French Jobs Law Failure

Quote:

French jobs law climbdown
Prime minister says he regrets failure of proposed legislation

Monday, April 10, 2006 Posted: 0927 GMT (1727 HKT)

PARIS, France (AP) -- President Jacques Chirac, bowing to intense pressure from students and unions, announced plans Monday to replace a contested jobs law that fanned large protests and strikes across France.

Chirac's office said a new plan focusing on youths from troubled backgrounds will replace the "first job contract," which would have made it easier for companies to fire workers under 26.

The move comes as a blow to Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, who had championed the law despite weeks of protests across the country.

Acting on a proposal from Villepin, his longtime protege, Chirac decided to "replace" a key provision of the law with a measure aimed at "youths in difficulty," a statement from the president's office said.

The conservative government has pushed the law as a way to reduce high unemployment among French youths.

Chirac enacted the law earlier this month, but immediately suspended it to give ruling conservative lawmakers the chance to meet with unions and look for a way out of the crisis.

Unions were expected to make their own announcement Monday about whether to stage more of the protests and strikes that have shut down universities and tangled traffic in recent weeks -- and cast a shadow on what is likely to be Chirac's last year in office.

A visibly somber Villepin, speaking moments after Chirac ordered the measure replaced, said he had hoped to act quickly to reduce soaring youth joblessness. "This was not understood by everyone, I'm sorry to say."

What do other people think? I'm dismayed that this law failed. It was a chance for the French to finally start getting their labor market in order and start dealing with the issues they faced, and yet ignorant fools at the Sorbornne and employees who expect lifelong employment and can't adjust to a changing world triumphed. It's a sad day for France and for Europe, now the French join the ranks of Italy and have the joy of becoming a state in decline.

This is just a symptom of the larger French refusal to really embrace anything foreign. The racism exhibited towards immigrants in France (especially those of African origin) is remarkable. The French have been ignoring this problem for years and it has finally come back to bite them in the ass. I guess we won't see as many liberals claiming that they want to move to France because it's so much better than the US.

Originally Posted by god

This is just a symptom of the larger French refusal to really embrace anything foreign. The racism exhibited towards immigrants in France (especially those of African origin) is remarkable. The French have been ignoring this problem for years and it has finally come back to bite them in the ass. I guess we won't see as many liberals claiming that they want to move to France because it's so much better than the US.

I've yet to see liberals claim they want to live in France. They've often been told to go there though.

May I ask what was so utterly terrible about this law that it sparked protests?

Are you familiar with the probationary period that exists with American employers? Basically, a new employee has to be very good on the job for a certain amount of time (6 months, I think), or else they risk termination without cause.
As I recall, one of the things that French law did was to extend that probationary period to a 5 year limit instead, and this was a big bonus for companies, while a big negative for employees.
I do not think this is the whole of the issue one bit, but it is a small aspect of it.

"The CPE would have allowed employers to fire workers 26 years old and younger at any point during their first two years on the job. Young people and unions responded bitterly, arguing that the measure would rob them of current job protections. "

Interesting that the students and unions would claim a victory. Exactly who won here? The students still won't have a job when they graduate. Chase jobs away and keep 22% unemployement. Economically it makes no sence.

The new law might've taken away job protections for the French youth but job protection means nothing if you don't have a job to protect in the first place, as evidenced by France's 22% unemployment rate for their youth. But whatever, if they want to keep those protections in place its their choice.

What I want to know is why something like that is inhibiting job growth to begin with.
Why can't the companies stop being such pansies, and take some risk in hiring those people?

Well, let's say they make a mistake, and pick a total slacker who happened to do well in the interview or something. Now they're stuck with him forever. Nobody wants to take that level of risk...and if it means being a "pansy" then so be it.

Originally Posted by Dhsu

Well, let's say they make a mistake, and pick a total slacker who happened to do well in the interview or something. Now they're stuck with him forever. Nobody wants to take that level of risk...and if it means being a "pansy" then so be it.

Funny thing is, if it weren't for whiny unions demanding their way, I am sure this would have been of no concern in the first place. After all, what else is preventing them from firing employees for reduced or poor performance?

Ah, it is funny how the left wing always manages to tie itself into knots of laws that can only be remedied by more laws.

Don't French companies also offer employee benefits to their workers? Just look at American airlines right now, their workers want their benefits, but airline companies can't stay healthy as a corporation by keeping those benefits. At the same time they can't just layoff hundreds if not thousands of employees because then their unions will act up. and if I remember correctly you can't just file for Chapter 11 like before and just use it as a union buster. French employers probably have similiar concerns, where if all of a sudden business turns sour and you can't turn the kind of earnings to keep your employees and company balance books happy then you're going to be in an aweful lot of trouble.

There are valid claims for both sides. The measure was meant to help the "youth" be employed. But having no job security is almost the same as having no employment at all. Hehe as an employer though that be cool. I wouldn't have to go through the normal hassles of having to discharge an employee and go through all that paperwork.

Anyway why should I say this? Because as an employee I'll potentially never get anywhere with that hiring scheme. Even here with the six month preliminary work for security tenure I see a lot of companies not following this. They actually hire someone for at least 5 months then immediately discharge him/her. It still doesn't guarantee any form of job security when you come to think about it.

