NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Ah, those silly, silly French persons; expecting young employees to actually work! Tsk! Actually, I think two years on probation is a bit long. In most places in the US, probation is limited to 90 days.


French Students Step Up Protests
Against New Job Law (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/international/europe/15france.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


By ELAINE SCIOLINO
Published: March 15, 2006
PARIS, March 14 — Tens of thousands of students marched through Paris and other French cities on Tuesday, stepping up their opposition to a new law that makes it easier to hire — and fire — young workers.

In Paris, university and high school students, joined by teachers, workers, union members and Communist Party members, marched across town, stopping traffic as they chanted slogans like "We're not cannon fodder" and "We're not young flesh for the boss." At one location near the Sorbonne in the heart of the Latin Quarter, the police clashed with small groups of protesters, dispersing them with tear gas.

More than half of France's 84 public universities remained either completely or partly closed on Tuesday because of student blockades, according to the Ministry of National Education.

The Sorbonne, at the University of Paris, remained closed three days after riot police officers used tear gas to evacuate about 300 students. University authorities said the occupation had caused damages of between $600,000 and $1.2 million.

The protests are driven by two factors: domestic politics and the fear of change among France's middle and working class. This is not about promoting grand revolutionary ideals.

Formulated by the government to help ease the crisis of high unemployment, particularly among disadvantaged young people in the suburbs, the law is seen by its opponents as a step toward eroding employment rights and benefits.

Opposition to the "first job contract" law, whose goal is to encourage firms to hire young people with little or no job experience, has confronted Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin with one of the most serious crises in his 10 months in office.

Under France's political system, Mr. de Villepin is the head of government and answerable to Parliament. President Jacques Chirac, the head of state, is responsible for the country's defense and foreign policy, and, whenever possible, tries to distance himself from domestic troubles. But he is expected to intervene when things get out of hand.

During a visit to Berlin on Tuesday, Mr. Chirac made his first public comments on the protests, telling reporters, "It goes without saying that I totally and unreservedly support the activities conducted by the prime minister and the French government."

Mr. de Villepin, whose approval rating has fallen to a record low of 36 percent in recent weeks, has become the target of opponents of the law. Even some members of his own U.M.P. party have called on him to drop the hiring project.

He is widely expected to seek the presidency next year, but his candidacy could be crippled if the protests spin out of control and force the government to back down.

The students have the full support of the parties of the left and the country's powerful unions, which contend that the law is unjust because it allows companies to fire workers under the age of 26 within the first two years of employment with little notice or severance.

Twenty-three percent of French citizens under the age of 26 are jobless; in some of the major cities' suburbs, which were racked by riots late last year, the figure is close to double that.

But Mr. de Villepin, who called himself a man "of action" in a television interview on Monday night, is holding firm. On Tuesday, he and the French labor minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, were criticized in the National Assembly by leftist deputies who said they had not been given enough time to consider the law before they passed it last month.

"To create discrimination based on age transgresses fundamental rights!" declared one leftist deputy, Roger-Gérard Schwartzenberg. [ I truly wonder if this works in the opposite age direction. ] :rolleyes:

Mr. Schwartzenberg was part of a move by leftist deputies on Tuesday to challenge the constitutionality of the new law before the Constitutional Council, which can be called upon to review laws after they have been approved by Parliament and before they are promulgated by the president.

The deputies are arguing that the law violates the constitutional principle of equality among workers. A growing number of university presidents, meanwhile, concerned about their ability to run their institutions in a calm and secure atmosphere, called on the center-right French government to revoke the law.

Tensions have mounted since the police stormed the historic Sorbonne building in the predawn hours on Saturday to evict 200 students who had occupied the premises.

On Monday night, police officers clashed with several hundred students after they occupied the Collège de France here, one of the country's most prestigious research institutions. The police dispersed the crowd during the night.

The government is becoming increasingly frustrated, although there is no clear strategy to stop the protesters. More protests, in which students are scheduled to be joined by France's main unions, are planned for Thursday and Saturday.

"A huge majority of students want to study," Gilles de Robien, the minister of national education, told Parliament on Tuesday, adding, "The right to blockade doesn't exist."

Underscoring the fluid nature of the crisis, Laurence Parisot, head of the French employers' federation known as Medef, reversed herself and threw her support behind Mr. de Villepin on Tuesday.

Telling reporters that she hopes that the new law can "be used by companies as an additional type of labor contract," Ms. Parisot encouraged the government to go even further. "We hope that finally we will have a debate on reforming the labor market, which functions badly and is getting worse," she said.

PARIS, March 14 — Tens of thousands of students marched through Paris and other French cities on Tuesday, stepping up their opposition to a new law that makes it easier to hire — and fire — young workers.
I think this was the reason they were in protest.

