NationStates Jolt Archive

This time, though, it's over jobs and the like:
Source (http://www.optonline.net/News/Article/Feeds?CID=type%3Dxml%26channel%3D32%26article%3D17675158)
PARIS - Police loosed water cannons and tear gas on rioting students and activists rampaged through a McDonald's and attacked store fronts in the capital Saturday as demonstrations against a plan to relax job protections spread in a widening arc across France.

The protests, which drew 500,000 people in some 160 cities across the country, were the biggest show yet of escalating anger that is testing the strength of the conservative government before elections next year.

At the close of a march in Paris that drew a crowd of tens of thousands, seven officers and 17 protesters were injured during two melees, at the Place de la Nation in eastern Paris and the Sorbonne University. Police said they arrested 156 people in the French capital.

Four cars were set afire, police said, and a McDonald's restaurant was attacked along with store fronts at the close of the march.

Tensions escalated later Saturday as about 500 youths moved on to the Sorbonne, trying to break through tall metal blockades erected after police stormed the Paris landmark a week ago to dislodge occupying students. The university has become a symbol of the protest.
*remainder snipped due to length*

I have been informed that the majority of the protesters are peaceful, but that overseas media obviously concentrates on the troublemakers.

That being said, I don't understand what they're protesting about, the policies seem relatively sensible to me.

But I suppose it's better than having your garbagemen strike for weeks, because of 18 bloody minutes...
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,400834,00.html

And now the doctors as well.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,406269,00.html

I can understand being upset about the new law. When you tell a group of people, in this instance the young, that their employers can fire them in the first two years without giving a reason, you're essentially condemning them to unempoyment (unless I'm misunderstanding the law). I'd protest too, but I think rioting and burning cars is a tad excessive.

France: Political issues in the fight against the government’s “First Job Contract” (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/leaf-m18.shtml)

As usual, the Trotskyist ICFI gets some things right and some things wrong, but overall their analysis is pretty decent.

Neu Leonstein, it is quite true that our media loves to focus on only the troublemakers in Europe and elsewhere. Hell, it comes to a point where quite a few people at my school think that America is the only civilized nation in the world.

So is there a neutral account of what these new provisions entail? France severely needs to become more competitive, so this may hardly be a bad thing.

So is there a neutral account of what these new provisions entail? France severely needs to become more competitive, so this may hardly be a bad thing.

The OP's link is an unedited version of the AP story, however the estimates of the numbers involved are far lower than the other accounts I have heard.

That's probably as close as you will get to neutral.

The French student population has a long history of political activism and they are particularly atuned to socialism. I do not agree with the students. They are wrong and the law will truly benefit them.

The French student population has a long history of political activism and they are particularly atuned to socialism. I do not agree with the students. They are wrong and the law will truly benefit them.

In most other places I would agree it would benefit them, however, I believe that the governments tentacles reach far too deeply into the private sector of France's economy to spur the growth necessary for this to benefit the workers. It is really putting the horse before the cart. First the government needs to get itself out of the business world, and out of the board rooms of their so called private sector. Then and only then can something such as this work.

The news said that there were one million "protestors".

*does the mental arithmatic*

That's about 1.66% of the population rioting. Man, France has ISSUES.

In most other places I would agree it would benefit them, however, I believe that the governments tentacles reach far too deeply into the private sector of France's economy to spur the growth necessary for this to benefit the workers. It is really putting the horse before the cart. First the government needs to get itself out of the business world, and out of the board rooms of their so called private sector. Then and only then can something such as this work.
You're assessment is completely off and one dimensional.

Neu Leonstein, it is quite true that our media loves to focus on only the troublemakers in Europe and elsewhere. Hell, it comes to a point where quite a few people at my school think that America is the only civilized nation in the world.

Yep, up there with the Iranians.

Hell, it comes to a point where quite a few people at my school think that America is the only civilized nation in the world.
Rest assured the feeling isn't mutual.

The news said that there were one million "protestors".

*does the mental arithmatic*

That's about 1.66% of the population rioting. Man, France has ISSUES.
Yeah, because every single last one of those protesters were rioting! It's wasn't some minority. It was all of them. One million rioters, like you said! One million! That's one thousand thousand of them violent, blood thirsty frogs burning and raping and looting all over that snail-eating cultural backwater! Seriously, they need Jesus.

Yeah, because every single last one of those protesters were rioting! It's wasn't some minority. It was all of them. One million rioters, like you said! One million! That's one thousand thousand of them violent, blood thirsty frogs burning and raping and looting all over that snail-eating cultural backwater! Seriously, they need Jesus.
:eek: ...Mon dieu...

Am I the only one, apart from the French, that thinks giving employers the ability to hire and fire, without giving any reason, workers under the age of 26 for up two years is a problem? This opens up the door to all sorts of racism, sexism and the like. Two years is too long and the power given to companies too broad.

