I greatly admire the French going out in the streets and protesting en masse and (generally) peacefully, and being heard; I so wish the American population, especially the downtrodden, wouldn't be so passive in the U.S.
I'm not an economist; I don't understand economy; I don't know French labor laws; I haven't read the CPE; so I hardly have any informed opinion on the subject.
As an American however (for that is what I am, despite being foreign-born) I spent all of my adult (working) life in California under the "at will" system -- in the best case, with a 30-day paid notice. I was on unemployment once, never long-term. I've worked for big and small corporations, and for myself. I hired and fired a few people on occasions, so I have a little understanding of both sides.
I certainly feel certain types of firings (race, sex, ageism, etc) are unlawful, I'm generally pro-union and pro-social benefits, but I really don't understand (literally, I don't get it) what the big deal is here.
I have the greatest respect for the opinions of my French friends here: please explain to me what's wrong about firing people when you have to.
This is not designed to do anything except make people work for less money.
It's about firing people to avoid them getting rights or seniority.
OK, I don't get that. What rights are we talking about? I don't get the bit about seniority either. Are you talking ageism?
The way I read what you wrote - I might be wrong - would be to imply that, if I work at a job for, say, 1 year, then you can't fire me anymore, so instead you'll fire me on Day 364, right?
But that's a perverse (in the statistical sense of the term) distortion of what should be a naturally balanced system. If I knew I could fire you on day 542, for example, then I wouldn't automatically fire you on day 364, just to be under an artificially-created limit.
Or did I miscontrue you entirely?
It's about reducing worker power and increasing employer power. It's about reducing the price of labour.
I presume, you mean in the absence of a full-blown contrat? Like a union contract, etc. If there is a union contract, I presume the usual remedies are available: grievances, strike, etc. and a balance of power will be struck. (Which is why I am in favor of union and despise Wal-Mart for being what it is.)
But absent unions, or collective mechanisms, what is "worker power"? I assume when you hire somebody, you enter into a private contract (whether explicit or implicit) that spells out salary, benefits, and terms of termination.
The power you have is that of walking away (I suppose you owe your employer a notice). I don't quite see what other kind of power you're talking about.
How?
I've turned down jobs because I didn't think there was enough money in it for what was asked of me. I wouldn't work at Wal-Mart, for example.
I'm in favor of a mandated minimum wage -- and one that is higher than the sub-survival pittance it's become in the US -- even if marginally, that can have a few perverse effects, too -- and the usual OSHA-type regulations, also.
But I don't see how the ability to fire people make them work for less. On the contrary I would think you'd take less money per week for a guaranteed contract job. That has been my experience, anyway.
I'm not being facetious or obdurate here. You talk in generalities. And none of what you're saying makes sense to me, in terms of relating to my own experience.
Please understand that you're not getting your point across.
I could understand defending the RMI and unemployment benefits and the healthcare system and everything that pours money back to help society take care of its poorest elements, but I'm afraid I don't get what seems to me an almost-neurotic French national obsession with controlling employment.
That there is not enough jobs, I get. Then create some. I'd understand State jobs à la TVA. (In fact the US desperately need a new TVA right now; FDR where art thou?)
While we're on the topic of what I don't get, I don't understand the "allocations familiales" especially for well-off people. If I'm the Duchess of Moneybags with 5 kids, I get money from the State, right?
Maybe someone can take a turn at explaining that one for me?
If I'm the Duchess of Moneybags with 5 kids, I get money from the State, right?
I suspect that's similar to the children's allowance here. It's not about the parents, it's about the kids. Part of the reason is to work around the situation where himself comes home and doesn't give her any money to do the housekeeping, though I suppose that's a bit anachronistic you'd hear the occasional story of middle-class families were the only money the wife had control over was the children's allowance. But at base the money is being paid to support the kids, not the parents, so the parents' circumstances are irrelevant. It's also probably cheaper to do it that way than try to administer the means testing - I think that's what studies here suggest anyway. The tax system in Europe generally takes enough money from the rich that it's not important anyway.