This hiring scheme also lacks any possible increase or sustenance of motivation for these workers when any positive performance does not guarantee a stable paying job.

Quote:

There are valid claims for both sides. The measure was meant to help the "youth" be employed. But having no job security is almost the same as having no employment at all. Hehe as an employer though that be cool. I wouldn't have to go through the normal hassles of having to discharge an employee and go through all that paperwork.

Anyway why should I say this? Because as an employee I'll potentially never get anywhere with that hiring scheme. Even here with the six month preliminary work for security tenure I see a lot of companies not following this. They actually hire someone for at least 5 months then immediately discharge him/her. It still doesn't guarantee any form of job security when you come to think about it.

This hiring scheme also lacks any possible increase or sustenance of motivation for these workers when any positive performance does not guarantee a stable paying job.

Ever seen statistics though? 22% unemployment is no joke, and if its that high, the French don't really have a choice. You get job security after two years, so work and do a good job. The French economy is in decline, it is less competetive, and won't remain the titan it currently is for much longer.

Also, France is probably the most diametrically opposed country to globalization. A majority of its people for example, aspire to get jobs with the state (only 32% want to be in the private sector), and there are other stats just as disturbing.

This law would have started in making the French competitive for international investment, but unions and their complete lack of foresight shelved it.

My thoughts were that young workers were essentially facing a continuous string of low-wages jobs up until they're 26, putting a serious crimp in their efforts to begin building a stable financial foundation for themselves. With a 22% unemployment rate, there is no shortage of people looking for a job, so it is every bit in a company's best interest to continuously turnover young workers so that nobody stays on long enough to earn significant wage increases.

In the US, places like movie theaters, grocery stores, and Wal-Mart actually count on the high turnover rate of minimum wage jobs so that they don't ever have to pay anybody very much above minimum wage. Even the managers are encouraged to move on after a while. This law would ensure this sort of behavior no matter where you worked, meaning you'd have to wait until 26 to even think about starting a career.

It was just a nasty, underhanded way to exploit the current unemployment situation, and Homey wasn't playing that. It's not just American businesses who are looking to fuck their workers in the ass any way they can.

Isn’t it rather fanciful to assume that you would actually get “job security” after the two year period?

There are some immediate implications and practical concerns. Some questions to get you thinking…

If these French labour laws had been passed, would there be anything to prevent employers sacking people approaching the age of 26 (or at the end of the two years) and replacing them with younger people on less expensive wages?

Imagine you as the owner of a company. Would you be more inclined to hire someone aged over 26 given your business would enjoy greater flexibility employing a younger jobseeker? We’d decide things on merit, is what you’d probably say –but what if your unscrupulous competitors were exploiting the youth, in order to drive operating costs down: would you then adopt their practices in order to stay competitive? Hmm.

As a young worker, do you think a bank or financial institute would be more or less likely to grant you a personal loan (eg. for housing, personal enterprise/small business) given the unpredictable nature of your employment (and ability to repay the debt)? Another potential problem.

Competitiveness and increased international investment is indeed a fair point, although there is no guarantee that the lowest paid workers will be compensated adequately if at all for their current level of labour protection. It is naïve to expect the most disadvantaged to make sacrifices for the greater good of the wider economy. You also can’t expect people to see any long term economic benefit to be a good prospect for them if they feel they are at risk of being exploited immediately or in the long term. Such issues don’t even factor into their thinking.

Quote:

My thoughts were that young workers were essentially facing a continuous string of low-wages jobs up until they're 26, putting a serious crimp in their efforts to begin building a stable financial foundation for themselves. With a 22% unemployment rate, there is no shortage of people looking for a job, so it is every bit in a company's best interest to continuously turnover young workers so that nobody stays on long enough to earn significant wage increases.

In the US, places like movie theaters, grocery stores, and Wal-Mart actually count on the high turnover rate of minimum wage jobs so that they don't ever have to pay anybody very much above minimum wage. Even the managers are encouraged to move on after a while. This law would ensure this sort of behavior no matter where you worked, meaning you'd have to wait until 26 to even think about starting a career.

It was just a nasty, underhanded way to exploit the current unemployment situation, and Homey wasn't playing that. It's not just American businesses who are looking to fuck their workers in the ass any way they can.

At the same time though, France's labor market is so secure and protected that companies just don't want to take the risk hiring people since firing them for incompetence is virtually impossible.

Also, a temporary job is better than no job, even at minimum wage. If people just made a little money running between jobs, it would be better for the economy than the current situation of just not having one.

Why are you people unhappy about this? It's nice to see that people power still exists in the otherwise complacent world of western democracies.

A far greator threat to the job sercurity of everyone, not just youth, was passed in Australia and no one did a fucking thing about it. I admire the French.

According to my uncle - he's been working in france for 3 years now- France is in decay. The 35 hours week is the worst thing that happened according to him. It'S nearly impossible to make overtime (those who do are looked down upon).

And in an economics class i had this trimester, i was told that this CPE was meant to break away the nearly-impossible fireing of an employee

Quote:

At the same time though, France's labor market is so secure and protected that companies just don't want to take the risk hiring people since firing them for incompetence is virtually impossible.

exactly

I can't believe you're overlooking the personal livlihoods of people for rubbish like "the national economy."