But frankly this is all the government's problem for creating a skills shortage on the one hand and a skills surplus on the other. It has focused to heavily on providing university education for all in an attempt to reduce poverty. Britain may be a nation of shopkeepers, but at least it isn't a nation of middle managers... at least not yet (alright, fine it is. And Blair isn't helping any, but I wanted to get that napoleon reference in).

Usually I don't agree with anything the French do but I support this riot because these government employment reforms are insane!

No they are not. 11% unemployment is insane.

Seriously, they need weed.
The Low Countires are just a little North.

The news said that there were one million "protestors".

*does the mental arithmatic*

That's about 1.66% of the population rioting. Man, France has ISSUES.Or it could be considered that 17% of people who this law is going to effect are protesting. I'd say that was pretty damn apathetic (I'm assuming that this law will affect 1 in 10 people).

No they are not. 11% unemployment is insane.
Yes but the Reforms make it easier to sack (Fire if american) young people

Yes but the Reforms make it easier to sack (Fire if american) young people
Thusly making it easier to hire others. These reforms work. Obliging an employer to stick with an incompetent worker for 2 years will make him think twice about employing him to begin with. That stagnates growth and creates youth unemployment.

No they are not. 11% unemployment is insane.20% percent amongst the target population, even as high as 40% in places like Saint-Dennis.

The Low Countires are just a little North.
Weed? Jesus? Or whatever Kievan's smoking.. the point is everyone just needs to chill out!

Here is a harsh idea, why don't they re-introduce National Service that way they will half unemployment, the only down side is that they will have a larger military budget.

I can understand being upset about the new law. When you tell a group of people, in this instance the young, that their employers can fire them in the first two years without giving a reason, you're essentially condemning them to unempoyment (unless I'm misunderstanding the law). I'd protest too, but I think rioting and burning cars is a tad excessive.
25% to 50% are ALREADY unemployed. Why? Because nobody wants to hire an employee for life. It is a job - not a marriage. In most developed countries a worker can be terminated without cause if the business no longer requres their services.

Imagine if you hired a plumber to fix your toidy then had to continue to pay him forever....

Imagine if you hired a plumber to fix your toidy then had to continue to pay him forever...
Mechanical codes do change over the years.

*sigh*
A customer wouldn't hire a plumber "forever". A plumber works for themselves or in some sort of organization. It would be themselves or the organization that hires them forever, unless one would like to extend that to the hair-dresser, the car wash person, and the grocercy bagger to every person they provide a service to while on the clock of their employer.

Thusly making it easier to hire others. These reforms work. Obliging an employer to stick with an incompetent worker for 2 years will make him think twice about employing him to begin with. That stagnates growth and creates youth unemployment.Why is the employer obliged for two years?

France has strict employment protection legislation, which does retard job oppurtunities, but rather than weakening the EPL, the French government has abolished it for those who are under 26 within their first two years of employment. The employer need give no reason for sacking the worker. Literally, if the worker expressed his dislike for a certain policy of the employer then then employer could fire him/her. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development called for France to weaken EPL for younger workers, not to abolish it.

25% to 50% are ALREADY unemployed. Why? Because nobody wants to hire an employee for life. It is a job - not a marriage. In most developed countries a worker can be terminated without cause if the business no longer requres their services.

Imagine if you hired a plumber to fix your toidy then had to continue to pay him forever....

After reading that I don't think my national service idea is that bad that way you can have a job for years if you want to stay.

25% to 50% are ALREADY unemployed. Why? Because nobody wants to hire an employee for life. It is a job - not a marriage. In most developed countries a worker can be terminated without cause if the business no longer requres their services.

Imagine if you hired a plumber to fix your toidy then had to continue to pay him forever....
Exactly.

Why is the employer obliged for two years? The reform in question concerns the first two years of employment.

France has strict employment protection legislation, which does retard job oppurtunities, but rather than weakening the EPL, the French government has abolished it for those who are under 26 within their first two years of employment. The employer need give no reason for sacking the worker. Literally, if the worker expressed his dislike for a certain policy of the employer then then employer could fire him/her. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development called for France to weaken EPL for younger workers, not to abolish it.That is precisely what they are proposing to do. They have not abolished anything.

The reform in question concerns the first two years of employment.That makes no sense. You said employers were currently obliged to keep a worker for the first two years of their contract.Obliging an employer to stick with an incompetent worker for 2 yearsAs far as I know they are not currently obliged to employ a worker for two years before they can dismiss them.

You also mentioned that they would have to stick with an incompetent worker. I'm not aware of any country that does not allow a firm to dismiss a worker for incompetancy. I see this law as allowing firms to dismiss an employee that would normally be grounds for an unfair dismisal.

