I'll be the first to admit that bosses don't make it easy to defend pro-business policies when you see the kind of corporate looting that has been going on in the States where assets have been sold and treasuries plundered only to divert more money into the pockets of a few rich fatcats.
I know from experience that while Disney was "cutting costs" (ie: shafting every and freelancer in sight), while the company's profits were down, Michael Eisner's total remuneration in the tens of millions of $ was still going up.
This is wrong. I'm all in favor of kidnaping and ransoming Mr Eisner and distributing the money to the poor.
That said, I've also run small businesses and as long as my sales go up and down, I need to be able to adjust my costs, and if that means firing two or three guys at will, and perhaps rehire them (or others) three or six months later, well then I'm sorry, but I don't see any alternative.
I don't know what the problems are with France, nor how to best approach them, and when you deal with large companies, I think having powerful unions opposite them is a good idea in general, but unless you can legally hire and fire people at will, you've got a screwed up system.
I need to be able to adjust my costs, and if that means firing two or three guys at will, and perhaps rehire them (or others) three or six months later, well then I'm sorry, but I don't see any alternative.
But the really evil point of this reform is fire-at-will without severance pay. In that case you're not sending fired employees to unemployment but to homelessness. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I think if profit sharing were more common, the world would be a better place for everyone. If profits go down, everyone is affected personally and to an extent everyone is in the same boat.
The current system of 'salaries' seems odd. The difference is between earning a fixed amount which can drop to zero without notice, or earning a variable amount that will offers substantial savings potential when things go well to offset lower income when things go badly. As well as direct investment in company performance.
But this assumes an inclusive rather than an adversarial and exploitative relationship between owners and employees. Smaller companies sometimes have that. Larger companies like to pretend they do, but often don't.
In fact, I've worked in organizations where profit sharing time was extremely damaging to morale because everybody got the same share--even the groups that lost money.
As to making people homeless because they don't get sevrance pay, surely that's hyperbole as well, isn't it? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I must be very dense because I read your posts and I don't understand what you want (for your country).
I don't want to build a straw man here. Explain to me in plain English in the simplest terms possible how you would like the average employer-average employee situation to be like?
Because I sure don't get what you're after.
