Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Four Ways to Fire a Frenchman | 41 comments (41 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Aaaargh (none / 1)
As I've mentioned elsewhere, there is a cultural difference between countries of Anglo-Saxon legal heritage, where common law plays a large part, and countries of Roman tradition, where laws are far more often written in detail.

So France does have legal books called Codes, that lay out the law in detail. America and Britain may have less of this, but common law, custom, and jurisprudence need to be studied in its place.

One thing I don't get is this: if America is so free of legal rigmarole, how come the practice of law is such a big activity there?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 04:55:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Aaaargh (4.00 / 2)
Actually, a labour law has a good shot at being a coherent whole that makes some sense, but case law? Talk about a complicated mess.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 04:56:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Aaaargh (none / 0)
American law is meant for corporations to sue to protect their hard earned money from unfair taxation, not for uppity workers to sue for hard earned corporate money...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 04:59:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Aaaargh (none / 0)
It also guarantees trial by jury whenever the dispute is worth at least $20. Smart as the Founding Fathers were, they either did not expect the constitution to last, or did not know about inflation.

They could have said something sensible such as "an average workman's weekly wages" or something of the sort...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 05:22:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Aaaargh (none / 0)
To know "an average workman's weekly wages" demands access to statistics that are easily available in a country were almost all wages are taxed and noted in computerised records, but no so easily available in a country were that is not the case.

By the way, they probably could not foresee inflation in the way it exists today. Why would you have permanent inflation unless you print a lot of papermoney to cover the costs of a war? Which they had just done, making everybody convinced that metalmoney was the way of the future.

Coincidentally, the swedish voting law from 1866 contained economical barriers towards voting for the parliament. Fortunately they put them in exact numbers. Inflation meant more and more voters until liberals and socialists could win on a universal and equal suffrage platform.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 07:44:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Aaaargh (none / 0)
Not coincidentally: property or income requirements for voting rights were de rigueur throughout Europe in the 19th Century.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 07:53:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Aaaargh (none / 0)
Yes, but IIRC the Preussian voting laws were not set to fixed sums but to percentage of the population that earned or owned that much.

So the coincidental thing was the probably unforseen consequences of making a fixed sum a limit, in the US leading to all cases tried by jury and in Sweden to universal suffrage. Of course both these developments could have been halted, but they had the inertia of the established.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 08:25:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Aaaargh (none / 1)
How much of this labour law is actually EU law now? Anyone know?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 07:45:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: EU work law (none / 0)
Mmm, I'd say 40%. Not that bad.
This obviouslynot accounting for  the UK, who managed to negotiate as many opt out provisions as possible.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 07:47:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: EU work law (none / 0)
But don't seem all that different on the hiring and firing front. This is the bit that gets me about the whole "labour flexibility" thing. Nothing I've heard about the terrible French system seems all that different to the wonderful Irish system. I still have no clue what the problem unique to France is meant to be that could be fixed by screwing with labour contracts. The unemployment problem is clearly a much more complicated system problem that requires pretty comprehensive tweaks to the system to fix. The current plan is senseless.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 08:02:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: EU work law (4.00 / 2)
It is indeed. Wonder how so many clever brains at the government think tanks eventually came up with such nonsense.
As Kcurie's sig puts it, it's myths, not realities, that operate in people's minds. The myth of fixing a complex problem with one unique solution is so tempting.
A simple solution is easily understood by the dumb electorate and you do not have to bother providing explanations. Regarding the CPE, reactions reveal it was well understood indeed. <s>
As the old saying goes "Never underestimate your enemy". For the French rights, the enemies are the dumb workers. Now the government did underestimate them all right.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 08:24:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: EU work law (4.00 / 2)
Yup, I think everyone understood the CPE!

I was reading the Blanchard paper that Jérôme referenced somewhere and it seems pretty clear to me that this is a problem with many possible solutions that are all complicated. Throwing the workers to the wolves is not the only possible solution.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 08:30:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Aaaargh (none / 0)
I hardly think that America is free of legal rigamarole. The argument is that if you have a system based on the rule of law, you end up with a lot of lawyers.

The difference is in the purpose of the laws. In American labor law the broad purpose is to support at-will employment, with the principal exceptions being unionized labor and government service. If the purpose was to provide worker protection we would have a kazillion laws to describe how to do that, instead.

by asdf on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 09:03:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Four Ways to Fire a Frenchman | 41 comments (41 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: