1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Peoples Republic of France

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Bozo Erectus, Apr 3, 2006.

  1. anarres

    anarres anarchist revolutionary

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    6,069
    Location:
    www.civ3duelzone.com
    I'm sorry, but "employee protection" never means a company can't make redundancies. This is a very silly idea, even for you Bozo. :)

    What is does mean is that if you get fired and you believe that it was not simply because your position became redundant you can appeal to a court (in the UK they are called "industrial tribunals" and are not the usual legal courts).

    If this court finds that you were fired simply because (for example) your manager didn't like you, then they can make the company re-hire you or pay compensation (usually rehire you).

    In the case of being fired because you are black or a woman for example, they can and often do both. Sexual/racial discrimination is illegal (in the UK at least).

    Now.... if you are fired because of disiplinary matters, as long as the company has followed their procedures then 99% of the time they are fine and you can do nothing. So (for example) even for being late you can be fired... if it's against the company rules and they issue you with a verbal warning then a written warning then you're out!

    Employment laws are there to protect you from disreputable and dishonest employers, and they work!

    Now I know almost nothing about France, but I'll bet money it's very very similar to the UK in many of these matters.

    Just assuming you can't get fired because of employment laws is stupid, and you should know better. :p
     
  2. jojoweb

    jojoweb Chimpa-Z

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    491
    Location:
    Lyon, France
    Aaaaaaaah i can't let you say that ^_^. French people doesn't need to be educated like german people in the 30's !!!! A government don't have to "educate a population". And french people don't need to be educated ! We are not a communist or a fascist country, the majority votes for capitalist politicians. We know the world, but i think that, in France, nobody accept to be in the "poor class".

    And a democracy is not a mobocracy, OK, BUT, in France, the government have a lot of responsabilities. In our Republic, Government is all. So, when you are the leader of a government which have so much responsabilities, you can't create labor laws without a dialogue. And, you know, Chirac and Mr De Villepin represent only 20% of the population. So, they can't do what they want, they did not have the legitimacy. I don't like what it happens in my country at the moment. Demonstrations, strikes, ... Me, I prefer to wait for the next elections. But, i don't pity this government, because they don't know how to govern France !
     
  3. Bozo Erectus

    Bozo Erectus Master Baker

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    22,389
    Anarres, if a person is fired due to racism, then yes, they have a legitimate grievance, although the argument could be made that if racism was a factor, they never would have been hired in the first place. What interests me about this situation in France is that the people seem to think that business people are evil and fire people just to bother them. France is very anticapitalist. Its like theres an assumption that somebody who owns a business and employs people is automatically a bad guy who needs to be watched by the government.

    @Jojo, the French people dont need to be educated? They know everything and are always right? :confused:
     
  4. jojoweb

    jojoweb Chimpa-Z

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    491
    Location:
    Lyon, France
    No they are not always right, but a government don't have to educate a population, in a democracy. Napoleon wanted to educate germans, Hitler wanted to educate Germans (poor germans...), Franco wanted to educate Spanish people, Staline wanted to educate Russians, etc... A government can make ads on TV to say "don't smoke" or "don't drink" but, he can't say "you must think that".

    The information, and a part of the education don't have to be inculcated by the government but by the journalists.

    OK, in USA, the 2nd biggest democracy in the world, the leader lies to the people (like "Irak is dangerous" or "Ben Laden is in Irak" arf arf), and want to re-educate people thoughts. And you seems to love that, so... But in Europe we want a real democracy, where people votes for a leader, and where the leader govern for the people. If Chirac has lied to govern, French people should be in the street. And when Chirac establish a law refused by 80% of the people, French are in the street. We don't have a better democracy than yours, but we want more democracy than you ^_^.

    I don't think that strikers represent all the people, but last week, there were 3 million people in the street and Chirac said "i promulgate the law". It is not serious you know. Imagine if 5% of the americain people was in the street, (it represents 14 million people), don't you think that Bush or a governor will change something ? And when in the polls, 80% of the people don't want this law, isn't it a good reason to change something ?
     
  5. Steph

    Steph Multi Many Tasks man Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    18,162
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pont de l'Arn, FRANCE
    You are right, that is exactly the feeling of the street. "Employers are evil and will automatically fire you just before the end of your probation period"
    The street doesn't try to see the possible benefits, but only stick to this outdated and distorted view. And most of the time, they know nothing of business world, as they never experienced it (like students), or only from the employee perspective (not employer point of view)
     
  6. jojoweb

    jojoweb Chimpa-Z

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    491
    Location:
    Lyon, France
    I do not disagree with your opinions guys. I don't like this CPE, and i'm totally leftier. But you say true things. French are afraid by employers, capitalism, and globalization. But you know, French are not evil and communists. It is a cultural problem :

    -1st : French love money, but, consider it like a bad thing. Because we have a christian tradition, not a protestant tradition.