That is precisely what they are proposing to do. They have not abolished anything.We're getting petty with words here. But for a period of 2 years young workers will have no employment protection rights. I'd call that more of an abolition than a weakening. If this law were to be fair then it would reduce the time for such dismissals from 2 years to 1 year or 6 months. It would only allow firms to dismiss on grounds of redundancy or incompetance (which would be laxer than normal). Finally, I'd probably make the law universal rather than only targeted at a specific age range. Otherwise the law is discriminatory and probably contravenes some EU law.

I don't see what the problem is here, though. It's not like the boss is going to say "Well, Pierre, you've been a great worker, the customers love you and you sell twice as much as the next best salesperson... so we're gonna have to let you go." If you do your job properly, you won't get fired. Sounds like these people are upset about losing their right to be half-assed.

Funny, I took part in the huge protest march yesterday, and it was perfectly peaceful. A million people peacefully demonstrating throughout the country. It was a massive success.

Again, I see the foreign media are focusing on the small number of yobs who, after the demo was over, began clashing with the police.

I suppose actual facts aren't interesting enough for the sensationalist media to report accurately.

I don't see what the problem is here, though. It's not like the boss is going to say "Well, Pierre, you've been a great worker, the customers love you and you sell twice as much as the next best salesperson... so we're gonna have to let you go." If you do your job properly, you won't get fired. Sounds like these people are upset about losing their right to be half-assed.

This presupposes some spirit of decency on the part of the employer, who, by virture of fucking over his employees for decent pay etc. may well let them go as soon as they have rights under law eg 1 year 11 months 27 days after they're employed. I can think of one person I knew who would have had some entitlements after a year with an employer but was let go a week before this fell due. Having extracted what they wanted (knowledge of a particular software set up) it was bye bye. And no, they didnt tell him that at the start.

Nine officers were injured, including one who was hit in the face with a paving stone, officials said.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=387502006


This is fucked up.

Funny, I took part in the huge protest march yesterday, and it was perfectly peaceful. A million people peacefully demonstrating throughout the country. It was a massive success.

Again, I see the foreign media are focusing on the small number of yobs who, after the demo was over, began clashing with the police.

I suppose actual facts aren't interesting enough for the sensationalist media to report accurately.
Absolutely right. Peaceful protests are too boring to make good news, so they rather go for the few rioters who provide a little action :rolleyes:

I fully understand the protest against being treated like toilet paper and being disposed of after they've been used.

That makes no sense. You said employers were currently obliged to keep a worker for the first two years of their contract.As far as I know they are not currently obliged to employ a worker for two years before they can dismiss them.If that was true there would be no need for this recent law nor for the protests.

You also mentioned that they would have to stick with an incompetent worker. I'm not aware of any country that does not allow a firm to dismiss a worker for incompetancy.lol Welcome to Socialised Europe. :D


We're getting petty with words here. But for a period of 2 years young workers will have no employment protection rights. I'd call that more of an abolition than a weakening. If this law were to be fair then it would reduce the time for such dismissals from 2 years to 1 year or 6 months. It would only allow firms to dismiss on grounds of redundancy or incompetance (which would be laxer than normal). Finally, I'd probably make the law universal rather than only targeted at a specific age range. Otherwise the law is discriminatory and probably contravenes some EU law.
Again you're assessment is totally bogus.

Mechanical codes do change over the years.

*sigh*
A customer wouldn't hire a plumber "forever". A plumber works for themselves or in some sort of organization. It would be themselves or the organization that hires them forever, unless one would like to extend that to the hair-dresser, the car wash person, and the grocercy bagger to every person they provide a service to while on the clock of their employer.


Go ahead, TRY to miss the point - it won't make you any smarter.

Go ahead, TRY to miss the point - it won't make you any smarter.
I'm the son of a plumber and semi-inteligent-point-misser. I encourage you to pick on other proffessions, like lawyers, electricians, priests, and so forth.

French are just good at rioting.

It surprises me they haven't made a national sport of it yet. Afterall, they've been practicing it for over 2000 years.

French are just good at rioting.

It surprises me they haven't made a national sport of it yet. Afterall, they've been practicing it for over 2000 years.
Har Har Har, You're a riot!

Har Har Har, You're a riot!
Am not! Liar!

*starts a riot to lynch Seosavists*

French are just good at rioting.

It surprises me they haven't made a national sport of it yet. Afterall, they've been practicing it for over 2000 years.

The results from today's riot: The Bourbon Loyalists have defeated the Marxist Revolutionary Brigade 57 casualties to 103.

Afterall, they've been practicing it for over 2000 years.
The term French have only existed for roughly twelve centuries from the time of Charlemagne. The question is: how could they have practiced rioting for two millenia if they have not existed that long?

France takes very seriously that famous adage about the "tree of liberty" and the "blood of patriots and tyrants."


It's why they riot so much.

The term French have only existed for roughly twelve centuries from the time of Charlemagne. The question is: how could they have practiced rioting for two millenia if they have not existed that long?

We assume that the Germanic tribes that were there beforehand rioted alot too.