• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AP: France’s Macron faces test in parliamentary elections

Addi

Member
What a beautiful sight.....

DCEVJL3WAAAnstB

No matter what your opinion of Macron is, he's a pretty clever politician :p You have this back and forth between left and right for decades, then Macron comes along like "hold my beer, I'm gonna fuck this shit up fam" and he does it in a year.
 

Ac30

Member
As a Dutch person: they are.

'Modernizing' the job markets just meant worse and worse conditions for workers. Nobody can afford homes anymore (even rentals are hard) because banks and tenants don't want to do deal with the uncertainty. No mortgages, no rents.

Of course every country will discover this when it's already too late, just like we did. Change and streamlining is needed but the last one you should trust with this are liberals.

Macron's platform at least includes making CDD a less attractive option for employers.
 

Coffinhal

Member
Macron's track record has been flawless so far aside from the 'kwassa-kwassa' Comorian joke.

That's your opinion, which eludes a few news and controversies that happened.

"Strong anti-refguees policy" (Le Monde)

"To a continuous stae of emergency" (Amnesty)
The Ministry of Justice calls a journalist to, quote, "harass", a journalist" (Europe 1)
Macron's Ministry meddle with a financial scandal with public money (Marianne)
A total of 4 ministers linked to Financial scandals (Franceinfo)New Labour Law : a "dreaful and worrying reform" according to a group of Law professors (Franceinfo)
"Why reforming the Labour law with ordonnances could be the first big mistake of Macron's presidency" according to an historian (Atlantico)

Centrists and right-wing people are happy because he's promising vertical power, excessive security measures and another hardcore labour reform ; and he has done some good PR but let's not forget that a majority in seats isn't a majority in the country.
 

Mael

Member
Good job les insoumis, you lost more than half of your votes for no fault but your own.
And I thought the results in the overseas election were a slaughter...

It's official PS is dead : 1969-2017

And btw, it's pretty clear Macron won't need to govern by ordonnance now, with close to 400 deputes there's barely a need for debate.
 
I understand this is difficult to compare, but by American standards, Marcron is somewhat to the left, right?

I read through his policies, and it seems relatively leftist by American standards (obviously not for France though). Is this accurate, or am I missing something in his policy plans?
 

wutwutwut

Member
I'm center-left. The Danish employment system, easy hiring and firing with high taxes and strong welfare guarantees, is what I hope everyone ends up doing.

Macron now has absolute power. It'll be really exciting to see what France ends up looking like with a few years of him in charge.
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
I guess that when the spectrum is stretched by both extremes most people end up in the centre anyway.

Plus, how is that abstention protest working so far?
 

Coffinhal

Member
And btw, it's pretty clear Macron won't need to govern by ordonnance now, with close to 400 deputes there's barely a need for debate.

Not really related. The ordonnances allow him not to a debate - and the possibility to amend the law - in the Assembly or in the Senate, which doesn't have any En Marche Senator, group or majority. In other words he wants to do ordonnances because he believes the parliamentary debate/procedure is too slow and unecessary since he won the election recently.

The lack of debate and plurality of opinions in the Assembly is still an issue though, especially if you count the PS and LR MPs that agree on most of Macron's agenda...

I understand this is difficult to compare, but by American standards, Marcron is somewhat to the left, right?

I read through his policies, and it seems relatively leftist by American standards (obviously not for France though). Is this accurate, or am I missing something in his policy plans?

It's hard to compare. He could be a center-leaning Republican or Democrat, but again, that depends what standards you take (when basically). On an ideological basis he's clearly in the lineage of the New Democrats lead by Clinton in the 1990s ("third way" and everything), which removed some of the most important left ideological stances - that Sanders tried to bring back but failed given the power of the New Democrat consensus in the DNC (from what I've read in american leftists reviews)
 

Mael

Member
I guess that when the spectrum is stretched by both extremes most people end up in the centre anyway.

Plus, how is that abstention protest working so far?

This is so stupid, in some places there were something like 26 candidates to choose from.
People who had an issue with the system fielded candidates all right, if you abstained it's not because no candidate suited you it's because you didn't care.

Not really related. The ordonnances allow him not to a debate - and the possibility to amend the law - in the Assembly or in the Senate, which doesn't have any En Marche Senator, group or majority. In other words he wants to do ordonnances because he believes the parliamentary debate/procedure is too slow and unecessary since he won the election recently.