    -2nd : French are a litlle bit utopians (not like Russians). You can't govern them only with "negative" reforms. France can be reformed if you take on a hand, and give in an other hand. The previous government have made very positive reforms, but he did not take advantage of them to make negative reforms. And now, the actual government want to make negative reforms without positive things. France is an emotionnal country, he feels sometimes very joyful, and other times, very depressive. So, governements must compose with French humors. But they are all incompetents...
     
  7. HannibalBarka

    HannibalBarka We are Free

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,946
    Location:
    Paris, France
    That is exactly the point of disagreement. In France, and actually in almost all Western Europe, people do not think that "private emploeyers should hire and fire whoever they want" even if they do agree on the "It is their money after all". Workers are not "slaves" or "products" employers can use as they wish. If you employ some one, you sign a contract with him, and that gives him rights. Starting a business is taking risk, but so is working for some one. That is why if an employer wants to fire some one, he needs to have very good reasons to do so (the guy doesn't fit the job, he misbehaved or there is no work for him anymore for the next long period). Employers have however the right to fire whom ever they want for other reasons, but in that case it is breaking a conract, and thus the employee have the right to compensation.
    France already experienced the "100% Capitalism" in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and we clearly don't want that any more.
     
  8. HannibalBarka

    HannibalBarka We are Free

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,946
    Location:
    Paris, France
    That is not true. Or more correctly it is not true any more. Civil servants go more easily on strike than people working in the private sector mainly because they are better organized and more syndicated and more importantly because they can't be fired. The average Dupont working in a small company will have serious problems if he goes on strike.
     
  9. HannibalBarka

    HannibalBarka We are Free

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,946
    Location:
    Paris, France
    I completly agree with you on this. since the eighties I've been hearing France is on the decline, Japan is buying all France, than it was the Germans and the UK, and the US, and more recently China and India. And guess what, no body baught us, it's actually more the other way since EDF, France Telecom and Co are buying companies every where, France is still among the 5 biggest economies world wide, and we are still the 3d country receiving foreign investment.
     
  10. JerichoHill

    JerichoHill Bedrock of Knowledge

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    10,384
    Location:
    Washington DC
    DUDE?!

    Great no sell on the unemployment figures! I wonder why the French and other European economies have "hysterisis" and we here in America don't! Could it be because the European countries have unemployment laws and work laws that INDUCE unemployment and give people reasons and the ability to not work?

    I don't know...I'm just an economist! I know NOTHING! Nothing!!!!!

    Last I checked no one's rioting over unemployment here. In fact, the only protestors of recent memory were illegals who wanted jobs here!

    (I probably spelled hysterisis wrong. Its been a while since my graduate studies.)
     
  11. HannibalBarka

    HannibalBarka We are Free

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,946
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Well, I lived in NYC for three years, and frankly I wasn't making just a little bit more money there than when I was in Paris. I've made the math, I ended with 10% more net income. Actually "poor" people pay more taxes in the US, middle class about the same, and for the 10% richest, you'll pay less taxes in the US. But in France, Universities are free, in the US you pay (20000 $ per year I've been told, that is something like 0.5 yearly earning for an average family, basically you'll need 2 to 3 years of work just to send a kid to the university !!!!!), and social security is no comparison between the two countries. Socail protection in the US is like the one in France, but in 19th century France ;)
    About unemployment rate, while it is obvious there are many more jobless in France, things aren't so simple. In the US, a lot of people have to work 16 hours a day to make a living, in France when you have a job, it is supposed to be enough, when you lose your job in the US, you can easily find your self without any social protection and you better wait before falling sick ;) . Medical benefits in the US are given to some employee and not all of them, mainly the white collars, the average Joe working in a fast food have no benefits. In France Every one have them, etc....

    So yes, we have more people without a job, but the one that have one are better of here, and the one without are more protected.

    And lastly, there is also a huge difference in mentalities. In the US, God is the Dollar. Working hard and making money is what makes all american wake up in the morning, you're smart if you are rich. In France it is not the case. Enjoying life, meeting with your friends and family, going on vacations is what makes french people wake up in the morning. And being rich have no link with being smart in french mind. An example about that: when you date a girl here, it is very very impolite to talk about money and how much each one is making, whether asking the other or saying what you earn. In the US, it is very normal
     
  12. kryszcztov

    kryszcztov Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,423
    So true. Someday an American father went here to visit his son who was staying in our house for a few months, and he was so :eek: to learn that we had so much free time here. When my father told him how many hours per week he works, and how many weeks of vacation he has per year (all the more since the "35 heures"), he became very jealous. Basically it's a choice. You take money or time. Not both.

