Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Sorry, but I have yet another question re your comment below :
The 35-hour week was applied in a period which saw the biggest net creation of jobs in France ever; and ever since it's been weakened by Chirac's various governments since 2002, the job creation performance has been much weaker. There may be no link, but it's equally hard to blame the 35-hour week for the lack of job creation...

In writing that "eversince it's been weakened by Chirac's various governments since 2002, the job creation has been much weaker", you make clear this is a causal relationship. Then you write "there may be no link" which is odd.
It would be really interesting to have more material on the actual impact of the 35-hour week on the job creation. Indeed, as I mentioned, the 39-hour week put in place by Mitterrand had a ludicrously small impact on job creation.

  1. the 35 hour week did certainly work in small to medium size companies, and in specific business sectors. This certainly was not the case in big companies or for positions requiring very acute skills or specific expertise, on tasks where you cannot just split a workload in two. What happened is that the same workload had to be executed over a reduced timescale, because of the 35-hour week regulations imposed on the companies, thus putting staff under extreme pressure, especially experts and middle-management.

  2.  the effect of work time reduction cannot be properly assessed without being put into perspective with company creation figures, overall economic growth, etc.  
Now that would be really interesting, but the task rests with you. Me just popping out of lurkedom to help out.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 07:44:57 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

Occasional Series