While we're on the topic of what I don't get, I don't understand the "allocations familiales" especially for well-off people. If I'm the Duchess of Moneybags with 5 kids, I get money from the State, right? Maybe someone can take a turn at explaining that one for me?
It's part of a consistent pro-family policy for the past century. Families with kids are helped, full stop. Means testing was a Reagan/Thatcher invention. It may make apparent sense, but it sends the wrong signal.
You get a fixed amount per kid (more for later kids in large families), so it helps the poor a lot more, and it's simple, consistent, and it sends a clear message all around (together with other policy items that help). Considering the amount,s I'm not even usre you'd same much by means testing, and you'd create a detestable precedent. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I never bought into the cliched notion of the "welfare queen" and I don't think most women actually had more kids just to collect more money, though I suppose it might be true in some cases. I haven't studied the issue, honestly.
Giving money to rich families escape me. You do have means-testing with RMI and all kinds of warranted and useful social subsidies already, I really don't see the "detestable precedent" / "wrong precedent".
The notion that the President of, say, TOTAL gets allocations if he has 5 children baffles me.
Except that all these things are being eroded in the name of who knows what. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Still seems odd to me.
Hmm.
It does show that we take a lot of things for granted until confronted with an outsider's viewpoint.
I stand chastised.
The problem is whether employers should gain the right to fire when they want, for whatever reason, and without needing to state one. Americans, I know, will say oh but it's like that in the States and it's just fine etc. But how long did it take for a set of implicit rules and the mutual understanding of them to come into being, and a set of behaviours to grow around them, so that a system like that works in the US? If one of the founding myths of America were not mobility -- Go west, young man! -- would that system work as well? (No, I don't mean a terminated employee ups and crosses the continent for a new job, but that there's an assumption of potential mobility in the American mindset that is much less the case here).
What I'm saying is that it takes probably several generations for practice to settle and become, in the strict sense, conventional, in these matters. And society models itself around these conventions (example, loans and rentals depend on a stable job contract here). Then, you can only introduce change if you do so gradually, transparently, and by discussion and consensus-building. You have to interest people in the process (meaning offer something in their interest).
None of this has been done by the Villepin government. The feeling (and, imo, it's correct), is that Villepin is preparing the way, after a first Trojan Horse called CNE, and now with a second called CPE, for a rapid breakdown of the system of guarantees the French are used to. People are quite reasonably objecting that they will not allow the balance of power between employer and employee to be brutally disrupted in favour of the employer. They are defending an acquis.
I could go on, but I'll stop there and we'll pick this up later if you'd like to. :-)
So if the State forces an employer to keep an unwanted worker, does it compensate that employer?
If you've seen Michael Moore ROGER & ME you know unemployment is a pretty grim problem in the US and I suspect the real rate is twice what you hear, because the unemployed are dropped off the list after a year. (At least in California they are.)
I despise the fact that large corporations have squeezed the life out of the unions, plundered the private pensions and generally succesfully lobbied the Federal Government to pauperize and endanger the American worker, only to enrich a few.
I also despise the fact that minimum wage in the US has become a sub-survival pittance, inadequate to get hard-working people out of poverty.
I can certainly paint a bleak picture of the US emplyment scene. The remedies to these sovietal ills are known: re-empower the unions, raise the minimum wage, etc.
I certainly don't want to see France go there; but despite all this, I still don't get the notion a state-created labor-contract that would apply to everyone.
(It's not that I'm pro or against CPE; I don't see why there should be a C at all.)
The free-market pretense is that the entrepreneur operates in a vacuum using his God-given resources and property to create wealth as part of his holy avocation and that he should have the right, as the priest in communion with higher powers, to act more or less as he wishes. It is only out of benevolence that he employs people at all.
The truth is that he uses his resources to leverage the infrastructure of the society around him to create wealth and that he needs workers to realise that wealth. Because he is in a position of power - especially were unions don't exist - society places an obligation on him not to treat workers - without whom the business wouldn't exist - unfairly. We consider it unfair for him to dismiss an employee on a whim. Need to reduce the work-force? No problem - we call it reduncancy. Incompetent or disruptive staff? No problem either - go through a fair process and you can fire them. We even allow for periods of probation in order to ensure that the employ fits in. Normally three to six months. Because that's what we feel is fair.
