Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
It should be, there needs to be a balance.
Let's hope for France that they don't overcorrect.
-
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.
Macron's labour reforms spark huge demonstration in Paris
- Thread starter FiggyCal
- Start date
It should be, there needs to be a balance.
Let's hope for France that they don't overcorrect.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
The long-term plan of "neoliberal politics" has lifted literally hundreds of millions out of poverty in India, China, and other parts of Asia.
I wouldn't want France to become like the US, but some labour reforms are absolutely justified. As a communist, I'm surprised you're against them, actually. Don't you want the entire edifice of capitalism to collapse or something? It's a win-win. If you're wrong, people will be better off. If you're right, your communist utopia will be ever closer to being instated!
Mass_Pincup
Banned
It's really not that hard, you just need quatifiable reason to fire someone, not just "improve profit". Losing money because you have to many employee? You can fire them easily. An employee is embezzling money? You can fire them as well.
What Macron and the big corporation want is to lower the amount of damages they'll have to pay for an unjust firing.
Yet the US and France have more or less the same poverty rate. Jobs keeping you poor are worthless.
At substantial cost, both upfront and in terms of decreased economic growth going forward:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...b-critically-high-public-spending-by-IMF.html
If the same poverty rate and half the economic growth is your goal, sure go right ahead, but in a few decades the average French person will be significantly poorer because of that choice.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Not sure if I want the working conditions and wages of China and India, as much as Tata Motors and Foxcon like it like that. :/
NYCmetsfan
Banned
where are those economic growth gains going theyre not going to US workers.
Yeah many the average GDP per capita in the US will be hire but they surely doesnt mean the median or most common wage. If billionaires get a lot more that increases the average but not the average wellbeing of the people
Drudging up American police unions at some feeble attempt to shit on private unions is always a good laugh, especially when non-Americans do it. Do you guys think that possibly, maybe, institutional racism and our political system based on white appeasement might have something to do with the power and influence of police unions and the fact that the corrupt and incompetent aren't held accountable? Does anyone, in good faith, honestly think any other type of union on Earth operates under similar conditions at all?
Mass_Pincup
Banned
I wouldn't be so sure about that, economic growth is meaningless to the average French person if they're not benefitting from it.
With these labour reforms, companies will pay less for unjust termination of employment leaving the fired employee in a worse financial state then before. The state will still have to pay for their unemployment anyway.
Now they might say that it's going to decrease the amount of unemployed people with just a worse turn over but as shown with the political reforms made by Hollande, they still not going to hire more people and just pocket all the money.
They lowered the cost per employees, lowered taxes for them to no effect.
Edit: Also the economic growth would be better if those same companies and CEO didn't tax dodge tens of billions every year.
I never thought of it that way.
elrechazado
Banned
Yeah, there should be famines and subsistence farming instead
Probably because being poor and having zero income is actively worse than poor and making barely enough to scrape by.
Yes both are in poverty, but that doesn't mean they're the same!
I'm pretty sure the people of India and China are thrilled to have those conditions compared to what they had before
Well I also don't know what constitutes as poverty in France and how it's different in the U.S.
Well, speaking of the developed world, how do you reconcile that the United States has lower social mobility than France? Why is it much lower than Canada, Finland and Denmark?
Why haven't the perpetual promises that tax breaks and ever decreasing labor protections would benefit the workers in the largest economy on Earth come to fruition?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I don't know why we're talking about the US. France's problems are not the US's problems
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Being poor doesn't mean that you have zero income, same with being unemployed.
Basically anyone leaving with less than $14k a year is below the poverty line in France.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
These reforms are 100% necessary. What was there right now was not sustainable.
gutter_trash
Banned
Isn't it near impossible to fire a public sector worker who is total shit?
Reason why there is high youth unemployment is because the Baby Boomers have filled up all the cushy jobs
Reason why there is high youth unemployment is because the Baby Boomers have filled up all the cushy jobs
Because there was an over correction against organized labor here and it has had some pretty terrible effects? It's more relevant than bringing up developing countries or using GDP as a golden metric for standard of living at least.
Dynamite Shikoku
Congratulations, you really deserve it!
Seems to be the common thread around the world right now - give rich people more power and fuck all the poorer people
Dr. Benton Quest
Banned
Elect neoliberal party. Get neoliberal polices.
Did people think this wouldn't happen?
Did people think this wouldn't happen?
There was indeed an overcorrection here. But that doesn't mean that there doesn't need to be a correction in France.
10% unemployment, 24% youth unemployment is very bad.
Is it so hard to imagine that France can reform its labor laws without killing workers rights entirely? Like, it doesn't have to be one way or the other, where either workers have way too much power or way too little. There is a middle ground where companies are forced to protect workers rights, but it is possible to fire the ones that are totally shit so that better employees can be hired on.
Bringing up the US is silly, just as it would be silly to bring up France overcompensating if Democrats in the US passed a bill strengthening union and labor rights.
His Majesty
Banned
From what I've read it is easier for employers in France to harass their employees into committing a disciplinary offence and use that as a grounds for firing than try to fire them for insufficient performance. Businesses are wary of hiring new employees.
ClosingADoor
Member
If you have any insight into how these reforms will lead to American style labor laws in France, I'd be happy to hear it. But most people in this thread are just going "labor laws reforms are bad!" because the US is fucked up. Yet countries like Germany and Holland did fine with reforming theirs over the past 15 years or so.
Imagine then how nice it would be to decrease that poverty rate in France by getting more of those people a job. The US is a mess with labor, poverty, etc, etc, we know. Doesn't mean France will be when they change a few laws. For one, they have proven this year that when they want something in politics, they will vote for it. So if Macron screws up, they will vote for someone else next time.
