Protest: Vive La France!

The real problem of this strike is the fear of the youngst not to find a comfortable working place allowing them to live likewise their parents do,or teach them to find it during their whole education ;on one side it smells a little perfum of silk revolution, § on the other hand it's true that this kind of contract gives u no security for planifying any engagement on your future.And this in a country where ur average income is getting less §less since 20 years,while prices of a Flat f.e.were doubling in 5 last years!!!!or while the car prices rised 50% in 10 years .Is that a suffisant reason for young people to Protest???If that is not a thing.But WHO CARES ;Not the - our PRIME,(which father was diplomat and himself made his whole career ONLY in ambassies....) Letting my knees in the wind..God save our Roquefort !!!Depuis la France !

 

and stupid too

 

Basically similar increases in the cost of automobiles and housing have taken place in the US in the past 20-30 years. And as I said somewhere recently here but I'll say it again now per capita income in the US has not kept pace with inflation for over SEVEN years. Unlike the French, Americans are too stupid to protest about it or probably even to know about it. They're too busy being caught up in the Republicans' delirium about the War on Terror, which is among the least of this country's problems.

 

Get a grip man. Unemployment in France is twice as high as it is in the US. This does not prove that restrictive french labour laws are good.

 

Pointbreak I would say the same to you get a grip man. It's never made any sense to me why when there's a certain amount of something to go around some should have some and others none at all. Because they "merit" it? You can hardly have missed my other thread.

 

Is it fair that if you fall out of a tree, gravity pulls you to the ground and you get hurt? Fairness has nothing to do with it. And while you may think that it is "fair" to give people all kinds of job guarantees and protections, that doesn't change the laws of economics. Companies hire people because they need them, and they fire them when they don't. There is no benevolency involved. If you force a company to do something in an unprofitable way, it will stop doing whatever that thing is. Thus well meaning labor laws like those in France produce a large pool of unemployed people.

Society has an obligation to take care of those less willing to work? Why?

 

ok,my mistake about the hire and fire thing.
you say that allowing employers to fire people FOR NOTHING will lower unemployment.
how?if the number of jobs remain stable,for every new guy that gets a job,there will be the one who worked before him,now part of the unemployed group.nothing changes.
and don't tell me that investors were affraid they'll hire the wrong person then won't be able to get rid of him/her,thus not creating jobs and helping the growth of unemployment.because that is not the case.if one could prove an employee is bad for the buisness,he could fire him and the old law would have nothing against it.
the reason why the new law is bad is that it gives too much more power to the employer over the employee.for instance it makes sexual harrasement perfectly legal.

 

Pointbreak I won't be able to continue in depth today because I'm out of time but I'll respond as follows at least as a start.

Does society have an obligation not to exterminate you if it finds you objectionable in some way? Why?

 

I kind of agree with pointbreak's reasoning on this.

Why do companies have to give employees so much paid holiday every year? Why do companies have to pay sick pay when a member of staff get sick? Why do companies have to pay maternity leave?

Say I'm Joe Bloggs and I run a small companie with 2 or 3 employees. My turnover is low and I'm just about cutting it.

Marion who works for me decides to have a baby with her partner and leaves after a few months and I have to pay her during her pregnancy and keep her job open for her even if she doesn't want to come back.

So now I'm down a member of staff. I'm paying for being down a member of staff and unless Marion was completely incompetent her work is piling up. So I either have to pay a temp to come in, which means I'm now paying twice to get the same job done or I let the work pile up.

Having said that workers have built up their rights over the years by 1. Copying the public sector who have threatened to strike at every opportunity and 2. Being so good at their job that they can make demands of their employer.

Why should Joe Bloggs pay twice for the same job to be done. It was Marion's choice to have a baby so shouldn't she pay for it? Actually Joe is going to pay twice because he will also pay the tax towards the family income support that Marion will get.

Is it any wonder that companies pay women less when they are burdened with this problem? If I were a company I would employ women over 50.

Its the same with sick pay. Ned goes out on the town of the weekend, gets drunk, gets runover by a tube train, is in hospital for 6 months and Joe Bloggs has to fork out the sick pay.

Having said all this Marion should be allowed to have her children and some sort of security when that baby comes along but I think the burden should fall on the whole of society and not that of her company.

 

Gary you're at least trying to talk fairness which Pointbreak by his own admission is not. However I disagree with your analysis of what constitutes fairness. Sorry I don't have time to get into it right now. But as I said before where unfairness exists if you want to do something about it well then the burden has to be shouldered by someone. And it needs to be shouldered fairly.

 

I'm sorry but I don't go for philosophical debates and rhetorical questions. Please go ahead and make your point.

The number of jobs is not fixed, so that is a false assumption.

That's exactly what I'm telling you.

Not really, because in practice its never that easy. And what if the employee is good but the industry is in a recession, or you expect it to be? You have to justify to government bureaucrats whether your staff levels are "correct".

No it doesn't.

 

swings and roundabouts gary .......alotta workers are in low payed jobs (as you know) .......therefore those workers need their perks .

 

yea for the french

 

In other words you're in a fix you can't handle and you know it.

Please answer the question. Does or does not society have an obligation to not exterminate you if it finds you objectionable in some way? Why? It either does or it doesn't.

Go ahead and say it. For all the world to see.

 

Er... right. Whatever you say.

Are you asking me if I'm against abortion?

 

J.T.:Je pense qu'il est trop obstiné pour te répondre ;il doit être chef d'entreprise.Coince le!

 

im not frech nor am i in france so it dont really matter what i say here. but if the old law was working so good and people were actually doing the work they were getting paid to do, then why did they feel they needed to change the law?

it had to of been companies ended up paying lazy people who didnt work properly.
but thats just my thoughts not that it matters much here

 

Gringo, you are like so many other americans. You want to make it simple. I for one say that the young people in France are doing the right thing, and I hope their voice is heard. For too long in the US the Corporate voice has been the only one heard. We've been promised secure retirement and lower premiums on our insurance, none of this has taken place. Energy prices are higher than ever, employees and workers have no rights, nothing is secure, but the salaries of the fat cat's and CEOs of off shore companies that rule the American Economy. I say Viva la France, and stay strong French youth~

 

What systems are there in place to protest, other that what is happening. Businessmen would like to think that only the system that's in place in the US is the best where lobbyist that are part of the good ole boy system pass out bucks to win their viewpoints. I say pick up a sign and picket when you see something that merits it. And raise your center finger to corporate f*ckers that only value their bottom line. It's time that the voice of the little people was heard once more.

 

You've really bought into the corporate viewpoint. I wish you luck when you get laid off. The only thing a higher minimum wage has ever done is raise the living standard for the working poor. The corporations would like you to think it increases unemployment, but historically it has not done that. It may raise the overhead temporarily for businesses, and reduce their bottom line, but who actually makes them productive a few over paid executives, of the people that do the actual work? Do those bottom tier employees receive a golden parachute when a company goes under...no, but what happened to the executives of Enron and their ilk?