If you have a mortgage and a few kids you are not in position to just walk away.
(Apologies for the sarcasm, but I have a bad cold and I'm cranky.)
If you can make people redundant when economically you have to, then I don't have a problem except who defines "economically".
All in all, because of my own experience, I still prefer the "at will" system with a real social net behind it, as opposed to the State telling businesses how to run themselves.
That is not a freedom vs fairness issue IMHO; it's a who's best qualified to make decisions issue.
By all means, let's have the State assist, help, hire, create jobs, but don't direct.
I will however agree that big companies are behaving increasingly like rogue citizens and obviously need some counterweight.
Well, that is just the way it is here. And has been for a very long time, which creates a system. In France, any job (bar seasonal) has to have a written contract, quite possibly a simple one, but there must be one.
It may be that, further back, this arises from a difference between Roman law, more written, and Anglo-Saxon law, which relies more on common law. Plus, as I suggested, America has a distinct subset of values on these matters -- which, btw, though I "get" them, I find disingenuous in their assumption of good faith on all sides, of equality in the contractual relationship, and -- especially -- the absence of a power struggle or a balance of power between employer and employee. The right to walk away, excuse me, is piffling compared to an employer's rights and powers. It may be a useful threat in some circumstances, but, most of the time, the firing sanction is a much heavier tool. You're assuming bosses are not present-day Caligulas? Well, maybe they're not in California, (?), but there's a fair amount of anti-employee feeling among French bosses (deeply-seated, going back a good way) that justifies, in my view, the reluctance of young people to see their early job experience exposed to arbitrary employer decisions.
How would this result in lowering the cost of labour? By creating conditions of fragility and precarity for employees in which they will accept less good terms in order to be sure of holding down the job. A boss who can fire at will is a boss who can fix wages and conditions to his advantage unless the job market is tight which is not the case here.
(BTW, the State doesn't force any employer to keep an unwanted employee, that's not the way things are structured. There are contractual relations, there are conventions, there is jurisprudence, that need to be respected, and that is the case anywhere, including the US. An employer can fire an employee if he can show reasonable cause.)
Of course there is a contract. A private one.
What I meant is why -- other than for reasons of minimum wahe, health & welfare -- should it be a STATE-created contract.
Why on Earth is the French Government telling employers what to do with their "Premieres Embauches"?
It's not telling the employer what to do. It's allowing the employer to do things that were not previously accepted, by law, by the jurisprudence. It's saying: from now on, if you hire someone under 26, you're free to fire them at will over a two-year period. This kind of regulation is requested by the bosses' unions. (Though they're backing off from this one now, because it's become a hot potato).
It's not an easy thing to explain without it looking like I'm (me or another) being defensive about a system that isn't necessarily all good (though I must say that Americans can be very aggressive/out-of-hand dismissive about this subject, and that kindles defensive responses). My point, as someone who came from another country with an Anglo-Saxon common law basis, and who had trouble at first understanding what was going on here, is that other ways of doing things exist, and there isn't necessarily a right and a wrong about it.
And don't let me get started about whether it has been demonstrated that the American way of handling contractual relations between employer and employee has been productive of good, equitable results across society. (No, the French way hasn't either, but it does provide lower-level employees with more security, and develops a minimum net of solidarity).
the consequence of this absurd system is that no one hires in france if they can possibly hire any where else.
if there were more jobs in france, losing one due to the whim of an irrational boss would be counted, as it is in the US, as a blessing
Also, macro-economic conclusions based on 2-3 years of data are hardly to be recommended.
Unemployment is not going down so much because the active population has been growing faster than elsewhere, so the economy needs to create more jobs just to stay in place. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
But yes, as the cycle turns, maybe we'll end up with differnet comparatives (and then it will be blamed on the "cycle", not on the superior French model...) In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
But what we are talking about is the fact that it's an unilateral change to the whole social compendium, which includes for instance the fact that workers are paid less in France than in other places because a lot of the services that they need to buy elsewhere are already covered by the social security net. Everything that makes jobs less "real" for other social purposes (pension rights, unemployment benefits, and things like finding housing) without compensation elsewhere are a direct hit on the life of those that rely only on their salary as income.