This would piss me off too. It's supposedly going to help the unemployment rate, but it seems more likely to destroy job security for people under 26. Your title is extremely misleading. This is not about lazy students not wanting to work...it is about future workers who expect that they should have the right to job security, just as those over 26 do.

you mean french students riot when told they will be treated as second call citizens in the job market, when the rights a privileges their forefathers have fought for generations to achieve since the french revolution with be thrown away by a semifascist government in the hopes of appeasing the forces of global capitalism. i don't see what else they could do, unless its another revolution, the french workers and students can't possibly allow this travesty to go forward.

Haha. Troll.

Your highlighted bits give the reason why they were protesting (not rioting, clashing with Police isn't rioting). Not the bullshit in the thread title.

Will you sometime gt to the point where you show how demanding job security not to be loosened equals not wanting to work for a living?
"To create discrimination based on age transgresses fundamental rights!" declared one leftist deputy, Roger-Gérard Schwartzenberg. [ I truly wonder if this works in the opposite age direction. ]
Funny, I thought the same. 50+ people protesting when their job security were cancelled, with the same background of finding a job being very hard for them, would have gotten your full support, no?

émeute!

Eut, you may not approve of the way these protests are being organised, but at least they are fighting. In many countries, things like increases in tuition are enough to set students to protesting. Oddly enough, the increases are usually either cancelled, or minimal at best, and life goes on. No horrible closures, no firing of profs, as are always predicted and given as reasons for the increases. Then you have many Canadian universities who have annual increases as a given, and from one year to the next, decide to DOUBLE TUITION by introducing a differential fee...and nary a peep is heard. Clearly we don't care enough, and are willing to pay, so we do. Student in other countries aren't so bloodly laconic about increases...especially since most of them aren't eligible for loans, and don't have rich parents to pay the extra cost for them. This also applies to changes in laws that affect workers. Here, we hope our unions will fly home from Florida and do something. In other nations, unions are not just made up of fat cats spending our union fees on blowjobs.

Point being, when you don't have time to try to get your politicians to step up for you, or when you know they won't, you need to make your voice heard somehow.

By the way...mandatory retirement in Canada has been successfully challenged in many sectors. Eligibility for retirement remains the same...but in many cases, people are no longer forced to stop working at 65. Why is that? Because people fought tooth and nail to overturn an unjust requirement. You, of all people, should appreciate that.

They're rioting agains unfair work laws...not because of stereotypical french-bashing idiocy.

I think this was the reason they were in protest.
Well, DUH! :rolleyes:

Well, DUH! :rolleyes:
Don't 'duh' us. Your title is clearly meant to inflame, and is purposely deceitful. So of course people are going to call you on it and say...'no, that is not the reasons they are protesting'. At least troll honestly.

Will you sometime gt to the point where you show how demanding job security not to be loosened equals not wanting to work for a living?

Funny, I thought the same. 50+ people protesting when their job security were cancelled, with the same background of finding a job being very hard for them, would have gotten your full support, no?
Actually, if you had read my commentary, you would have discoved I support the objections of the students. :p

By the way...mandatory retirement in Canada has been successfully challenged in many sectors. Eligibility for retirement remains the same...but in many cases, people are no longer forced to stop working at 65. Why is that? Because people fought tooth and nail to overturn an unjust requirement. You, of all people, should appreciate that.
I do, although it wouldn't affect me personally, even if I lived in Canada. Most employers just think I'm "too disabled" and "too old" to do anything worthwhile. ( shrug )

Don't 'duh' us. Your title is clearly meant to inflame, and is purposely deceitful. So of course people are going to call you on it and say...'no, that is not the reasons they are protesting'. At least troll honestly.
LOL! Ok, I realize that I'm the only person on this entire Forum who ever writes a somewhat misleading thread title. So sue me. ;)

I do, although it wouldn't affect me personally, even if I lived in Canada. Most employers just think I'm "too disabled" and "too old" to do anything worthwhile. ( shrug )
You aren't applying for the right jobs then...I think 'online trolling and general goading' would be right up your alley:p

You aren't applying for the right jobs then...I think 'online trolling and general goading' would be right up your alley:p
They pay people to do that??? :eek:

LOL! Ok, I realize that I'm the only person on this entire Forum who ever writes a somewhat misleading thread title. Actually, Deep Kimchi immediately comes to mind as another one, and no, I'm not saying you are the only one who does this. BUT don't act surprised when people attempt to correct your intentional 'mistake'. So sue me. ;)Can you wait three years? I want to finish Law School first!

They pay people to do that??? :eek:

Oooh, that explains some of these threads :D

They pay people to do that??? :eek:
If they pay 'fluffers', there must be someone out there willing to pay a shit disturber like you:D

Can you wait three years? I want to finish Law School first!
Uh ... better hurry. I have no idea how long this cancer is going to play hide and seek with me. ;)

Actually, if you had read my commentary, you would have discoved I support the objections of the students. :p
Don't 'duh' us. Your title is clearly meant to inflame, and is purposely deceitful. So of course people are going to call you on it and say...'no, that is not the reasons they are protesting'. At least troll honestly.

