Indeed, employers fear that disposing of people without justification will pave the way for an unprecedented number of lawsuits filed by employees claiming discrimination (racial, gender, etc.) as the motive for contract termination.

Just because the law doesn't require the employer to give a reason doesn't mean that the employer has to give a reason. But that gives the fired employee a handle to argue for unfair dismissal if the reason put forward bu the employer cannot be supported.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

I am convinced that this reform project is really harmful in the short and long term perspective; In the short term, it is hurting the country's moral very badly (for those aware of what the government has in store.

Over the long run, the risk of disruption of the whole social balance is not to be under estimated. It will widen the rift between employees and those self employed, or, as one put it, between work and capital ownership.

For that reason, it is critical that we remain aware of what is going on and not say, once it's too late, we did not see it coming.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

I think it is ridiculous to speak of "outdoing Reagan" or "letting Thatcher and Reagan" far behind.

This is going in the same (wrong) direction, that's true, but we still have far to go, thankfully. I am not sure that such hyperbole is helpful.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

this seems very bizarre to an american reader, where we have the terminable at will doctrine.  i have been an employer for 20 years of a small business, and perhaps 40 people have either quit or been fired.  all of them, every one,(except for a few deaths), is working and in a job at least as good, often better.  the system only works, of course, where there are many jobs available.  and the kind of restriction you favor does seem odd to us.  no one hires someone and takes the time and effort to train them unless one is hopeful that it will work out and that the relationship will be mutually beneficial. but that sometimes is not the case. sometimes it does not work, and always firing the person is better for everyone.  similarly, sometimes business turns bad, and one needs to cut to protect the jobs of the others. Employers are not looking for excuses to fire, but for reasons to hire.  The french system has it backwards.

I'm not quite sure how to express this. There are many things aberrant with the present-day US of A (like, say, Spain under Franco) but were we having this discussion say, ten years ago, I'd vigorously defend the US employment system.

I willingly confess that I know very little about the French system; I've never worked in France and my entire adult life was spent in the US. I have however experience with the way things work in the US, or to be technical in Southern California.

I am pro-union (as we understand that term in America) in terms of providing a balance of power in big businesses, administering pensions, etc. (It's a great shame many unions became so corrupt but I digress.) My wife belongs to a Union and I do appreciate the role they play.

I also supported the notion of a government-supported healthcare system, and opposed the dismantlement of the so-called welfare system. (People forgot that Johnson's war against poverty actually worked.)

But employment at will, I will defend as being perhaps the most natural form of employment; I've been on both ends of it, have seen it practiced for 30 years, and frankly I don't understand any of your objections.

I'm not an economist and understand very little about it, and I don't know labor laws either.

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.