Twenty years of such chipping away at rights have created a new class of working poor without eliminating unemployment, because companies abuse the new categories of jobs and have never fulfilled their promise of hiring more if they got such "flexible" job options.
And as to the story, it was not about the underlying issue, but about the assumptions hidden in Pfaff's arguments. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Are they? That's interesting. Do you have any statistics?
Everything that makes jobs less "real" for other social purposes (pension rights, unemployment benefits, and things like finding housing) without compensation elsewhere are a direct hit on the life of those that rely only on their salary as income.
I did not understand that.
companies abuse the new categories of jobs and have never fulfilled their promise of hiring more if they got such "flexible" job options.
I'm generally not a pro-business person; at least in the US I wasn't. And companies have squeezed wealth out of labor to enrich, well, its top management to begin with. There is an awful lot of corporate abuse.
That said, philosophically, I'm in favor of the State helping its poor, giving them work (à la FDR), not directing the business world, which seems the automatic assumption in France (Father Knows Best).
And as to the story, it was not about the underlying issue, but about the assumptions hidden in Pfaff's arguments.
I'm with you there.
Off-topic, I think you should collect all your essays in book form.
, not directing the business world
As a matter of cultural interface I urge you to write a diary about this, because it is one of the biggest chasms between the US left and the European left.
It's a really emotive and difficult subject to communicate on, because it goes to the heart of the deepest assumptions in society. It will doubtless be a horrendously flame-filled debate, but hey, ET survived talking about Iran and Cartoons, I'm sure it can survive this one.
I will say, however, that my philosophy is for the State to provide assistance and encouragement or chastisement, not manage by proxy.
Or else let the State run its oewn business, like SNCF, Airbus, etc. Then they can make their own rules.
I think the French are really wrong over this, but it's their country. Well, mine too, now.
Exceptions for matters of public order and general welfare, of course.
As it happens, I think you're really wrong over this and claims of "management by proxy" are just hyperbole.
I'd put it to you that in fact your basic premise is that "employment relations are not in Lupin's view contributary to the health of society, therefore is no role for government in regulating them" and I would take an opposite view.
But coming back to your comment. First of all, "management by proxy". Reading the stories about CEOs retirement benefits, buy-out benefits, "golden parachuts" (? spelling), aren´t CEOs of large multinational companies acting as "proxy owners" too? (I won´t even mention their - sometimes ridiculously - huge direct and indirect salaries.)
And why are the share prices of a company rising as soon as they announce a lay-off? With nobody at a stock exchange even analyzing if the lay-offs make sense in the long term? Instead of in the next quarter?
In my experience - I´m an engineer in Germany - some of the lay-offs inevitable involve needed and important service and design personal. Giving us much poorer service and help in the future...
("Right now, we´ve got only four two-man teams available in Europe for regular service and emergency repairs. So you might have to wait a month or two..." "Well, they did retire the most senior design and construction engineers so right now we´re just scrambling to rediscover their wealth of knowledge..." "You know, the company was sold to GE - General Electric - and they suddenly raised the prices for spare parts by 300%..." Just some of the things I´ve heard in last few years.)
Of course, profits will rise in the short term - hooray for the current CEO! - but will hurt the company in the long term IMO.
Not to mention the fact that in a "hire and fire" society, not a lot of companies will spend money to educate and qualify its workers. If you do it, a competing company can just lure away your most qualified workers. Using some of the money they saved by not educating anyone. Leaving you with the costs and no profits from it.
If however firing people is made somewhat harder, it makes sense for a company to educate and qualify them for more demanding work. Provided that every company faces the same regulations. Although I do admit that the same requirements make it harder for "new" people to find employment.
It certainly isn´t a perfect solution! Let me just remind you though that Germany is doing pretty well on exports... A lot better that the USA...
