|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 13 2016 09:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 09:40 WhiteDog wrote:On May 13 2016 09:38 Gorsameth wrote:On May 13 2016 08:20 WhiteDog wrote:In France, the government used an article of the constitution ( called 49-3) to force the passage of a law without having to pass through the congress (despite popular opposition, 70 % of french against) ; this law (called law El-Khomri) basically change the regulation of labor in France and is the direct transcript of european demands or "recommandations" (set in 2015). It is the second time that the government used this article to force the passage of a law, the last law being the law called "macron", which was also a copy of european demands (2014). So, where is the democracy ? huh.... More like technocracy. I dont think you know what a technocracy is. Please enlighten me how the avoidance of democratic choice to implement European laws has anything to do with a government system based on knowledge. So you think european recommandations are not based on scientific knowledge ? No I dont. if they were the EU would not be in the shithole it is now.
That's because you have a grandiose idea of scientific knowledge in social sciences, and don't understand the limits and the objectivity of scientific knowledge for political science, much like european high officials.
I have the text on the recommadation from the european council (in french) ; I can dig up an english version tomorrow if you want and you'll see : they specifically refer to economic theory, and it's a rather sound argumentation if you accept the premises (that the market behave as they say it does, that the economy has the problem they say it does, etc.). It just doesn't work when you go from theory to practice, because it's much more complex and most scientists in economy (and social science, to a lesser degree) just don't want to agree with that because it would somehow degrade the legitimacy of economy as a "science" in the way physic is a science.
|
On May 13 2016 09:45 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 09:42 Gorsameth wrote:On May 13 2016 09:40 WhiteDog wrote:On May 13 2016 09:38 Gorsameth wrote:On May 13 2016 08:20 WhiteDog wrote:In France, the government used an article of the constitution ( called 49-3) to force the passage of a law without having to pass through the congress (despite popular opposition, 70 % of french against) ; this law (called law El-Khomri) basically change the regulation of labor in France and is the direct transcript of european demands or "recommandations" (set in 2015). It is the second time that the government used this article to force the passage of a law, the last law being the law called "macron", which was also a copy of european demands (2014). So, where is the democracy ? huh.... More like technocracy. I dont think you know what a technocracy is. Please enlighten me how the avoidance of democratic choice to implement European laws has anything to do with a government system based on knowledge. So you think european recommandations are not based on scientific knowledge ? No I dont. if they were the EU would not be in the shithole it is now. That's because you have a grandiose idea of scientific knowledge in social sciences, and don't understand the limits and the objectivity of scientific knowledge for political science, much like european high officials.
No, I just barely consider social sciences as science. Way to full of theory and not nearly enough facts.
Besides, your complaining about the TTIP right? That is not a fault of scientists but one of corperations and the power they exert on officials.
|
On May 13 2016 09:24 WhiteDog wrote:Yeha you've already made your point that democracy is not democracy. Just saying, I don't even know what you're saying, and it's blatant stupidity from my point of view. Congress is collectivism ? Representative democracy is the form of democracy most countries have, including germany ; in most countries law pass through the congress where they are debated and voted ; it's not "collectivism" whatever you mean with that. If a party, in this case the socialist party, have the majority of seats in the congress (which they have) they can vote any laws. But this law is so wrong and stupid, that even elected representative of the party who propose the law are against it ; and since we're talking about european recommandations, they prefer passing in force rather than negociate with their own deputee ... What ? De Gaulle created the 49-3 because he thought parlementarism could be problematic in grave situations (war mostly), and it's used to force on french laws that comes directly from technocrats with no brain in europe. But I've understood that your idea of democracy is technocracy, passing laws against and above the people. I guess it works in Germany. Show nested quote +You need to consider whether the outcome of a policy is desirable or not and especially in France And this is done through democratic debate, not by failures in europe. If not, laws have no legitimacy, and thus create instability, especially when they fail : the european union in a nutshell. By the way, the idea that France is impossible to reform is kinda ignorant.