The lack of debate and plurality of opinions in the Assembly is still an issue though, especially if you count the PS and LR MPs that agree on most of Macron's agenda...

PS is a non factor in the Assemblée now, it's done.
They still have legacy influence with the Senators, Mayors and all but they're pretty much done.
The way it is now, there's literally no difference between ordonnance or following the regular process except for a timing issue.
The Assemblée National has the last word anyway and the Senate cannot impose something that the AN would want out.
Effectively Macron has full power regardless of the Senate, Congrats on all the parties that are not LREM you effectively gave Macron a blank check.

It's hard to compare. He could be a center-leaning Republican or Democrat, but again, that depends what standards you take (when basically). On an ideological basis he's clearly in the lineage of the New Democrats lead by Clinton in the 1990s ("third way" and everything), which removed some of the most important left ideological stances - that Sanders tried to bring back but failed given the power of the New Democrat consensus in the DNC (from what I've read in american leftists reviews)

He's pretty much Democrat as far as US politics goes, no need to try to make him a secret Republican or something.
 

Coffinhal

Member
This is so stupid, in some places there were something like 26 candidates to choose from.
People who had an issue with the system fielded candidates all right, if you abstained it's not because no candidate suited you it's because you didn't care.

Blaming the non-voters, not trying to understand the whole picture, here we go again <3
It's not like some of us tried to explain it a thousand times in the OT haha

PS is a non factor in the Assemblée now, it's done.
They still have legacy influence with the Senators, Mayors and all but they're pretty much done.
The way it is now, there's literally no difference between ordonnance or following the regular process except for a timing issue.
The Assemblée National has the last word anyway and the Senate cannot impose something that the AN would want out.
Effectively Macron has full power regardless of the Senate, Congrats on all the parties that are not LREM you effectively gave Macron a blank check.

I just explained to you that was the whole point of the ordonnances according to Macron (no debate in the Senat, no two screening of the law in both chambers etc). So I don't understand your point. Anyway.
 

azyless

Member
I understand this is difficult to compare, but by American standards, Marcron is somewhat to the left, right?

I read through his policies, and it seems relatively leftist by American standards (obviously not for France though). Is this accurate, or am I missing something in his policy plans?
It's not easy to compare but I'd still place him slightly left of people like Obama and Clinton, if only because of some things in place right now that would be considered very leftist in the USA.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
If looser labour laws can help France get full employment and a stronger economy it'd probably be a net benefit for the welfare of the French people (with the government now having more money for stuff). My general theory is that countries should strive for the strongest labour laws they can have while managing to maintain full employment.

But the most important thing in the En Marche platform, in my opinion, is increasing the supply of housing. And this is something that can get broad support, versus the labour reforms which are sure to be very controversial. People want housing (bold statement, I know) and affordable housing would be really good for improving people's abilities to move for better jobs and career advancement.

Dramatically increasing housing supply is what I'd most like to see Canadian politicians put a really big focus on, so hopefully Macron can be successful in that and provide a role model for the rest of the world. It's also something a divided Democratic Party in the US could unite behind that would be very popular with a lot of people.
 

Mael

Member
Blaming the non-voters, not trying to understand the whole picture, here we go again <3
It's not like some of us tried to explain it a thousand times in the OT haha

Hey, people made their bed.
They were asked who they wanted to enact laws, a majority of people preferred to do something else entirely.
Macron now has a full legitimate mandate to do as he wants.
I'm not blaming non voters, I'm blaming the other parties like les Insoumis who for all their talk about how they would change the world basically preferred to stay at home rather than do something productive.
In short, they failed.
I just explained to you that was the whole point of the ordonnances according to Macron (no debate in the Senat, no two screening of the law in both chambers etc). So I don't understand your point. Anyway.

And I'm telling you that whatever the Senate tries to put into laws in the Senate could be removed by the AN. The debate in the Senate will not interest anyone (because let's be fair it never did).
So yeah the regular method is functionally identical to Macron's alledged ordonnance except it's longer and more wasteful.
 

kirblar

Member
I'm center-left. The Danish employment system, easy hiring and firing with high taxes and strong welfare guarantees, is what I hope everyone ends up doing.

