Quote :

"Under the law aimed at cutting youth unemployment, employers will be able to fire workers under 26 without giving a reason at any time during a two-year trial period. Opponents say that will create a generation of disposable workers with no security. Unemployment is the top political issue in France, where the national average is 9.6 percent and youth joblessness is double that. The rate rises to 40-50 percent in some of the poor suburbs hit by several weeks of youth rioting last autumn."

This was a fairly good idea. But if the French government is going to admit that tight labor regulations breed unemployment then why not go the entire way?

The answer is obvious and two-fold: First, they do not admit this and probably view this law as an experiment to see if it actually does lower the unemployment of the targetted age-group. The problem is, this is a poor experiment. While it does relieve regidity for the youngest, the fact that it runs out at 26 will breed some perverse outcomes.

Second, the do not currently fear the old and unemployed. Unemployment among the middle-aged is remarkably low and doesn't spend tuesdays rioting in the streets. So, this law has nothing to do with reducing the misery of the unemployed and everything to do with making the average Frenchman feel safer.

3/19/2006 10:57:35 AM

what a horrible idea... they are just on a mission to fuck up there social structure and want another coup... holy shit.... the exact people who rioted for job security and jobs... are now gonna get less job security and maybe more jobs. and watch all 26 year olds be out of a job at once....

3/19/2006 11:30:19 AM

Quote :

"watch all 26 year olds be out of a job at once...."

why?

3/19/2006 11:32:32 AM

What the hell?

When most people accept a job, they sign something saying they can be fired at any time for any or no reason. If you don't agree to that, no job in the first place. I've always hated that myself. Am I to understand this is not the way French companies behaved up to this point?

3/19/2006 11:50:31 AM

That's called at will employment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

To me, this sounds like an extended new employee probationary period. I fail to see how this is a "horrible idea" or how it's going to get all the 26 year olds fired.

3/19/2006 12:00:13 PM

Maybe you can't just fire people in France when they fuck up.

I don't know.


But this just kind of seems discriminatory towards younger people to me.

3/19/2006 12:04:41 PM

^and thats what the riots are about

theyre all over the universities

3/19/2006 12:42:07 PM

Forgot the link, although I'm sure people could have found it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/19/france.job.protest.reut/

Quote :

"Am I to understand this is not the way French companies behaved up to this point?"

Afraid so. Here in America such contracts may or may not be enforceable depending on what state you live in. But in Frace, such a contract would merely be an attempt by the company to skirt existing labor laws. To put it in perspective, it would be like signing a contract here in N.C. stating you will be paid the minimum wage, but give half of it back to cover the employer's costs. The sole purpose is obviously to skirt the minimum wage laws and therefore illegal.

We as citizens gave up our right to contract freely a long time ago, and the French even more-so.

3/19/2006 2:13:41 PM

France is filled with too many entitlements. Their labor laws are autrocious. The laws that were meant to protect workers are hurting them... For example, in France, your pay is compulsory by LAW based on your degree. In other words, lets say you dont mind taking a job making 30,000 a year. If you have a masters degree, then french law dictates that an employer pay you 40,000 (even if you dont request it). So, businesses cant afford to high qualified workers for jobs because they cant afford them. I spent a few weeks in France with some french friends. The family I stayed with had 2 daughters. Both with masters degrees. Both were working out of the country (one in Spain and one in the UK) because the employers in the area which had some jobs they wouldnt mind doing for less pay, couldnt afford them because of the law.

Almost all the jobs in France are heavily unionized. The workers KNOW they wont get fired, no matter how bad the performance. France is killing itself quickly with this type of environment.

The law is a nice start, but as someone mentioned, because employers realize they will have to either terminate employees at 26, or grant them ridiculous employment rights, it will result in either mass layoffs at 26, or no appreciable job number increases.


[Edited on March 19, 2006 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .]

3/19/2006 2:29:32 PM

Does this law affect the degree-based pay scales, or any other employment rights? If not, why would there be mass layoffs at 26? Companies still need long term, experienced employees.

3/19/2006 2:48:50 PM

No, I suspect every other labor regulation will remain in place. All that is changing is regs dealing with job termination.

For example, this does not exempt them from minimum wage laws (such as mentioned above).

3/19/2006 3:00:42 PM

id actually engage in this discussion if i didnt already know that everyone here wants unions to be abolished

3/19/2006 4:44:18 PM

I have nothing against a voluntary association, whatever you call it. As long as it is purely voluntary, for all parties, then I love unions and see a bright future for them. So, I guess that means I'm with you! I would never abolish unions!

Unless you believe unions could not exist without coersive state power, then I'm not with you.

[Edited on March 19, 2006 at 6:27 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/19/2006 6:26:53 PM

the workers think they are entitled to a job, which is bullshit. socialism at its finest

3/19/2006 7:30:44 PM

if it is that hard to get rid of somebody and they have mandated pay, no wonder unemployment is high. I'd be reluctant to hire people, too. In America we have to assume risk when we take a job, but it looks as if the prospects for making a living here are much better.

3/19/2006 7:34:58 PM

Quote :

"but it looks as if the prospects for making a living here are much better"

Well, in absolute terms Americans are better off, but not as much as the economics would assume. While America is much better organized economically, a lot of that gets wasted rebuilding after disasters and spent on transportation. America is far less urban than we could be, and the cities we have are dramatically spread out and located in frequent disaster areas.

3/19/2006 8:28:42 PM

I meant to say better off.

3/19/2006 10:33:59 PM

and we burn a lot of money on wars

3/20/2006 2:53:02 AM

Quote :

"and the cities we have are dramatically spread out"

perhaps that is the quality of life (privacy, space, peace and quiet) that we desire. Kind of like how the europeans make such a big deal about how they gladly sacrifice a little economic gain for only having to work 35 hours and two months vacation.

I'd rather work keep my work ethic and live in a nice house away from the clamor of a city than have to be crammed into hamster cages like those filthy europeans

[Edited on March 20, 2006 at 7:06 AM. Reason : s]

3/20/2006 7:05:47 AM

Quite true. But like the French say, such benefits are not included in the economic data, only their costs.

It bears mentioning that when American's live in dense cities we don't cram into hamster cages like Europeans. Our cities are way over-built for the given population by European standards. Per-capita living-space downtown is, on average, almost twice that of our French counter-parts. New York is an obvious exception due to the ravages of Rent Control.

[Edited on March 20, 2006 at 9:52 AM. Reason : aperment]

3/20/2006 9:42:29 AM