I'm sorry if I react harshly on this one, but I tend to do that with people who make snide remarks at young people protesting, calling them 'lazy' or 'ungrateful' or 'egoistic'. Must have to do with my uni having introduced fees starting next semester, and us fighting nail and tooth against it but so far earning not much more than abovementioned comments.

If they pay 'fluffers', there must be someone out there willing to pay a shit disturber like you:D
Where the hell did I put that trout??? [ looks all around ] :D

Oooh, that explains some of these threads :D
LOL! Hmmm. Perhaps you have a point there. :eek:

26 is kind of an arbitrary age to choose...

I'm sorry if I react harshly on this one, but I tend to do that with people who make snide remarks at young people protesting, calling them 'lazy' or 'ungrateful' or 'egoistic'. Must have to do with my uni having introduced fees starting next semester, and us fighting nail and tooth against it but so far earning not much more than abovementioned comments.
[ Offers to pay SoWiBi's fee increases ] :D

26 is kind of an arbitrary age to choose...

There is actually a semi-pan-European definition of "young adult" that is 18-25. 26 is in line with that.

26 is kind of an arbitrary age to choose...
I thought so too. I mean, what significance does that particular age have? Is there some French law that makes that age special somehow??

There is actually a semi-pan-European definition of "young adult" that is 18-25. 26 is in line with that.
Thanks, Fass. Interesting. I didn't know that.

Why pass up an opportunity to make one of your little substance, all article topics and bash the French, Eutrusca? Come on, you even understood the problem, yet completely ignored it in order to insult the entire nation.

Grow up.
Being "young at heart" is no defense for being immature and petty.

LOL! Ok, I realize that I'm the only person on this entire Forum who ever writes a somewhat misleading thread title.

No, but you are such a repeat offender to this, that you're almost to be classed as habitual offender. I, for one, always expect your titles to have very little to do with the actual articles you post in some sort of belief that this is where fark.com rejected articles come to rest.

This would piss me off too. It's supposedly going to help the unemployment rate, but it seems more likely to destroy job security for people under 26. Your title is extremely misleading. This is not about lazy students not wanting to work...it is about future workers who expect that they should have the right to job security, just as those over 26 do.
How in the world can job security be considered a right?

Where the hell did I put that trout??? [ looks all around ] :D
Sorry, I think it's in the dressing room getting fluffed.

[ Offers to pay SoWiBi's fee increases ]
If you had read my comment thoroughly, you'd have seen there's no 'increase' but a novel instituting such a thing..;)
But, umm, yeah, I'll get back to you that. Let me first sign all these protesting letters and I'll mail you the fee request later.

How in the world can job security be considered a right?

How in the world can it not be?

How in the world can job security be considered a right?
ummm, right, maybe it's a left?

How in the world can job security be considered a right?
It is when people MAKE IT SO. Many nations have fought long and hard to draw up labour laws that outline how job security will be enacted. It's only natural that after such struggles, people would be opposed to those laws being eroded or struck down.

The definition of a right that I work with is that it is possessed by all and the exercise of which affects none but the owner. Certainly job security doesn't fit that definition. Neither does health care. Nor are a lot of other things that are popular give-aways from politicians looking for votes.

If you had read my comment thoroughly, you'd have seen there's no 'increase' but a novel instituting such a thing..;)
But, umm, yeah, I'll get back to you that. Let me first sign all these protesting letters and I'll mail you the fee request later.
Heh! I can't read your posts without getting all flustered and confused. ;)

The definition of a right that I work with is that it is possessed by all and the exercise of which affects none but the owner. Certainly job security doesn't fit that definition. Neither does health care. Nor are a lot of other things that are popular give-aways from politicians looking for votes.
Good for you. I hope you realise that your definition has absolutely no bearing on individual nations and their decisions to enact, or not enact, certain laws guaranteeing various rights.

Excellent. Now we can move on.

How in the world can it not be?
Well, you see ... there's this little thing called "performance," and there are quite a number of people who don't DO "performance" when they think they have employment for life. :)

Certainly job security doesn't fit that definition. Neither does health care.

Oh, you're one of those. Nevermind.

Heh! I can't read your posts without getting all flustered and confused. ;)
She's been having that affect on me too. I actually dreamed about a steamy meeting in Cuba...DAMN YOU SoWiBi!

She's been having that affect on me too. I actually dreamed about a steamy meeting in Cuba...DAMN YOU SoWiBi!
ROFLMAO! All that hotness just translates right through the computer monitor, don't it! :D

Well, you see ... there's this little thing called "performance," and there are quite a number of people who don't DO "performance" when they think they have employment for life. :)

Job security has nothing to do with incompetence. Job security laws do not prevent firing due to legitimate reasons, such as poor performance or inability without an acceptable cause, such as a medical one, to do one's job. Job security laws prevent you from getting fired on someone's whim.