Macron now has absolute power. It'll be really exciting to see what France ends up looking like with a few years of him in charge.
Good article (suspect you might have seen it already :) ) on Denmark's labor market and why it works really well- http://voxeu.org/article/flexicurity-danish-labour-market-model-great-recession

This is why the comparison to the US is off base. US has easy firing, but problems hiring people. (Cause of the employment-linked healthcare) This is linked directly to the lack of strong social safety nets, and we have issues w/ our "Activation" policies cause the EITC only works for custodial parents. But the US does have near-full employment, which is a very good thing.

On the flip side, France's issues are pretty much all related to not being able to let people go easily. The other two pillars really aren't an issue for them as of yet- no one's proposing changes to welfare or activation benefits because there are way more obvious problems.

To simplify- in the US, the problem is that it's too difficult for employees to leave a job without having one lined up due to the lack of social safety nets, and employment-based healthcare disincentivizing full time employment by employers. In France, it's too difficult for employers to fire someone AND it's too difficult for employees to leave a job because once you leave the protected full-time employment class, getting back in is a problem.
If looser labour laws can help France get full employment and a stronger economy it'd probably be a net benefit for the welfare of the French people (with the government now having more money for stuff). My general theory is that countries should strive for the strongest labour laws they can have while managing to maintain full employment.

But the most important thing in the En Marche platform, in my opinion, is increasing the supply of housing. And this is something that can get broad support, versus the labour reforms which are sure to be very controversial. People want housing (bold statement, I know) and affordable housing would be really good for improving people's abilities to move for better jobs and career advancement.
Does France (or Canada for that matter) have the same NIMBY issues you see here in the states? Here in the US, it's very difficult to address this from a national level, it usually has to be states overriding localities and preventing locals from zoning out "undesirables".
 

Mael

Member
Does France (or Canada for that matter) have the same NIMBY issues you see here in the states? Here in the US, it's very difficult to address this from a national level, it usually has to be states overriding localities and preventing locals from zoning out "undesirables".

There's laws and fines nudging affordable housing in all cities but local authorities are usually more down about paying fines than budging on this.
 

Coffinhal

Member
And I'm telling you that whatever the Senate tries to put into laws in the Senate could be removed by the AN. The debate in the Senate will not interest anyone (because let's be fair it never did).
So yeah the regular method is functionally identical to Macron's alledged ordonnance except it's longer and more wasteful.

Again : the main advantage of the ordonnances is the speed and it changes everything because the longer a controversial law is on the floor of both chambers, the longer you risk having lots of protest and uprising in the streets - and the right-wing Senate will hold the floor so that Macron and his PM are in trouble mediatically.

Besides it reduces the "risk" of having a more balanced law though the right to amend of the MPs - which means it isn't "functionnaly identifical" : amendments are a key parliamentary power and there aren't any with ordonnances (so you're clearly wrong here on a factual basis and it's not the first time:))
 

K-Marx

Banned
I'm center-left. The Danish employment system, easy hiring and firing with high taxes and strong welfare guarantees, is what I hope everyone ends up doing.

Macron now has absolute power. It'll be really exciting to see what France ends up looking like with a few years of him in charge.

Question: My younger sister is currently being sexually harassed by a superior at work but is too afraid to tell HR or management because she's afraid of retaliation. Do you consider that acceptable?

I have been fired from a job before because I refused to work unpaid OT. What about that?

These are things that happen all the time in America, a nation with zero employee protections. these are the consequences of the systems you're advocating. I would like to see you defend them.
 

Mael

Member
Again : the main advantage of the ordonnances is the speed and it changes everything because the longer a controversial law is on the floor of both chambers, the longer you risk having lots of protest and uprising in the streets - and the right-wing Senate will hold the floor so that Macron and his PM are in trouble mediatically.

Besides it reduces the "risk" of having a more balanced law though the right to amend of the MPs - which means it isn't "functionnaly identifical" : amendments are a key parliamentary power and there aren't any with ordonnances (so you're clearly wrong here on a factual basis and it's not the first time:))

Protests won't change shit here with such a mandate.
He has full latitude and legitimacy to pass his laws.
People either voted for him and didn't care enough to have their voices heard.
The people who would go into such protests to block the agenda have less legitimacy to block the president than president has to pass laws by ordonnance.