    Haha. ;) Or only in the über-class of the society. It's quite obvious that taking a lot of time to make a lot of money doesn't leave you much time to get more culture, etc... And we have a tendency to despise the rich. :D

    This I have a problem with. For me it should be a normal subject of discussion, just like asking what you vote for, etc... Of course if you do your smart ass with your high salary, it won't impress many people, at least not me. :mischief:
     
  13. MamboJoel

    MamboJoel Cool.

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2001
    Messages:
    1,850
    Location:
    Paris, France
    I agree Bozo used a strange word but please stop "sortir les grands mots" on every issue when you feel like your own conservatism is in danger : refering to hitler when we're talking about work flexibility just deteriorates the very few credibility some prostests have left (A force de crier au loup...) I'm sorry I use french words, but I'm in quite a hurry here and this post is read mainly by french people, any english speakers got the idea of what I'm saying anyway I guess, and BTW I apologize cause I'll mainly respond to french posters here ...

    Back to populism and bonapartism then ? Direct democracy ? Anyway less than 6% of the over 18 manifesting is still less than the 2002 democratically elected legislative majority. Aren't you allready satisfied by the permanent majority switches we have had for 30 years (alternance at every legislative vote ! Not a single majority reelected), or do you want even more : let's go back to the 4th Republic's versatility than, if it's what your point really is instead of trying to block Universities, Transports and the Economy for a "mesurette" that is far from beeing the reform that despite our romantic french dreams we'll be forced to make on day: the hard way.

    Productivity ... Go ask a Pas de Calais factory to produce a pair of shoes and than a Shangai one. I agree that from our point of view and in regards of the human rights there is exploitation in the countries where we delocalize, but what shall we do ? Avoid investing in emerging countries, close our borders ? Do you think the exploited Indonesian worker will agree with that ?

    They prefere work ! Take a look at the last GlobalScan survey about how negative the french vision towards free market was compared to Germans/US/Chinese.
    Improving Human Rights in those countries is another debate (even if it's related) but closing the borders to investments is clearly not the solution.

    The GlobalScan Survey (PDF)

    Most agree in the XXIth century that state planified economies haven't prouved themeselves efficient. The statements I read are simplistic macroeconomist affirmations. Y = C + I, so let's get I higher ! Or how about adding a multiplier to C ? ...

    5% Growth allows the state's budget to support an equivalent deficit, if you get back to 1.5% growth and keep the deficit as it is the difference goes directly in the national debt.

    It just too much looks like you're trying to politicize the debt around *pivot* year 86. It's the year the right wing came back to power for two years (86->88) after (if you recall correctly) the great nationalizations of the economy (includings banks) that led to what even today's socialists call "La Geule de bois".
    I don't want to go on french politics, be just avoid this kind of magic chronologic dichotomies. BTW The only true reform that was able to pass the test of the street (no protests at all) in France was in fact the socialists nationalizations I mentioned earlier, and the french left herself backed it up, and thn I read :

    No comment. Ah si ... How is the french state supposed to buy the shares of all those companies we need to nationalize ? Didn't we just talk about the tresory situation or is France goind to *expropriate* the current owners ? Day dreaming ...

    In France, we managed to put in every peoples minds a terrible thought, this one :

    The evil employer ! The french don't make any difference between the only stocks orientated CIO of Total that makes 13 billion benefits and the small business employer that employs 80% of the work force at it's own risk !!!

    Bozo asked about opening a business in France. I could spam all day long about that. We had a minimum required capital to provide to open a company of 8000 euros. I won't get in the details about those company creation contracts, it's a whole other complex deal and bizare we rarelly see people going down the street protesting against that, anyway... Once all the procedure was made you recieved a pile of letters from more or less obscure organisms requiring you to pay for various taxes (some aren't mandatory but they won't tell you of course) and at the end of the second month, your 8000 € (was 50000 francs for an SARL at that time) disapeared allready.

    The last right wing gov passed a law to reduce the minimum investment from 8000 to 1 €. Ok fine, but it's pure theory cause :
    1. Nobody starts a business investing 1€
    2. Taxes are the same anyway so you'll need at least 10000 € to survive against the burocracy the first year.
    Call it free market ...

    After you've passed this year you want to hire somebody : it's a pain in the neck to find the corresponding contract (there is maybe 20 different ways of hiring somebody in France), so before even starting a single interview you allready need an external 1 grand a month jurist to figure out how to administrate your business.
    And after that you've managed to hire someone that you won't be able to fire in case you loose your client. And ! And you end up listening to people saying kindly to you : "So, some cowardly employers prefer not to employ anyone". Huh !