It is when people MAKE IT SO. Many nations have fought long and hard to draw up labour laws that outline how job security will be enacted. It's only natural that after such struggles, people would be opposed to those laws being eroded or struck down.
There is still a fundamental difference between a right and a privilege. As long as it's brought about by legislation, job security still fits into the privilige slot. It can come and go like a tax shelter. It certainly isn't on the level of free expression or the right to private property. It actually rescinds the right to private property by making it necessary for an employer to hold on to an unwanted employee, doesn't it?

ROFLMAO! All that hotness just translates right through the computer monitor, don't it! :D
Well, in my case at least it's more realistic than lusting after Fass:(

As long as it's brought about by legislation, job security still fits into the privilige slot. It can come and go like a tax shelter. It certainly isn't on the level of free expression or the right to private property.

The latter are also granted through law and can be rescinded as well.

Job security has nothing to do with incompetence. Job security laws do not prevent firing due to legitimate reasons, such as poor performance or inability without an acceptable cause, such as a medical one, to do one's job. Job security laws prevent you from getting fired on someone's whim.
I suspect there's a problem in translation here, related to language and culture. In America, "job security" has traditionally meant "it will take more trouble to fire this non-performing individual than it's worth."

There is still a fundamental difference between a right and a privilege. This is merely your opinion. There are no set of universal objective rights. There are just rights that we come up with, change with time, dismiss, or add.

As long as it's brought about by legislation, job security still fits into the privilige slot. It can come and go like a tax shelter. It certainly isn't on the level of free expression or the right to private property.Both of which are brought about, or violated, by legislation. I really don't see how you can miss the fact that there are no absolute human rights that are absolutely guaranteed.
It actually rescinds the right to private property by making it necessary for an employer to hold on to an unwanted employee, doesn't it? 'Private property' in not a universal, objective, guaranteed human right either. It is only guaranteed or not by the legislation of nation states. I reject it as a universal right, you uphold it. Only laws determine which one of us is going to 'win'.

I'd riot too. If I were *mumble mumble* years younger.

I'd riot too. If I were *mumble mumble* years younger.
You're already a riot. :D

The latter are also granted through law and can be rescinded as well.
So the French are well within their rights to rescind the right to job security. Case closed.

I suspect there's a problem in translation here, related to language and culture. In America, "job security" has traditionally meant "it will take more trouble to fire this non-performing individual than it's worth."
That may be what uninformed people take it to mean. In practice, it means you can't just fire someone for no reason. Rather a good idea, don't you think? It means you actually have to justify firing a person...so it can't just be because you don't like them. If they are doing their job, they get to continue it, once they've made it past the probationary stage. They also have certain responsibilities toward their employer...responsibilities like giving adequate notice if they intend to quit, and so on. It's not a one-way street, and it in no way prevents you from firing an incompetent worker.

So the French are well within their rights to rescind the right to job security. Case closed.
They are also well withint their rights to protest and stop this change. Case closed, until the next time it comes up, and people decide to support, or reject the change.

That may be what uninformed people take it to mean. In practice, it means you can't just fire someone for no reason. Rather a good idea, don't you think? It means you actually have to justify firing a person...so it can't just be because you don't like them. If they are doing their job, they get to continue it, once they've made it past the probationary stage. They also have certain responsibilities toward their employer...responsibilities like giving adequate notice if they intend to quit, and so on. It's not a one-way street, and it in no way prevents you from firing an incompetent worker.
Hon, I understand what you're saying, but I was in the employee relations field for over 14 years, and I know how difficult it can be to terminate someone when there are no "right to work" laws. Making employment other than "at will" results in more drones on the payroll and harms an organization's ability to be competitive. There are already many, many laws on the books which prohibit discrimination in employment practices, all of which lend a degree of employment security to those in all the various protected groups.

Both of your examples are subject to elimination by legislation in the U.S., since a constitutional amendment is simply legislation adopted by a "super" majority. Are they then mere privileges allowed us by the majority?
It's far, far more than just a "super majority." You should read the Amendments provision in the Constitution.

So the French are well within their rights to rescind the right to job security. Case closed.

And people are within their rights to fight for this right, just like they are fighting someone rescinding freedom of expression or the right to property, which are as much rights as the right to job security.

It's far, far more than just a "super majority." You should read the Amendments provision in the Constitution.For someone who plays fast and loose with the truth in your titles, you have little room to demand perfection from others.

"Super" was in quotes to get across that I wasn't refering to the literal definition as used in Congress. Perhaps I should said "'super duper duper pluper' majority", eh? The successful amendment of the constitution would require majority support of participants at each step, and lo and behold those steps have started with legislation in a majority of cases. Should you not understand that perhaps it is you who should reread the constitution.