Question: My younger sister is currently being sexually harassed by a superior at work but is too afraid to tell HR or management because she's afraid of retaliation. Do you consider that acceptable?

I have been fired from a job before because I refused to work unpaid OT. What about that?

These are things that happen all the time in America, a nation with zero employee protections. these are the consequences of the systems you're advocating. I would like to see you defend them.

I'm pretty sure that in France these situations can't happen.
Firing someone for refusing to do unpaid OT is illegal even.
Actually unpaid OT is illegal.
 

K-Marx

Banned
I'm pretty sure that in France these situations can't happen.
Firing someone for refusing to do unpaid OT is illegal even.
Actually unpaid OT is illegal.

Its illegal in the U.S. too.

Which is irrelevant when the employer can make up any bogus reason for why they fired them ("they just weren't a good fit for our company culture"). The real reason never has to come to light unless the employer was incredibly stupid and left physical proof in an e-mail or message chain.
 

Chairman Yang

if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
These are things that happen all the time in America, a nation with zero employee protections. these are the consequences of the systems you're advocating. I would like to see you defend them.
Literally no one in this thread is advocating for an American-style system, and Macron isn't either.

As for reduced protections combined with a robust social safety net (preferably in the form of something like basic income), which seems to be one consensus position here, the defense is that it makes pretty much everyone better off, including workers in similar positions to your sister, and unlike the rigid and overly burdensome protections that France has some of, doesn't screw over the unemployed or companies.
 

kirblar

Member
Question: My younger sister is currently being sexually harassed by a superior at work but is too afraid to tell HR or management because she's afraid of retaliation. Do you consider that acceptable?

I have been fired from a job before because I refused to work unpaid OT. What about that?

These are things that happen all the time in America, a nation with zero employee protections. these are the consequences of the systems you're advocating. I would like to see you defend them.
How about discussing France and the actual proposal instead of a straw man youve constructed based completely on your experiences in another country?

No one is proposing removing restrictions completely. Theyre just trying to make them not as oppressive as they currently are.
 

Mael

Member
Its illegal in the U.S. too.

Which is irrelevant when the employer can make up any bogus reason for why they fired them ("they just weren't a good fit for our company culture"). The real reason never has to come to light unless the employer was incredibly stupid and left physical proof in an e-mail or message chain.

Well in France you better have a good goddamn reason, even if you do have a good reason you can be brought to court over firing someone.
And it's a special court that handle such things.
You have to show cause.
For unpaid OT, you actually have people from the state checking this and non compliant companies are regularly fined for that.
Companies have to be able to provide specifics to show that there's no unpaid OT if asked.
 

azyless

Member
Its illegal in the U.S. too.

Which is irrelevant when the employer can make up any bogus reason for why they fired them ("they just weren't a good fit for our company culture"). The real reason never has to come to light unless the employer was incredibly stupid and left physical proof in an e-mail or message chain.
Where are you from ? Firing someone for "Not fitting into the company's culture" seems like a sure way to the prud'hommes court.
 

K-Marx

Banned
How about discussing France and the actual proposal instead of a straw man youve constructed based completely on your experiences in another country?

No one is proposing removing restrictions completely. Theyre just trying to make them not as oppressive as they currently are.

My current experience as a public sector worker is similar to France's system.

If my employer wants to fire me they have to prove its related to job performance in front of a neutral 3rd party arbitrator. Benefits and compensation are negotiated through union contracts that cover me and all my co-workers.

Compared to the private sector where your employer can fire you for any reason (which leads to obvious abuses of civil and labor rights as I already outlined) and contracts are negotiated between individual employee and the firm, giving the employee tremendously less bargaining power.

Everything I have read about Macron's proposed reforms suggests that he intends to change France's labor laws to make them more in-line with the typical U.S. experience in the private sector. And as someone who has worked in both, I can tell you that I will NEVER go back to working in the private sector unless I absolutely have to. The difference in culture and work-life balance alone is astonishing.
 

Coffinhal

Member
Where are you from ? Firing someone for "Not fitting into the company's culture" seems like a sure way to the prud'hommes court.

Macron's law plans to put in a ceiling to the compensation you could get in the prud'hommes court, making that kind of firing risk-free for an employer - especially if he is big enough.

