1. I have to say I'm against the government on this, because it's interfering in a set of relations that (as I pointed out before) have taken time, and jurisprudence, to establish. And it is doing so, imo, to introduce the thin end of a liberalizing (economic sense) and globalising wedge. In other words, for ideological reasons.

2. OTOH, I'm not against the government's right to seek to model employer/employee relations as long as that is done impartially, gradually, and by means of discussion and consensus. That seems to me perfectly part of a government's remit.

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).