funny ! My university is occupied for like 6 weeks and the only material destruction that happened was a few chairs that broke down O_O
About the CROUS election no idea what ur talking about, once again here in Tours the elections were held normally and nobody even thought of protesting against the outcome
|
its wrong ? then why did 35 000 out of 150 00 people hired under the CNE contract get fired already ? oO
and btw I totally understand different opinions, I didnt join the cause immediatly it took me abt 2 weeks to study the law and decide wether i was against it or for it ;o
and as I said before, economically seen the CPE is not bad, I just dont think u should promote the economy at the expense of social stability
|
A little personal story: one of the very first demonstration, as we were besieging a police station to force them to release the hostages a cop simply hit me in the face (for no obvious reason, I wasnt doing anything agressiv) ... either you are a fucking idiot, or I'm missing an important detail oh yeah, the one where you AREN'T being agressive by BESEIGING a police station?!
|
with besieging i mean we were about 5000 people standing outside the police station singing n dancing =P there was nothing thrown at the police or any cop beaten up, it was completly peaceful  sry if I didnt express myself right ;o
|
|
|
omg why so much hate t.t im just sharing my experience =P
and in my experience there is no degradation HERE IN TOURS
at my university most amphitheatres are locked when there arent any meetings, and the maintenance / cleanup team has access to the uni despite the occupation, so everything is clean and nothing is destroyed... obviously there are some assholes among the students movement, just like there are good cops ;]
|
So I take it that you are a communist
|
since the demonstrating students are obviously not totally violent i dont see what the problem is--and even if they were i would understand. although i think non-violence, ghandi-style demonstration, makes a bigger and better statement. i am all for demonstrating as a means of improving life. france has a strong history of free-thinking and a revolutionary spirit to which we in america, and in many other countries too, owe a great deal. if the youth of france can't demonstrate, and yes even occasionally riot, as a means of changing thier goverment and thier lives, what hope if there for the rest of us?
|
im wether a communist nor an anarchist =P
I personnally think both left AND right are partially wrong and right
especially in france where a left wing guy will NEVER agree with something a right wing guy says (and other way around), which is totally stupid and counter-productive imo
Im a partisan of a middle "wing". A compromise with both the right wing economics elements (liberalism is just a worldwide factor, ignoring it could do no good) and the left wing "social care" elements
but then such a political party doesnt really exist, at least not in france t.t
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
The company should be able to fire anyone it pleases, assuming the will o fthe shareholder is kept authentic. It's their money after all, and the state has no right to intrude.
|
United States3552 Posts
Thanks for the report and pictures.
|
On March 25 2006 05:55 doedrikthe2nd wrote:
So I take it that you are a communist
I take it you're an idiot. all you post is bullshit.
|
Being able to fire without any reason, that will create jobs, and not just indirectly as some people think.
Whenever the economy does well, you'd expect companies to expand their businesses, and therefore create new jobs right? But not in France, where it's so difficult to fire people.
If they hire more people when the economy does well, then they'll be stuck with those people when the economy does poorly. Given the high taxation of companies in France already, businesses decide that hiring when the economy does well isn't worth the drain of money that'll come when being forced to pay for these workers when the economy goes bad again.
If you make it easier to fire people, then businesses won't be afraid to invest and expand to take advantage of economic upturns, adding new jobs, and increasing their productivity, meaning more money to expand even more, because they can then cut the jobs when it becomes too expensive for them to maintain them. Instead French companies operate as if it's a perpetual economic downturn.
Lower taxation on companies, coupled with easier firing practices, are the reasons why our job market here in the US is as robust as it is, and why we have an unemployment rate of 5%, as compared to 10% in France, which has a higher percentage of government jobs. Then again this is an "Anglo-Saxon" economic practice.
|
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.
|
jca2
France52 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.
This is such a typical statement. You take one terrible example of a giant company firing people in spite of big benefits, and forget about the millions of small companies that have to fight daily to stay alive and desperately need more flexibility in the way they hire people.
Maybe to understand that, you need to work once in a small company and try to make it live, to find customers, to sell products, to pay bills, to pay taxes, to pay employees, to pay yourself when there is money left, etc.
But i guess it's much easier for most people to ask for a lifetime job in a giant company, or a nice quiet administration and then go down in the street every weekend to protest against anything that could threaten their peaceful existence.
|
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.
partly because short-term profit is more important to some managers than volume and long-term perspective.
btw giom never said it was bad for the economy. it's just that the economy isn't everything. what does it help if your gdp is rising when all the money goes to the wealthiest 10%?
oneofthem: ever heard of social responsibility? when the us invaded iraq, your government said (in the end) they wanted to spread democracy and to bring peace to the middle east. i don't know you, but i guess you supported that decision. now that's social reponsibility. but when it comes to domestic politics, suddenly everyone should be allowed to do what suits them best. or do you think the only difference is that on one hand it is physical oppression and on the other hand it's financial oppression? not a big difference imo, at least not for the ppl suffering from it.
and another thing regarding france (remember i don't know the situation too well): if there is no law protecting them, who's gonna make sure mothers, temporarily ill people etc will still be able to work? sure, the ones who work hard, are able and don't go to the doctor when they get sick, they will keep their jobs. it's the less fortunate people neocons and liberals often forget.
imagine you were a woman, 25 years old and wanted to have a child. now you have to think twice, because you might get fired and be left with no job once your child is a little older.
|
jca2
France52 Posts
On March 25 2006 06:02 iD.GioM wrote:
im wether a communist nor an anarchist =P
I personnally think both left AND right are partially wrong and right
especially in france where a left wing guy will NEVER agree with something a right wing guy says (and other way around), which is totally stupid and counter-productive imo
Im a partisan of a middle "wing". A compromise with both the right wing economics elements (liberalism is just a worldwide factor, ignoring it could do no good) and the left wing "social care" elements
but then such a political party doesnt really exist, at least not in france t.t
This statement shows how naive you are about it all : "A compromise with both the right wing economics elements and the left wing "social care" elements". Woohoo, ID.Giom found a brand new political way. Oh but wait, have you noticed that the right wing economic elements are usually contradictory with the left wing social care elements? Maybe that explains why there isnt such political party in France, and anywhere else. Maybe you and your protester friends need to study and work a bit more before launching your political career.
|
having a child is not an issue in France afaik. that's Germany. the French are different from us Germans when it comes to politics. most everyone there has an opinion and can discuss politics.
