French riots

[j2k4]

Indeed I shall, but if you are going to reject my post out-of-hand, perhaps you'd favor me first with your view of whether your government ought to preserve such luxuries as your (compared to ours) short work-week, free health-care, and guaranteed employment without taking steps to ensure their fiscal viability?

A Bush supporter talking about fiscal viability?

Damn, I nearly pissed myself.

Gratuitous and off-topic.

Is there a moderator about, by any chance?

[Skillian]

France needs to reform it's labour laws (and I think most young French people accept that), but this law surely goes too far.

Don't wanna do overtime for no pay? Fired.

Turned down a date from your boss? Fired.

There are plenty of ways a law like this could be abused by employers.

edit: lynx, please don't start another flame war in here - we don't need a third thread ruined in the drawing room.

[j2k4]

France needs to reform it's labour laws (and I think most young French people accept that), but this law surely goes too far.

Don't wanna do overtime for no pay? Fired.

Turned down a date from your boss? Fired.

There are plenty of ways a law like this could be abused by employers.

edit: lynx, please don't start another flame war in here - we don't need a third thread ruined in the drawing room.

News here has been to the effect the law says 'terminated without cause'.

One would think (if what we also hear about non-productive employees) that the impetus would be to root out the deadwood and keep those who actually work.

Does your news actually reference the instances you cite?

[Skillian]

As I understand it, you can be fired for no reason whatsoever.

Obviously there aren't examples of that happening as it is currently illegal, but it would be fully possible (and dare I say likely) if the new law came into effect.

edit: the impetus is to encourage employers to employ the under 26s. I'm sure it'd work, as it would be attractive to hire someone who you could fire or replace on a whim.

[lynx]

edit: lynx, please don't start another flame war in here - we don't need a third thread ruined in the drawing room.

It was supposed to be fairly light hearted, just the sort of thing vidcc might say in fact. Bet he wouldn't have got that response. I won't be silenced by unwarranted attacks and this childish mod baiting, so if anyone wants to turn up the heat I'm more than ready for it.

And if you think I shouldn't be responding to things like this in public, then don't post them in public.

[Skillian]

C'mon, you knew j2k4 wasn't going to take it as a friendly jab. That makes it trolling. He and vidcc have a different relationship than you.

[j2k4]

As I understand it, you can be fired for no reason whatsoever.

Obviously there aren't examples of that happening as it is currently illegal, but it would be fully possible (and dare I say likely) if the new law came into effect.

edit: the impetus is to encourage employers to employ the under 26s. I'm sure it'd work, as it would be attractive to hire someone who you could fire or replace on a whim.

That's what I meant by "without cause".

It seems, though, that reason would dictate employers prefer employees with good work habits; why should he suffer a lazy bastard who interviews well?

As to your examples, I'm sure some government bureaucracy would provide oversight to ensure the occasional lecherous boss didn't hire females (or males, for that matter) merely to harass them sexually and then let them go, revolving-door-style.

BTW-what is the significance of "under-26s"?

[Skillian]

The law only applies to the under-26s. It's a response to the previous riots ( ), and the fact that 20% of 18-26 year olds are unemployed.

That's why it mostly young people protesting.

[j2k4]

The law only applies to the under-26s. It's a response to the previous riots ( ), and the fact that 20% of 18-26 year olds are unemployed.

That's why it mostly young people protesting.

Oh, right, thanks.

Well then; what to do?

As an employer (for that is the mind-set one must adopt for problem-solving purposes), if I needed to do some hiring, and there was such a surplus of employable types, I would look upon the situation as a buyer might: rummage through what's available, and hire the pick of the litter.


If job skills are not exactly rife, why should it be any other way?

Let those who do not care to work hard, or do quality work, mend their ways.

This right-to-a job (not right-to-work, mind), idea is a bit dodgy, don't you think?

Sorry if that sounds cold, but the world is a demonstrably cold place, and comfort is where you find it.

Comfort is under no obligation to find you.

Again, my opinion only.

[Skillian]

I generally agree - the French have it pretty easy with regards to working lives - they do short hours and it's (relatively) hard to fire them even if they're doing a bad job.

I don't htink making young people's job less stable really helps. When you are buying your first house/getting married etc., the last thing you need is a fragile job.

The answer - I dunno. Closer employment ties to schools and universities might help, and I believe arts and philosophical are more popular there. Perhaps they could do something to encourage more business-friendly subjects.