And people are within their rights to fight for this right, just like they are fighting someone rescinding freedom of expression or the right to property, which are as much rights as the right to job security.
As long as the fighting is limited to actions that don't infringe on the rights of others. That pretty much eliminates looting, burning, and bullying. On either side. Hopefully, we will see a lot of demonstrating, speaking, and sign waving. Unless conditions are bad enough for an all-out revolution, peaceful protest is very acceptable. Voting is better, but not as timely.

Heh! I can't read your posts without getting all flustered and confused.
That's okay, I get that a lot. Especially from so-called 'life coaches. Grml.
Now, about the cheque..
She's been having that affect on me too. I actually dreamed about a steamy meeting in Cuba...DAMN YOU SoWiBi!
Get out of my dream, now! I'll sue you for plagiarism and copyright violation and such! Jesus, one leaves to do some shopping and this is what one comes back to..

For someone who plays fast and loose with the truth in your titles, you have little room to demand perfection from others.

"Super" was in quotes to get across that I wasn't refering to the literal definition as used in Congress. Perhaps I should said "'super duper duper pluper' majority", eh? The successful amendment of the constitution would require majority support of participants at each step, and lo and behold those steps have started with legislation in a majority of cases. Should you not understand that perhaps it is you who should reread the constitution.
What are you? French? For someone who claims to know it all, you sure do make some stupid statements. Amending the US Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with a "majority" of any sort. It was deliberately written that way to preclude the majority from the possibility of opressing the minority. Perhaps you should spend less time on lame attempts at sarcasm and more time actually reading up on the subjects about which you claim to be such an expert.

What are you? French? For someone who claims to know it all, you sure do make some stupid statements. Amending the US Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with a "majority" of any sort. It was deliberately written that way to preclude the majority from the possibility of opressing the minority. Perhaps you should spend less time on lame attempts at sarcasm and more time actually reading up on the subjects about which you claim to be such an expert.

Pot.

Kettle.

That's okay, I get that a lot. Especially from so-called 'life coaches. Grml.
Now, about the cheque..
Yesssss? :D

It without any surprise whatsoever that I note that Eutrusca has fundamentally misunderstood what this issue is all about. Hats off to the maroon who doesn't know how to keep his lips together.

It without any surprise whatsoever that I note that Eutrusca has fundamentally misunderstood what this issue is all about. Hats off to the maroon who doesn't know how to keep his lips together.
Well, if you think you have some sort of inside track on wisdom, why not honor us with your own explanation of things, Oh Great One? :D

Well, if you think you have some sort of inside track on wisdom, why not honor us with your own explanation of things, Oh Great One? :D
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm nearing the end of lunch and frankly I don't have nearly enough time to dumb it down sufficiently for you to comprehend it to any great extent.

And where you're concerned, I don't think I have an inside track on wisdom, I know I do.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm nearing the end of lunch and frankly I don't have nearly enough time to dumb it down sufficiently for you to comprehend it to any great extent.

And where you're concerned, I don't think I have an inside track on wisdom, I know I do.
Nice attempt at flaming, but no cigar for you, duuuude! :D

Nice attempt at flaming, but no cigar for you, duuuude! :D
That wasn't a flame.

That was the truth.

Man.

It without any surprise whatsoever that I note that Eutrusca has fundamentally misunderstood what this issue is all about. Hats off to the maroon who doesn't know how to keep his lips together.
Yes, we need to remember that the real point of the article is that there can be someone even more unpopular than our own president. Where Mr. Bush has an approval rating at 40 percent, M. de Villepin can boast of a rating at 36 percent.

That wasn't a flame.

That was the truth.

Man.
Boy, you wouldn't know the "truth" if it stood up in your face and slapped the dog-shit outta you.

Seems you have plenty of time to devote to flaming, but none to devote to sharing all that alledged "truth" you claim to have. I wonder why that is. Hmm.

*trys to care... falls asleep in middle of thread*

*trys to care... falls asleep in middle of thread*
*rubs up against you suggestively*
Awake yet?

*rubs eyes... isn't sure if he is awake or is having a wet dream*

well... somethings awake

What are you? French? For someone who claims to know it all, you sure do make some stupid statements. Amending the US Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with a "majority" of any sort. It was deliberately written that way to preclude the majority from the possibility of opressing the minority. Perhaps you should spend less time on lame attempts at sarcasm and more time actually reading up on the subjects about which you claim to be such an expert.What are you? An ugly American? For someone who claims to know it all, you sure haven't got a clue. At no point did I make a claim of omniscience.

Article V: Amendment Process

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.Granted, it's been awhile since my last math class, but "two thirds" and "three fourths" are majority percentages the last time I looked, and all state legislatures require at least a simple majority to pass legislation. Perhaps you have time to add the constitution to your reading list before your next misstatement.