European institutions possess legitimacy as well, national parliaments aren't the sole source of legitimate power. Especially when it comes to areas like labour and pension reforms it's not bad to have a supra-national institution like the EU. And I don't think it's ignorant view of France to say that the relationship between politics, employers and employees is most of the time characterized by conflict, at least in contrast to other European countries. Denmark for example has a pretty long tradition of bringing unions, politicians, employers and so on to the table and strikes are usually a last resort. In France it always seems to be the other way around, especially because most of the political views on labour aren't actually feasible any more. Flexible work time, pension age, lifelong learning and so on are good things. The French labour left seems to demand policies of the 60s.
|
On May 13 2016 08:41 Nyxisto wrote:
Honestly though every time someone in France tries to change a labour law it looks like the whole country is in revolt. Also the 35h work week has not worked at all if I remember correctly as it didn't actually reduce workload. Unflexible work times are really bad in modern economies.
Why do you say it didn't work?
|
On May 13 2016 12:06 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 08:41 Nyxisto wrote:
Honestly though every time someone in France tries to change a labour law it looks like the whole country is in revolt. Also the 35h work week has not worked at all if I remember correctly as it didn't actually reduce workload. Unflexible work times are really bad in modern economies. Why do you say it didn't work?
Because it didn't reduce the time worked, the average French worker works as much as the average German or Brit ( ~41 hours, which would roughly be EU average as well) and most workers simply work overtime. On the negative side it's inflexible and might have worsened Frances unemployment. Probably would be better to promote negotiations between unions and employers instead of mandating a fixed work time.
|
Isn't working overtime better than working regular time for the employee?
|
If overtime is paid better this needs to be compensated by either lower normal wages, less hiring or higher prices. In the end the labour cost has to be paid on some end. I don't see where the net benefit is supposed to come from
|
So basically, according to you, labor is going to get what it's going to get and has no bargaining power and it should accept this.
You realize that you are being ideological here right? That you think some kind of discontinuous rupture has happened and that labor just needs to wake up to "reality"?
|
No, I just barely consider social sciences as science. Way to full of theory and not nearly enough facts.
What "science" is full of facts then, if i may ask?
|
I'm not against labourers being treated better I'm just saying that these kinds of policies aren't good at getting the job done. Another popular thing is rent ceilings. Has been implemented in countless cities and never worked and produced gigantic housing shortages.
The policies to improve conditions for labour should not come in the form of making the workplace less flexible. People like to determine how long they want to work, where they want to move and so on. It's probably better to push for more progressive taxation, better welfare state at the federal level than trying to regulate the workplace of the average guy. The Baltics and Scandinavian countries have been combining these policies for quite a while and do not face structural unemployment.
|
Well, Nyxisto's arguments makes no sense. The 35h a week had different result from one type of labor to another (arguably it failed in certain field like the hospitals), and actually created more flexibility in many field (it was the core of the negociation - less hours against more flexibility). But somehow it failed in his mind ; and his core argument is basically that paying people too much is bad more or less. A good German...
As for the european legitimacy, you are talking about the parlament ; but they have nothing to do with the recommandations.
I wonder what is so 1960 about the left policy on labor ? You can enlight me ; and while you're at it explain me how european policies do not directly come from the XIXth century.
By the way, the 35h created many jobs. The government said it would create 700 000 jobs, in reality it created something like 200 000. Still not "nothing".