Everything that makes jobs less "real" for other social purposes (pension rights, unemployment benefits, and things like finding housing) without compensation elsewhere are a direct hit on the life of those that rely only on their salary as income. I did not understand that.
What I mean is that pension rights, for instance, are proportional to the time spent in full time employment. Temporary jobs or part time jobs add almost nothing to the minimum pension you are entitled to in any case. So anything that weakens the permanent job model also weakens the living standards of future pensioners.
Another example is that of healthcare. While the big things remain covered 100%, the smaller stuff (doctor visits, basic exams, and things like the dentist or glasses) is increasingly covered through a two-tiered system: la Sécu covers a portion (typically 65%, but less for some stuff), and a mutuelle (private or mutual insurance companies) pays for the difference. Most full time jobs have a mutuelle as part of the package, whereas other kinds of jobs usually don't - so these workers need to buy that additional insurance themselves, or pay for part of their healthcare.
And so on. When you get dropped out of the full time CDI job, you drop out of the middle classes into what can quickly be a very precarious situation.
Thus the working poor and the panhandlers that are now a frequent sight in big cities - they did not exist 20 years ago, beyond the odd clochard. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Further, the French system is one that tends to value the individual more than the US system. In the US, people are "resources." There is very little concern paid toward the lives or the wellbeing of "employees." There is only what they can do for us. France has consistently chosen to behave differently over the past 50 years and it is economically successful taking that alternate path. It's not as though France is falling into depraved economic depression. In fact the United States is sitting much more precariously on the economic cliff these days thanks to a fervent belief in so-called "free-market" corrections.
I've worked in California for a number of years and I've been fired by stupid people who were bad for their company for stupid reasons. I've seen it happen to other people and when I've been on the other side I've done what I could to prevent that from happening. The fact remains in the United States that if someone does not like you or does not want to continue working with you, they alone can often determine your economic fate. The French seem to have built more safeguards against that and there isn't a proven, fact-checked reason to dismantle that system. This is good for the economy because the person who is treating a company like their personal fiefdom is not able to cause so much damage. If only it were possible to quantify how many businesses fail in the United States due to a couple of screwups in higher management positions firing or chasing away all of the good talent.
The greater mobility in the United States stems in large from this commonly understood reality. When I seek to hire someone I am not especially concerned about the circumstances under which they left their previous employer. Sadly it is all too often a poor indicator of their talent, work ethic or ability.
Finally you must consider the erosion in context. It is understood that if you accept this, it will be harder to decline the next step and the next and the next. If you draw a line and stand firm your voice is heard. As a government is purportedly to serve the interests of the people then it must do so. I know that it's hard to see this point of view living in the United States as you do. That alone is the greatest reason to support the current oppositions. In a "globalized" world it won't take long for people to look over their shoulders and notice their neighbors doing better and enjoying it more and naturally the question will follow "what are they doing differently and how can I be more like them?" In this way the french protests against the CPE are a major global event and a potential signpost toward a tidal wave of similar actions and resistance around the rest of the developed world.
That's what I believed 20 years ago when I was single and healthcare was cheap for my employers. Now that I'm older, my healthcare premiums are somewhat more expensive, and I have two sons and a wife to support. The lack of a social contract, and in particular, the lack of any sense of trust between me and my current employer, or any other potential future employer, makes me much more nervous. If my employer can hire a 25 year old engineer who can do what I do 85% as well, but whose health care premiums are 30% of mine, I'll be let go in a heartbeat.
I don't expect that French employers are more truthful. They are a capitalist country, and the employers' job is to make a profit. I do expect that the French laws concerning employment are designed to make the employers act as if they were truthful, and that is all that I or any other worker can ask for.
FWIW, when I was in Paris several years ago my wife bought a very funny book called "French or Foe" explaining the differences between French and American society. Despite the title, it is very sympathetic with both sides. The only thing I really remember about it was the difference in goals of business. The author opined that the goal of business in America is profit, and the goal in France in employment. This causes no end of amusing misunderstanding for American companies in France, and presumably for French companies in America.