And geez man, are the French your favorite object of ridicule or something?

Yes, we need to remember that the real point of the article is that there can be someone even more unpopular than our own president. Where Mr. Bush has an approval rating at 40 percent, M. de Villepin can boast of a rating at 36 percent.Whoops, you're too late. Bush's rating hit 36% (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-13-bush-poll_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA") earlier this month. So much for the traditional post-SOTU bounce.

I'm glad someone cares enough to stand up for their rights now and again. Its refreshing..... that and I always like to see the CRS in action :D

Whoops, you're too late. Bush's rating hit 36% (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-13-bush-poll_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA") earlier this month. So much for the traditional post-SOTU bounce.
Oops. I quit paying attention some time back. Has Bush beat Harry Truman's numbers after he fired MacArthur, yet?

The title of this post confuses me... that's not what's happening at all! I trusted you Eut..

Oops. I quit paying attention some time back. Has Bush beat Harry Truman's numbers after he fired MacArthur, yet?Nah, Truman hit ~24% approval. Bush has managed to dip into Johnson circa Viet Nam numbers though.

<sigh> I wish we had that kind of commitment to causes here in the states. The annual anti-war march will be here on Saturday, and I doubt it will get even 1/10th of the crowd that the Steelers post-Super Bowl celebration got.

The definition of a right that I work with is that it is possessed by all and the exercise of which affects none but the owner. Certainly job security doesn't fit that definition. Neither does health care. Nor are a lot of other things that are popular give-aways from politicians looking for votes.Job security and health care would be viewed as rights as being the logical extension of the right to life. There are people who don't believe in the right to life, though, so they wouldn't hold that job security is a right, either. (Not that you are one of those people, you may have different reasons for holding that job security isn't a right.)

attack eut all you want, but they are still protesting for a stupid reason, they are affraid that they could be fired, welcome to the world, no job has absolute security, for all i know i could be fired when i walk in the door today (i unlike other people, have money aside so it will be alot easier and less stressful for me to find another job) i am a student, but when i get fired i wont be out in the streets yelling my mouth off about how i was treated unfairly

Yes, we need to remember that the real point of the article is that there can be someone even more unpopular than our own president. Where Mr. Bush has an approval rating at 40 percent, M. de Villepin can boast of a rating at 36 percent.

Difference: Mr. Bush has his approval rating, and that's it. Basically, he's a "if you're not with me, you're against me" type of guy (he said so himself).

Villepin however, might have an approval rating of 36%, but at the same time be the most popular leader (due to the fact that getting above 40% is incredibly hard). That's usually because everybody wants their party to lead.

If I am missing something fundamental, then let me know.

attack eut all you want, but they are still protesting for a stupid reason, they are affraid that they could be fired, welcome to the world, no job has absolute security, for all i know i could be fired when i walk in the door today (i unlike other people, have money aside so it will be alot easier and less stressful for me to find another job) i am a student, but when i get fired i wont be out in the streets yelling my mouth off about how i was treated unfairly

You do not have the right to be fired for no reason. There must be a reason and a good one at that. And there must be notice. Plus, all the labour laws should generally be followed.

attack eut all you want, but they are still protesting for a stupid reason, they are affraid that they could be fired, welcome to the world, no job has absolute security, for all i know i could be fired when i walk in the door today (i unlike other people, have money aside so it will be alot easier and less stressful for me to find another job) i am a student, but when i get fired i wont be out in the streets yelling my mouth off about how i was treated unfairly

No, you can only get fired on reasonable grounds.

They're protesting because their prospective employers could fire them without reason- unfair dismissal.

They're spot on.

attack eut all you want, but they are still protesting for a stupid reason, they are affraid that they could be fired, welcome to the world, no job has absolute security, for all i know i could be fired when i walk in the door today (i unlike other people, have money aside so it will be alot easier and less stressful for me to find another job) i am a student, but when i get fired i wont be out in the streets yelling my mouth off about how i was treated unfairly
No one is asking for absolute security. They are asking that what little security there is, not be torn away. YOU have security in your job once 90 days has passed. During those 90 days you can be fired, or quit, with no consequences or reasons. After that, you have a responsibility to give notice, and you can not be fired for no reason. That doesn't mean you are guaranteed a job for life. If you don't do your job, if they can no longer afford you, and so on....there are a myriad of reasons they can legally let you go.

And if you are fired unfairly, and don't go yelling your mouth off, then you are acting like a fool. There are legal channels for unlawful dismissal, but they aren't going to jump up and come find you. Your laziness is not reason enough to abolish the protections.

No, you can only get fired on reasonable grounds.

They're protesting because their prospective employers could fire them without reason- unfair dismissal.