When I spent my 9 months in Caen, and helped a german teacher in a collège in Bayeux I got an impression of that because I could overhear the conversations in the teachers' room. There were constant debates on domestic policy and I could see that these teachers not only discussed matters but also were willing to take action. That's what you see in the streets of Paris today.
When the Monday after Pentecost was no longer a public holiday 50% of the French ignored the law and simply stayed at home. That's totally unthinkable in Germany.
|
On March 25 2006 06:42 oneofthem wrote:
The company should be able to fire anyone it pleases, assuming the will o fthe shareholder is kept authentic. It's their money after all, and the state has no right to intrude.
Companies exist because the state allows them to exist. They are subject to any law the state wishes to pass, and the the state has every right to intrude. The states makes and enforces the rules, and can do whatever the hell they like.
With what kind of stupid stick were you beaten into submission?
|
On March 25 2006 08:26 jca2 wrote:
"A compromise with both the right wing economics elements and the left wing "social care" elements". Woohoo, ID.Giom found a brand new political way. Oh but wait, have you noticed that the right wing economic elements are usually contradictory with the left wing social care elements? Maybe that explains why there isnt such political party in France, and anywhere else. Maybe you and your protester friends need to study and work a bit more before launching your political career.
maybe you should as well, you might already work in a small business, but that doesn't mean you can teach us how politics work.
WWSD = What would scandinavians do?
the political spectrum in France, as colorful as it may be, isn't everything the world has to offer.
|
On March 25 2006 08:26 jca2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2006 06:02 iD.GioM wrote:
im wether a communist nor an anarchist =P
I personnally think both left AND right are partially wrong and right
especially in france where a left wing guy will NEVER agree with something a right wing guy says (and other way around), which is totally stupid and counter-productive imo
Im a partisan of a middle "wing". A compromise with both the right wing economics elements (liberalism is just a worldwide factor, ignoring it could do no good) and the left wing "social care" elements
but then such a political party doesnt really exist, at least not in france t.t This statement shows how naive you are about it all : "A compromise with both the right wing economics elements and the left wing "social care" elements". Woohoo, ID.Giom found a brand new political way. Oh but wait, have you noticed that the right wing economic elements are usually contradictory with the left wing social care elements? Maybe that explains why there isnt such political party in France, and anywhere else. Maybe you and your protester friends need to study and work a bit more before launching your political career.
Yeah, because economic prudence and social responsibility are mutually exclusive. If that in fact were to be the case, that should at least raise some questions about the weay we have structrured our societies.
|
On March 25 2006 08:38 badteeth wrote:
Yeah, because economic prudence and social responsibility are mutually exclusive. If that in fact were to be the case, that should at least raise some questions about the weay we have structrured our societies.
QFT
|
Job security for whom? Not a shocker that it's the university students rioting about this law.
|
so far, looking at the situation i am siding with iD.GioM.
it sounds similar to the workplace reforms that are happening in Australia, except those will affect everybody living in Australia.
Loss of security usually cascades into a loss of other benefits, so people may have to settle for less (eg: lower salary, poorer working conditions) to get a job.
|
Taiche
France1963 Posts
On March 25 2006 08:30 distant_voice wrote:
When the Monday after Pentecost was no longer a public holiday 50% of the French ignored the law and simply stayed at home. That's totally unthinkable in Germany.
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 
|
On March 25 2006 07:38 distant_voice wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2006 05:55 doedrikthe2nd wrote:
So I take it that you are a communist I take it you're an idiot. all you post is bullshit.
Yeah I am. But I rather be an idiot than a German.
|
Giom I'm not sure whether or not I agree with you.
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.
|
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
|
This is so sad. The French are always trying to vote themselves rich. This law seems to make perfect sense for a weak economy. All unemployed French should just move to USA, we have a lot of jobs.
|
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.
|
On March 25 2006 09:22 Taiche wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2006 08:30 distant_voice wrote:
When the Monday after Pentecost was no longer a public holiday 50% of the French ignored the law and simply stayed at home. That's totally unthinkable in Germany. 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.
|
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.
|
On March 25 2006 09:39 lil.sis wrote:Show nested quote +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
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.
|
On March 25 2006 09:29 doedrikthe2nd wrote:
But I rather be an idiot than a German.
please continue to demonstrate your idiocy.
|
On March 25 2006 10:21 distant_voice wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2006 09:29 doedrikthe2nd wrote:
But I rather be an idiot than a German. 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!".
|
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.
|
I'm glad not to be in France this year =)
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
|
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.
|
I suggest you come to America and try some freedom frys.
|
wait, you guys took over a university and are under siege?
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.
|
Sounds like the 60s are catching up with France.
|
On March 25 2006 12:17 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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"
|
no, but they can make some bullshit up, and not have to answer for it
and the employee can terminate employment at any time for no reason, unless they are in a contract
|
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.
|
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