    French people don't want anymore constraints, they don't want to suffer any kind pressure on their decision, switch from mariages to mariages, they are liberartarians, fine ! But when it comes to their very own security, everybody relies on the state and there are no more libertarians left.

    Going furtur on this path :
    If they want an employer to keep them at work despite economic variations, then on the other, why wouldn't they have to accept the conterpart regidity as customers : buy the same TV, shoes, car at regular frequencies. They are for liberalism when it comes to chose a Boulangerie to buy their sandwich in, but they're for social conservatism when they work in the Boulangerie and it's sandwiches are not sold anymore.

    Where is our entreprise spirit, the one that made us explore the world, invent all kinds of stuff ? France is a strange example of state and economy mariage :
    In France the union between the two was not preceded by a revolution (like in the soviet union) nor motivated by a nationally shared sentiment of solidarity (like maybe in some scan countries) but by a permanent reliance in the State. The Nation State of Louis XIV. These times are over unfortunatly.
     
  14. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    19,977
    I'm all for contracts, but I don't see why the government must force some kinds of contract. If an employer breaks a contract, he should pay. But the contract should be one mutually agreed between employer and employee, and not imposed by a third party.

    Forcing people to stay on a company that does not want/does not need/cannot afford him is clearly counterproductive, and makes society as a whole poorer.

    As for 19th Century France. What made it a bad place was lack of capital, not too much Capitalism. In Brazil we have as many labour laws as in France, but it still sucks. Why? Lack of capital.
     
  15. kingjoshi

    kingjoshi King

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,745
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    A third party (government) is not dictating the rules of the contract, but setting minimum rules for it. You can still add more stipulations but the government is ensuring worker rights and certain minimums.

    We, in the US, also provide certain worker rights and they're part of the contract. Even at-will contracts. Minimum wage. No sexual harrassment. etc.

    I'm sure (or I hope) you have similar laws in Brazil.

    The difference is deciding what the minimum should be.
     
  16. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    19,977
    I call that dictating and getting in the way of mutual agreement.

    I know.

    Nearly as much as France, probably.

    It shouldn't exist.
     
  17. Masquerouge

    Masquerouge Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    17,790
    Location:
    Mountain View, CA
    My impression was that the hysterisis in the US is on other social matters than unemployment. Mainly : financing retirement, illegal immigration and debt.

    I would not put all of the European countries in the same bag.

    you sure do generalize a lot.

    It's funny how you see riots but people in France see protests. Especially funny since riots in the US are usually way more destructive than others. But I guess it is so much easier not to try to understand what's going on and despise people doing things differently than you'd do.
     
  18. jojoweb

    jojoweb Chimpa-Z

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    491
    Location:
    Lyon, France
    First, i'm not bonapartist or something like that. But, why do you think that the syndicates, in France, are so non-representative ? Because in our country, Government made (and make) their work.

    And, you know, i don't say that street must govern. I'm not in the street. And i can't bear the way the students block universities and schools. I think, like you, that a government was elected (not a good government for me ^_^), and we must wait the next election to vote for the opposition if we want, or for the same governement if we are finally satisfied. But, in an other hand, i think that a leader must hear what the polls say ! And the polls say that French people doesn't want this stupid measure.

    Then, i never said that employers are evils ! But, when 66% of the fired executives go to the labor court, and when employers say "i want to have a labor contract without anti-dicriminative laws", you can't say that the atmosphere is good... And the government don't try to reconcile employees and employers, he just try to give new weapons in the camp of employers. With the CPE, the govermnent add new tensions... If this governement want to help employers, he can make some simple things :

    -Renounce in the decline of the income tax, and reduce labor taxes.
    -Make a true economic policy

    ^_^
     
  19. kingjoshi

    kingjoshi King

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,745
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    As another has said, it's been tried. And failed. In France. In the US. Sticking to failed ideology for what reason?
     
  20. Steph

    Steph Multi Many Tasks man Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    18,162
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pont de l'Arn, FRANCE
    Oh? Polls, conducted on echantillon or a thousand people, are representative of the people wills? That is VERY democratic.
    If you ask people in the street : Do you want a contract for life, or do you prefer a contract where you can be fired easily? It is VERY likely that most people will be in favour of the first.
    Does it mean it's the best answer to solve unemployement? No.
    Governing by the polls is the WORST thing to do.

    Guess what? By definition, it's the employers who employ, and can solve unemployement. We need more employers, not more employees.

    And what should that be?
     

Share This Page