It's either Denmark or The Netherlands that's been held up as a great model and balance between the two sides (can't remember which) - you can absolutely have employers able to fire people who need to be let go while maintaining a strong social safety net and protections for workers.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
I'm not opposed to reforming our laws so that more people get a job, I'm opposed to reforming the law so that people have worse job and can be fired for basically no reason because that's what they what to do hear. Putting an upper limit to damages the comapny has to pay in court for a wrongful firing, so that they can put account for a "cost of firing" when they feel like it.
We knew there'd be protests, but tbh the demonstrations have been pretty underwhelming in size. All the furor over relatively minor reforms under Hollande seems to have drawn the venom from the snake.
America doesn't have 25% youth unemployment - up to 40% in the banlieues. The French labor market is a protectionist racket that props up the already well-to-do to the detriment of those worse off. Reforms are long overdue.
America doesn't have 25% youth unemployment - up to 40% in the banlieues. The French labor market is a protectionist racket that props up the already well-to-do to the detriment of those worse off. Reforms are long overdue.
It's their company. They absolutely should have to fire people for legitimate reasons. Personality conflicts in the office, cost-cutting, etc. These are all fine. It's their business to operate.
You absolutely provide mechanism for addressing the illegitimate reasons, but you cannot treat them as the default and try to protect people from ever having to lose their job and have a well functioning economy.
Battle Litany
Banned
His reforms nullify existing collective bargaining agreements, reducing negotiation strictly between employer and individual employee.
Additionally he's made it feasible for firms to fire people at-will due to the laughably small caps on court judgments.
That's more or less how the private sector in the U.S. operates, except here you won't even get the 3 months severance when your employer fires you for being gay with the stated reason being "they were not a good fit for the company culture".
Mass_Pincup
Banned
You can already do all of that today though provided its affecting the productivity of your company.
Firing someone because "you don't like him" is not a sufficient reason for me and I'm happy that it isn't.
Palette Swap
Member
That was my impression as well. If anything, the strikes and protests have been pretty tame so far. That doesnt mean they wont gain momentum in the upcoming weeks, but its a far cry from the last few years tbh.
I think the political shambles everywhere and sheer exhaustion from the campaign have desensitized a lot of people. At least thats what Im seeing around me.
ClosingADoor
Member
What exactly is a wrongful firing in this case? Because over here you need to document a ton of files and stuff, and for small business that can be unworkable. Same with stuff like getting sick. I know people need protection, but as a small business the cost of paying someone their salary for years + a replacement can be a huge burden. Of course there is insurance for that stuff, but that is again added costs. Some limits on these things are OK, because otherwise especially small business can not hire people when they need to.
Would things like firing for sexuality or race fall under this, or are there other procedures for that to then sue the company?
There are plenty of valid reasons to fire someone that are not going to show up as "directly affecting the productivity" on a balance sheet.
Battle Litany
Banned
It doesn't matter, because 90% of the time there won't be any physical proof that that is the true reason why they fired you. They'll just make something up, like "personality conflicts", or a completely fabricated negative performance review.
Same with being fired for refusing to work off-the-clock, or for whistleblowing, or because you had the gall to use your vacation time and sick days.
Management is not going to be dumb enough to leave a paper trail in most cases, so unless you're wearing a hidden mic you're not going to be able to prove that the real reason for being fired was due to discriminatory retaliation. (and even then doing so in an office setting is felony wiretapping and thus not admissible evidence anyways)
So, I finally had the time to look through a summary of these reforms.
Most of it seems not so bad, but the "Cdi projet" And changes to the Cdd jumped at me... The first one will mean, I suspect for a lot of people, less job ganrantee, but at the same time should creat a lot of job offerings. The second one seems plain bad, especially as the former is introduced.
Most of it seems not so bad, but the "Cdi projet" And changes to the Cdd jumped at me... The first one will mean, I suspect for a lot of people, less job ganrantee, but at the same time should creat a lot of job offerings. The second one seems plain bad, especially as the former is introduced.
If France wants to be the perpetual country of 10 to 15% unemployment, with a chance at 40%+ for the under 30, sure!
There's a gotta be a median between the current situation and an all-safety-nets-gone (almost) ala US type... Hopefully Macron finds the right balance.
But yeah, big reforms are never popular.
ClosingADoor
Member
So how come countries like Germany, Holland, Denmark don't seem to have much problem with that, without having the same extensive labor laws as France?
Of course there can be some abuse. The question is, how do you balance it. And in that it seems France went a bit too far, leading to problems that might prevent people from being hired. And it is now looking for a way to fix that.
boxoctosis
Member
There's a time and a place for neoliberal market policies, and it's not a one size fits all. Accepting it's been a good thing for Asia, it may not be the best thing for France right now.
andythinkpad
Member
Is it me or the French people just love to vote in a surprise black horse and then hope for the best?
andythinkpad
Member
Until earth form a federal government and agree on a more relax labor schedule you are essentially competing with a Foxconn employee. Nation borders can only protect you so far.
Unknown Soldier
Member
It's so strange that an avowed neoliberal politician who is also a banker that got elected to the Presidency of France would attempt to weaken labor protections. I mean, who saw that coming? I know I didn't!
Well, I'll let you look into the other choices we had, it's not like there was any better alternative...
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Yeah, we should go back to the 1800-1900 industrialization era. We willl be poor but we will have inhuman jobs and the 3% rich ppl won't have to worry about people wanting better conditions.
At least it is not Lepen, i mean if you wanted having fascist it could have been here..you don't want that.