Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4855084.stm
The youngsters want cradle-to-grave employment, and they're going to run around, break stuff, hassle cops and not work until they get it.
Sounds like a plan.
After the hullabaloo over the endangered 35-hour work-week, I don't wonder, 'Why?'
Good thing the French economy is in such good shape.
I think the cops over there ought to crank up the pressure on those water-hoses they're using...
I pick labors side over managements. Excepting pro sports.
In all cases?Quote:
Originally Posted by zapjb
I used to live on Rue de Rennes -the weekly demonstrations passing by may have altered my childhood.
Sure thing. Between 200 and 300 youths out of 1.5 million protesters certainly warrant generalisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
No, no, no. If you're going to deform the facts to suit your chronical french bashing habit, at least do it properly and say something about retirement at 40, free coke and hookers.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
And you could also do like the people at the New York Times and make it a question of race and social class.
Oh well, carry on. In the meantime, I'll go plan my undeserved retirement, eat cheese and surrender to Germany or something to that effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by the NY Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guillaume
Who gives a feck what a middle-aged woman from Kent thinks.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guillaume
As an American, I'm constantly hearing we are backwards for not having all the social entitlements you enjoy.
The reason you have demonstrators in the streets is a result of economic strain caused by these policies.
Over here, they'd just raise our taxes; have you tried that?
BTW-before you jump to the mistaken conclusion I'm enjoying a bout of schadenfreude, try to entertain the idea I might just be trying to learn a little something about your country and how you feel about it.
Uh isn't he talking about the youngsters that were doing the fucking up?:ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guillaume
Busyman-clear out your inbox, huh?
:lol:Quote:
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. :lol:
Gratuitous and off-topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Is there a moderator about, by any chance? :huh:
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'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skillian
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skillian
And if you think I shouldn't be responding to things like this in public, then don't post them in public.
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.
That's what I meant by "without cause".Quote:
Originally Posted by Skillian
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"?
The law only applies to the under-26s. It's a response to the previous riots (:rolleyes: ), and the fact that 20% of 18-26 year olds are unemployed.
That's why it mostly young people protesting.
Oh, right, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skillian
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.
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.
Form unions.
Then go on strike.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Oh, wait... :blushing:
No no no, that's our country :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
All of this is true, so we may ultimately conclude the law is a good idea because-Quote:
Originally Posted by Skillian
1. Work habits (as well as laws which impact on them)are largely affectable generationally.
2. Older workers are more entrenched, economically much more likely to be stable and established, AND:
3. Have a larger stake in retaining the inherent stability of their circumstance, as well as (surprise!) the political acumen, ability and CONNECTIONS required to insulate themselves from realpolitik, at least relative to the younger set.
4. The lack of political (or any other) standing will have (minimally) the effect of impressing the worker-prospective with the not-so-unimportant concept of competition and how wonderfully it focuses the survival instinct, vis a vis the work ethic.
This is the non-Communist version of realpolitik.
I'm sorry but I didn't understand most of that post :blushing: /goes off to google realpolitik
You are saying it will hone young people's survival instincts, helping them for the modern world of work?
That doesn't really outweigh the fact that you might get fired when you become pregnant, or lose your job on your 26th birthday to be replaced by someone with a more "flexible" contract.
Fuck management. Power to the masses.
Fight the power.
http://img77.exs.cx/img77/5392/fightthepower8dx.jpg
As to the former, yes it will, and to the latter, maybe not, but that's how the cookie crumbles at crunch time, defined here as demonstrations and strikes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skillian
The youngsters have the most to gain, certainly, but also the least to lose; that is why it is incumbent upon them to buy into the "survival of the fittest" school of thought.
These difficulties you see will no doubt occur, but the economic imperative will throttle them to realistic levels.
Pragmatism wins, or the system doesn't survive.
Sure, why not? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Skillian
Then Management says "fuck the masses", and hires some new "masses".Quote:
Originally Posted by zapjb
Masses are plentiful; "Managements" much less so. ;)
Fact.
So what? That doesn't make it moral, right or palatable.
Precisely so, but that is regretfully beside the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by zapjb
Remember that thread during Katrina where the old saw, "you practice the ethics (or morals, rights, what-have-you) you can afford" was recalled?
Bingo.
Analogously, shots aren't pleasant, nor is chemo-therapy.
Shit happens, even in France.
Management should be able to fire people, if there is a reason to fire them.
The Law that they are trying to bring in though, will allow management to fire someone if management got out of the wrong side of the bed that morning. Thats just wrong.
You cant go from one extreme to the other, when both are equally unfair... you have to go somewhere in the middle. Some places have 40% un-employment over there, you cant expect them to not protest the Government.
The riots are started by a small minority, however as has happened everywhere else (eg: USA and UK) police response can turn a small scale riot into something city wide.
Can i remind you of the late nineties and the anti-capitalist protest in the States? Started by a few, developed into a huge riot that gave the Police a PR nightmare.
the companies nowadays are like a plaque of giant grasshoppers. They wear out their employees and when the company has improved their benefits with a few 100%. They ask more and more of their employees. If the employees ask for something in return, like a stable and sure income for their hard work nowadays firms threaten to leave to a lower salary (read third world) country.
In my best believes their should be some kind of balance between the two, if people work hard they should earn a decent salary and should get some kind of work insurance policy. it's a two way road. Nowaday firms are todays vampires they use people up and throw them by the trash if they are getting older (read more expensive). It's justified that governements protect the employees in these fights by making laws. My suggestion would be a boycot of every firm that wouldn't sign decent contracts.
Mangment of big firms are in general pocket filling assholes. They don't care about people, just themselves and the double percentage of profits counts, pleasing their shareholders is their only goal, so they can collect their giant biljon dollar bonus.
Anarchisme is great in these batles. Vive le revolution!