|
On May 13 2016 10:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 09:24 WhiteDog wrote:Yeha you've already made your point that democracy is not democracy. Just saying, I don't even know what you're saying, and it's blatant stupidity from my point of view. Congress is collectivism ? Representative democracy is the form of democracy most countries have, including germany ; in most countries law pass through the congress where they are debated and voted ; it's not "collectivism" whatever you mean with that. If a party, in this case the socialist party, have the majority of seats in the congress (which they have) they can vote any laws. But this law is so wrong and stupid, that even elected representative of the party who propose the law are against it ; and since we're talking about european recommandations, they prefer passing in force rather than negociate with their own deputee ... What ? De Gaulle created the 49-3 because he thought parlementarism could be problematic in grave situations (war mostly), and it's used to force on french laws that comes directly from technocrats with no brain in europe. But I've understood that your idea of democracy is technocracy, passing laws against and above the people. I guess it works in Germany. You need to consider whether the outcome of a policy is desirable or not and especially in France And this is done through democratic debate, not by failures in europe. If not, laws have no legitimacy, and thus create instability, especially when they fail : the european union in a nutshell. By the way, the idea that France is impossible to reform is kinda ignorant. European institutions possess legitimacy as well, national parliaments aren't the sole source of legitimate power. Especially when it comes to areas like labour and pension reforms it's not bad to have a supra-national institution like the EU.
Correct me if i am wrong, I think you are trying to talk about the European parlamient, when it's the Troika the one that makes the "recommendations", and its democratic control has been proven to be quite lax to really speak about legitimacy, not to speak about its efficiency.
|
On May 13 2016 12:37 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm not against labourers being treated better I'm just saying that these kinds of policies aren't good at getting the job done. Another popular thing is rent ceilings. Has been implemented in countless cities and never worked and produced gigantic housing shortages.
The policies to improve conditions for labour should not come in the form of making the workplace less flexible. People like to determine how long they want to work, where they want to move and so on. It's probably better to push for more progressive taxation, better welfare state at the federal level than trying to regulate the workplace of the average guy. The Baltics and Scandinavian countries have been combining these policies for quite a while and do not face structural unemployment.
Yeah, instead we have people working for 0.5 euro/hour.
|
Democratic control as an argument bothers me a lot. What democratic control do we realistically have over the bureaucracy running the executive branch of our countries? It's an argument that gets used very selectively.
|
On May 13 2016 17:54 RvB wrote:
Democratic control as an argument bothers me a lot. What democratic control do we realistically have over the bureaucracy running the executive branch of our countries? It's an argument that gets used very selectively.
The executive branch has to abide by the laws democratically agreed on in parliament. If it doesn't it will be the responsibility of the courts to uphold the law.
Was that your question?
|
On May 13 2016 17:54 RvB wrote:
Democratic control as an argument bothers me a lot. What democratic control do we realistically have over the bureaucracy running the executive branch of our countries? It's an argument that gets used very selectively.
As much control as an indirect democracy can give, barring Europe's demands.
Could be, not like it's relevant in this case.
|
On May 13 2016 18:35 Banaora wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 17:54 RvB wrote:
Democratic control as an argument bothers me a lot. What democratic control do we realistically have over the bureaucracy running the executive branch of our countries? It's an argument that gets used very selectively. The executive branch has to abide by the laws democratically agreed on in parliament. If it doesn't it will be the responsibility of the courts to uphold the law. Was that your question?
So do the negotiators for TTIP or whatever else for that matter. It has to go trough the national parliaments and the european one.
|
The point is not having democratic control in the negotiation itself and not even being able to discuss it on the parliament lol...
|
You cannot negotiate with that many parliaments. The democratic control is afterwards when it has to be ratified by the national parliaments and the European one. The negotiators are also part of the European Comission which is chosen by the national counsel (the heads of state of the national governments) and needs the support of the majority of the European Comission. It's not any different than the way any other government does it.
There's also a whole lot of information about TTIP from the EU to increase transparency about TTIP.
ec.europa.eu
|
On May 13 2016 20:07 Godwrath wrote:
The point is not having democratic control in the negotiation itself and not even being able to discuss it on the parliament lol...
I want to expand on this. The industry has access to the treaty and can already influence it while the parliament has only very limited access as you can see in whitedog's video. So after the treaty is put to parliament to agree on it's only yes or no and people from parliament have to work themselves into the treaty while the industry can lobby from a position of knowledge and power having negotioted this agreement in the first place.
I honestly have problems understanding why people defend this process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