Source

Ce qu'il faut bien comprendre, c'est que l'objet de cette mesure n'est pas de plafonner les indemnités de licenciement justifiés, mais des licenciements non justifiés ou sans raison valable. C'est-à-dire dans le cas d'employeurs prédateurs qui cherchent à acheter une entreprise pour récupérer ses brevets, sans se soucier des salariés. Ou encore des actionnaires qui attendent de gros bénéfices et qui pensent qu'en licenciant, on les fait augmenter. Vous pouvez aussi avoir le cas d'un salarié qui ne plaît pas à l'employeur et qui est débarqué sans raison. Des salariés plus âgés licenciés pour être remplacés par des stagiaires... Bref, ce sont des motifs interdits. Y compris dans les autres pays et selon les conventions internationales. C'est pour ces licenciements qu'il est prévu de plafonner la sanction. Et la plafonner, c'est la rendre parfaitement prévisible. Et même si c'est un niveau un peu plus élevé, pour une grande entreprise très profitable, pouvoir se payer un licenciement sans justification, c'est tout à fait abordable. 

C'est un véritable changement de philosophie. Il faut être concret : si vous avez un plafond, vous avez une somme prévisible. C'est donc la possibilité de pouvoir licencier, sans risque, un salarié. 

Actuellement, lorsque vous avez des plans de départs volontaires, les sommes accordées aux salariés sont souvent supérieures à un an de salaire. Pour ne pas avoir de souci, les employeurs sont prêts à mettre de l'argent sur la table, mais ils demandent aux salariés s'ils sont d'accord. Là, le gouvernement va permettre de faire des plans de départs volontaires sans demander l'avis des salariés. On pourra virer les gens comme cela, d'un coup de tête, sans aucune procédure, sans aucune motivation :  "Voilà votre chèque, vos un an de salaires. Et de toute façon, légalement, vous ne pouvez pas avoir au-dessus." 

Il ne faut pas sécuriser les gens qui violent la loi, mais les insécuriser et les dissuader de violer la loi. En l'occurrence aujourd'hui, c'est la décision d'un juge qui parfois, peut condamner l'employeur à verser de grosses indemnités. Cette potentialité-là est dissuasive. Ce qui est vraiment choquant, c'est qu'en résumé, on supprime la prohibition des licenciements sans justification. C'est ce qui est réclamé par un certain patronat.

In the article the law professors clearly say that the reform "is in the line of everything that has been done in the last 25 years"
 
This.

I am a flaming lefty in the US, but, as a French person, the French system needs much modernizing and I think Macron will be the one to do it. Hopefully.

Safety nets are needed, but the way they are implemented in France tends to paralyze hiring. Sundays and evenings needs to be fully open for work, among other things.

Let's remove barriers to employment, keep needed benefits and safety nets, and modernize the whole dusty juggernaut that is the French gov.

With all this talk about modernization, it begs the question, where are you now and what are you modernizing too?

Let us not go blindly down a myopic path now.
 

Elandyll

Banned
As a Dutch person: they are.

'Modernizing' the job markets just meant worse and worse conditions for workers. Nobody can afford homes anymore (even rentals are hard) because banks and tenants don't want to do deal with the uncertainty. No mortgages, no rents.

Of course every country will discover this when it's already too late, just like we did. Change and streamlining is needed but the last one you should trust with this are liberals.
People in the US are employed at will, and can be terminated on the spot. You can buy a house just fine (if your credit is ok that is).
In France, you can still fire someone on CDI (unlimited employment), it's just super strict and companies will hold on these as much as possible unless they are 200% sure you are the perfect employee.

The big problem is the cdd (6 months increment contracts), which companies will abuse.

With all this talk about modernization, it begs the question, where are you now and what are you modernizing too?

Let us not go blindly down a myopic path now.
Born in France, worked in France, now living and working in the US as a naturalized citizen.

France needs to remove barriers to employment.
Endemic 10%+ unemployment (far more for the youth) is ridiculous.
Gov needs to use a carrot to push biz to do the right thing, instead of systematic stick and drowning everything in red tape.
 

Coffinhal

Member
With all this talk about modernization, it begs the question, where are you now and what are you modernizing too?

Let us not go blindly down a myopic path now.

That's called neoliberalism and the guy above me just summarized it all, eluding all the risks that happen with that kind of policies (and as shown above they're not new at all).
 
Top Bottom