They're spot on.

im afraid not, employment contract i signed for this pretty well paying job stated , i give the company the right to fire me without prior consent and without any notice of reason

im afraid not, employment contract i signed for this pretty well paying job stated , i give the company the right to fire me without prior consent and without any notice of reason

Then you're an idiot.

Congrats on signing away your rights *claps*

Then you're an idiot.

why is that, i work, my managers know i work, my workmates also know i work. we get the work done, its a very laid back job, as long as we get the job done there isnt much threat.

i get paid a very good rate, good benefits, and i get paid for two weeks after i get fired/quit

oh and did i mention they are very short handed at the moment and they cant really afford to lose me

edit: also in the state i currently reside, any company can fire for any reason at any time, and many do not have to give reason

im afraid not, employment contract i signed for this pretty well paying job stated , i give the company the right to fire me without prior consent and without any notice of reason
As well as having the right to have certain job securities, you do of course have the right to sign them away. Which doesn't infringe on other people's right to decide not to want to sign them away, but to actually have them.

why is that, i work, my managers know i work, my workmates also know i work. we get the work done, its a very laid back job, as long as we get the job done there isnt much threat.

i get paid a very good rate, good benefits, and i get paid for two weeks after i get fired/quit

oh and did i mention they are very short handed at the moment and they cant really afford to lose me

edit: also in the state i currently reside, any company can fire for any reason at any time, and many do not have to give reason

Scenario:
New manager.

Doesn't like the way you look. Fires you. you haven't got a leg to stand on because you signed away your rights.

Now what?

Scenario:
New manager.

Doesn't like the way you look. Fires you. you haven't got a leg to stand on because you signed away your rights.

Now what?

i look for another job, while i also get paid for two extra weeks

As well as having the right to have certain job securities, you do of course have the right to sign them away. Which doesn't infringe on other people's right to decide not to want to sign them away, but to actually have them.
You only have that right to a certain extent. You can not sign away all your rights guaranteed by labour law. For example, you can not sign away your right to overtime pay. What you can do, is sign a contract that says you will bank those hours and receive them as paid 'holidays' rather than getting the money. You can not sign away your right to minimum wage. You can, however, contract your services out and be paid for piecework, which may work out to less than minimum wage, but as a contractor, you are still guaranteed certain rights. You can not sign away your right to work in a safe environment. You can, however, sign away your right to sue the company directly for any injury from working in said environment...but this does not waive the right of the state to fine that company themselves.

Labour laws are meant to protect workers from the absolute exploitation allowable in the past. Contracts signed that attempt to take these basic rights away, are not legal, and can be struck down. You can not, for example, sign a contract saying you will work for peanuts instead of a wage.

i look for another job, while i also get paid for two extra weeks
How old are you?

Because if you are 26 and a job means stability then that is vastly different then if you are 17 and working in Pizza Hut.

How old are you?

Because if you are 26 and a job means stability then that is vastly different then if you are 17 and working in Pizza Hut.

i am a student, i am working for college tuition and books, this job pays well over the amount i need at the moment. i am not in much a need of stability which is why i dont care if they can fire me on the job, and i had friends working there before me that told me that cotnract is nothing more than just a threat to make sure you work.

Good for them. I hope that these attitudes will be retained later in their lives.

You only have that right to a certain extent. You can not sign away all your rights guaranteed by labour law. For example, you can not sign away your right to overtime pay. What you can do, is sign a contract that says you will bank those hours and receive them as paid 'holidays' rather than getting the money. You can not sign away your right to minimum wage. You can, however, contract your services out and be paid for piecework, which may work out to less than minimum wage, but as a contractor, you are still guaranteed certain rights. You can not sign away your right to work in a safe environment. You can, however, sign away your right to sue the company directly for any injury from working in said environment...but this does not waive the right of the state to fine that company themselves.

Labour laws are meant to protect workers from the absolute exploitation allowable in the past. Contracts signed that attempt to take these basic rights away, are not legal, and can be struck down. You can not, for example, sign a contract saying you will work for peanuts instead of a wage.
Why, yes. I'm sorry, I should have specified that, my reply was just to be read in context and answer to the post quoted.

You are of course right, and you better be, or the whole "you do have the right if you reallly want to.." thing becomes rather of a joke, with competition pressure and the like.

Why, yes. I'm sorry, I should have specified that, my reply was just to be read in context and answer to the post quoted. My post was more of an addition to yours, so mister 'I can sign away all my rights because I don't care la la la' didn't start ranting more. And also to let him know that perhaps the contract he signed isn't actually legal. If he cared (which he doesn't) to look into that, he might be surprised. Just because a company has been doing something for years doesn't mean it's allowable...it just usually means no one has challenged them on it.

You are of course right, and you better be, or the whole "you do have the right if you reallly want to.." thing becomes rather of a joke, with competition pressure and the like.
That's not to say that there aren't still very exploitative labour practices that are legally going on. Piece-work being a major one. But anyway.

