|
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. |
Four months after his election, Macron already faces the street. Between 223 000 (authorities) and 400 000 to 500 000 (trade unions) people demonstrated yesterday against Macron's ordonnances. This is the same level as the first demonstration against the labour bill last year. Out of arrogance, Macron himself participated to the success of the day when he said in Greece that he would "yield nothing to the lazy, the cynical and the extremes".
None of the workers' trade unions were pleased with the new labour bill, but out of the 5 main confederations in France only the CGT (first trade union) was calling for a day of protests. The CFDT—usually goverments' main partner for reforms—said it was "worried and disappointed" by the new bill, but didn't join the demonstration. FO's direction changed its strategy (they were part of the contestation last year) and decided to be a "partner" this time, most likely to have some leverage to negotiate for future reforms about pensions or unemployment insurance... but the base didn't like at all this sellout attitude from their top bureaucrat, and more than half of the departmental unions + several big federations followed the CGT yesterday.
Tomorrow, the Prime minister will apparently debate on TV with Mélenchon.
The CGT scheduled another strike day next week, the 21. This time, all universities should have reopened, so maybe more students will join.
Mélenchon's movement has also scheduled a "march against Macron's social coup" in Paris two days after, the 23.
Renewable strikes are scheduled by transport federations from the 25 onwards, possibly with blockades on refineries.
|
Can't they at least let the man implement his reforms before they take it to the streets? This stuff is seriously undemocratic. If you don't like a political program you ought to vote.
|
Protests are fairly democratic, thank you very much. "Give him a chance and stay quiet" is not a virtue.
|
On September 14 2017 05:15 Nyxisto wrote:
Can't they at least let the man implement his reforms before they take it to the streets? This stuff is seriously undemocratic. If you don't like a political program you ought to vote.
Your conception of democracy is quite terrifying. "Vote once every 5 years, then shut up if you lost!"
|
On September 14 2017 05:58 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 05:15 Nyxisto wrote:
Can't they at least let the man implement his reforms before they take it to the streets? This stuff is seriously undemocratic. If you don't like a political program you ought to vote. Your conception of democracy is quite terrifying. "Vote once every 5 years, then shut up if you lost!"
And yours is "Vote once, lose, then boycott all votes, then complain for 5 years"?
|
A nice little trick to try: all these benefit of the doubt tricks you support Macron, see how fond you would be of the same exact line of reasoning being used as Trump support.
|
The "benefit of the doubt" thing was people hoping that Trump does not do what he actually wants to do. In case of Macron there's little doubt, different people just oppose his program, he is actually still trying to do what he said he'd do
On September 14 2017 05:58 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 05:15 Nyxisto wrote:
Can't they at least let the man implement his reforms before they take it to the streets? This stuff is seriously undemocratic. If you don't like a political program you ought to vote. Your conception of democracy is quite terrifying. "Vote once every 5 years, then shut up if you lost!"
parliamentary democracy is terrifying? Yes, I want people to respect the result of an election in the sense of not beating each other up in the streets. And I want people to actually participate in the elections.
|
On September 14 2017 07:21 Nyxisto wrote:The "benefit of the doubt" thing was people hoping that Trump does not do what he actually wants to do. In case of Macron there's little doubt, different people just oppose his program, he is actually still trying to do what he said he'd do Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 05:58 TheDwf wrote:On September 14 2017 05:15 Nyxisto wrote:
Can't they at least let the man implement his reforms before they take it to the streets? This stuff is seriously undemocratic. If you don't like a political program you ought to vote. Your conception of democracy is quite terrifying. "Vote once every 5 years, then shut up if you lost!" parliamentary democracy is terrifying? Yes, I want people to respect the result of an election in the sense of not beating each other up in the streets. And I want people to actually participate in the elections.
"Demonstrations are undemocratic" is an eerie thought process. Also it's funny that you mention the Parliament since we're talking about... executive orders. No one is disrespecting the results of the election. Winning ≠ silencing or dissolving the oppositions.
|
It's undemocratic to not participate in an election, only to then politically engage on non-official channels to stop an elected party from implementing policy. Opposition also exists within government institutions, they haven't kicked everbody besides Macron out of the national assembly.
Macron won the election with a very strong majority. He openly campaigned on an economic reform program, it was arguably the most important thing he ran on. I would argue that now, before he has even done much, he has got the democratic mandate to implement that program. If in one year you are living in a dystopia I would think you can still take it out on him with protests, but there's a degree of respect involved when someone wins an election.
And this isn't just a carte blanche for oppressive politics. Macron is not Erdogan or Trump who is trying to threaten civil society or something. Civil society isn't threatened under Macron.
|
The French just want everything.
I have no idea how the French think that their economy will pick up without reforming their labor laws. The rest of the world is doing well and the French are still struggling with their unemployment because, whether you like it or not, hiring someone in France can be a liability for the company more than anything else.
The French want their perfect job security where, in the event of a lay-off, they can live for free for a year off the company's money, without producing value. No shit companies aren't going to hire. No shit foreign investors won't manufacture in France or hire French people to work.
I'm all for safety nets in society (which France has!), but you need to also give room to companies to actually make money. French companies are required to have higher ROI than companies from other countries because of all the labor laws.
So companies which would be profitable and sustainable, but with lower margins, are simply not allowed to exist in France!
Ironically, when companies are looking to scrape numbers on their margins, the efforts are made principally by the laborers, not management. It's kind of counter-productive when you think about it.
|
It's not labor laws that hold France or anyone back. Stuff is too concentrated in too few hands. Too many investors are necessary who are eating into the cake of innovative founders. You can lower work cost but that's only a temporary solution, since inequality is here to stay. And then what? You lower them step by step until we are back to slavery and we are living in an oligarch planned economy?
|
France is far away from having labor laws like they have in the USA where you can be fired on the whim of your employer.
|
Yeah, many of the proposals make sense and aren't abnormal in any way. Some others seem harsh.
But well, the french strike is as surprising a message as a bag of rice fell over in china.
|
On September 14 2017 19:50 Incognoto wrote:
France is far away from having labor laws like they have in the USA where you can be fired on the whim of your employer.
Undermining worker rights does nothing to fix our economical problems. It's rather the opposite, it undermines the competition to implement new technologies since human labor becomes cheaper, it undermines demand leading to even less growth in the longrun. The only thing it achieves is that you are shifting your unemployment to other countries with higher standards. The real driving forces behind it: inequality, digitalization and globalization are left untouched.
|
What do workers gain by being damn near unfireable besides imbeciles annoying the others and less companies being willing to hire full time for jobs that don't require much training?
I would hate to still work with some people my employer fired.
Worker protection is important but some countries have imho just overdone it.
|
On September 14 2017 21:08 Velr wrote:
What do workers gain by being damn near unfireable besides imbeciles annoying the others and less companies being willing to hire full time for jobs that don't require much training?
I would hate to still work with some people my employer fired.
Worker protection is important but some countries have imho just overdone it.
The employers knew what they were getting into when they hired. It's important to let the few who actually can't compete under the existing conditions go bancrupt. You can't just always bail out bad employers and creditors politically. If you want to reform at least don't reform existing contracts, that's just socialism for the rich. Idiots who make contracts they can't keep need to fall on their face in a contract economy.
|
That wasn't my argument at all.
Btw. Many or even most employers still care for their employees, maybe not in big multinationals but in small/middle sized businesses this is very common.
|
Well and my point was that whatever you are trying to fix with less worker protection is not going to be fixed by it, regardless of whether you think it has gone too far.
|
Big J, what do you propose as policies to solve the "problems" of inequality, digitalization and globalization? Just curious as to your thoughts.
|
On September 15 2017 00:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Big J, what do you propose as policies to solve the "problems" of inequality, digitalization and globalization? Just curious as to your thoughts.
You want property rights which leads to a complete distribution of the world? Then you have to give everyone a basic income to be free to paricipate at a low level, financed from property taxation.
You want a free market? Then you have to prevent feudalism, i.e. forbid inheritance (or rather vast inheritance). Get as rich as you want, but you have to start from the same (ever rising) level in society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