I'm a 23-year-old Frenchman, I work as a teacher, and I'm also in my final year of postgraduate studies. I took part in that demo, in Paris (under the rain ;)), and I'll be taking part in the next one this coming Saturday.

I should add that this law does not apply to me, since I'm a civil servant. I'm guarenteed a job for the rest of my life. But I took part in the demo out of solidarity for those who aren't as lucky as me.

There are two errors in that article Eut quoted, right from the start. It speaks of "tens of thousands of students". In actual fact, it was one million people demonstrating throughout the country, and not just students. (All the media, even conservative ones, cited the figure of one million, and even the police, which always tones down the numbers, stated there were several hundred thousand people.)

Demos are something of a national tradition over here, and one we're rather proud of. By refusing to take things lying down, we've secured important rights. French people on the whole tend not to understand why people in other countries seem to accept having their rights trampled over. I'm half-British, and when I explained once to my (French, rather conservative) uncle that Brits rarely mount an effective protest against their rights being lessened, he was incredulous.

So what are students and workers protesting about this time? Quite simply, to retain the basic right not to be fired for no reason and without warning. If some of you consider it abnormal to protest about that, then to me that reflects rather sadly on whatever society you've been brought up in.

Demos are something of a national tradition over here, and one we're rather proud of. By refusing to take things lying down, we've secured important rights. French people on the whole tend not to understand why people in other countries seem to accept having their rights trampled over.
The French aren't the only ones who are baffled at this. Even those of us living in countries where it is common for the labour movements to take it in the behind are baffled. The Winnipeg strikers would slap our faces for our complacence.

So what are students and workers protesting about this time? Quite simply, to retain the basic right not to be fired for no reason and without warning. If some of you consider it abnormal to protest about that, then to me that reflects rather sadly on whatever society you've been brought up in.
The thing is that in the US, people change their jobs a lot more often, quite regularly even. In Europe, usually people are trying to find a job with security, and stay there for some time, while in the US you change jobs as soon as a better offer comes along.
We've talked about this in a Macroeconomics class a while back, and I was really quite baffled by the stats. The labour market in America works completely differently, so I suppose it's understandable that they don't get why the right to not get laid off for any reason is so important, when they put such importance on the right to quit whenever they want.

But I suppose it also depends on the whole economic situation. If there was a recession, I'd be pretty sure many Americans would also prefer to hang on to their jobs for a little while longer.

The thing is that in the US, people change their jobs a lot more often, quite regularly even. In Europe, usually people are trying to find a job with security, and stay there for some time, while in the US you change jobs as soon as a better offer comes along.
We've talked about this in a Macroeconomics class a while back, and I was really quite baffled by the stats. The labour market in America works completely differently, so I suppose it's understandable that they don't get why the right to not get laid off for any reason is so important, when they put such importance on the right to quit whenever they want.

But I suppose it also depends on the whole economic situation. If there was a recession, I'd be pretty sure many Americans would also prefer to hang on to their jobs for a little while longer.
How does a 'job secure' economy deal with a recession? The economy contracts and there isn't as great a need for workers. How can an employer be forced to retain workers when his business may be 60 percent of what it was before the recession?

How does a 'job secure' economy deal with a recession? The economy contracts and there isn't as great a need for workers. How can an employer be forced to retain workers when his business may be 60 percent of what it was before the recession?
Either by employers going bancrupt or, in true Keynesian fashion, by the government investing in infrastructure and the like to cause positive shocks that make up for the lost demand.

Hey, I'm not making value judgements here...personally my character is one in which I'd prefer the flexibility over the security. But I'm also getting the sort of education that will allow me to choose in a wide array of jobs.

We aren't actually talking about being forced to retain workers, by the way. Extending a probation period, or keeping it at 90 days only affects the period of time you can lay a person off or fire them for no reason. After that probationary period, employees can still be let go because of issues such as not having the funds to keep on so many staff, etc. This is true even of highly unionised jobs. Those employees with the least seniority will get laid off. No one is forced to keep on staff they can't afford.

This 2 year probationary period puts workers with little experience at an even greater disadvantange than does the minimum wage. If I were an employer under this system, I'd look long and hard before I hired anyone that was protected by the law. The risk of getting stuck with an employee that's a bad fit, but not an outright incompetant is just a little too great.

The labour market in America works completely differently, so I suppose it's understandable that they don't get why the right to not get laid off for any reason is so important, when they put such importance on the right to quit whenever they want.

that and we apparently find it vitally important to allow bosses to make any sort of demands on us they feel like, including on our activities outside of work (or the bumper stickers on our cars, for example). it just wouldn't be right if bosses weren't our masters and had to operate on anything other than whim in their dealings with us lowly servants.

http://www.thismodernworld.com/media/gra/appreciate.jpg
*laughs 'til I fall over backwards*