Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The scoring difference is because in France you're required to attempt retraining or reassignment while in Ireland you're not. That's the difference. Of course, if you fire someone in Ireland for lack of competence  without offering them training they can sue your ass, but you're not required to by law.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 31st, 2006 at 12:58:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The retraining/reassignment obligations only concern "economic" lay-offs, not firings for personal reasons like incompetence etc.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Mar 31st, 2006 at 02:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
WOuldn't that defeat the purpose of economic layoffs? Supposedly those happen because you can't support the employee in the first place.

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 Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 31st, 2006 at 02:33:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that if you're restructuring, for instance, you can't just fire Jacques and hire Marie for a different job: you have to offer retraining or transfer to Jacques first. If you're just downsizing you're fine, I think.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 31st, 2006 at 02:36:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But you're the employment lawyer.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 31st, 2006 at 02:36:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is such a 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 Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 31st, 2006 at 02:37:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But you're the employment lawyer.
I shall lay my vengeance upon thee now.

According to the General Regime of Social Security, workers (and their employers) are exempt from Social Security contributions if the worker is older than 65 and has paid contributions for at least 35 years.

And here's the meat that I was alluding to in a different diary:

Article 165. Incompatibilities.

1. The enjoyment of a retirement pension in its contributive mode, shall be incompatible with the pensioner's work, with the exceptions and in the terms  determined by law or regulation.

Added by the law 35/2002, of 12 July. That notwithstanding, people coming into retirement whall be able to make compatible the reception of a pension with a part-time job in the terms established by regulations. During this situation, the received pention will be reduced in inverse proportion to the reduction applicable to the working time of the pensioner in relation to that of a comparable full-time worker.

2. The discharge of a job placement in the public sector delimited by paragraph 2 of section 1 of article 1 of Law 53/1984, of 26 December, on Incompatibilities of the Personnel in the Service of the Public Administration, is incompatible with the reception of a retirement pension, in its contributive mode.

The reception of the mentioned pension shall be suspended for the time during which the said job is discharged, without increases [in the pension's value] being affected.

3. Reception of a retirement pension, in its contributive mode, shall also be incompatible with the discharging of [duties as one of the] Administration Officials referred to in article 1 of Law 25/1983, of 26 december, of Incompatibilities of Administration Officials (This law was repealed and replaced by Law 12/1995, of 11 May, of Incompatibilidades of Members of the Government and Administration Officials.)

Yikes, that was a convoluted mess to make sense of [let alone translate]. Any questions?

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 Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 31st, 2006 at 03:10:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, downsizing is the same.

These requirements were brought in to soften the blow of mass lay-offs (which may just as well be decided on for cynical reasons as for authentic ones to do with loss of markets, downturns, etc). They are more stringent for big companies and big lay-offs (so-called "social plans" have to be implemented). Requirements are lower for small businesses and small numbers laid off.

Still, employers tend to want to avoid economic firings because of the extra cost involved. Jérôme said something about this in another thread, don't remember which there have been so many on this employment stuff (remember when it was the CAP they were banging on about and how France could not continue to refuse to see the light and yada yada, at least it was a different subject, sigh...), to the effect that "personal" dismissals were becoming more frequent than "economic" ones for this reason. Employers seek a deal with the employees they want or have to get rid of, give-and-take.

There were no doubt some good intentions behind the "economic" requirements, but they turned out to have some perverse effects.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Mar 31st, 2006 at 03:14:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series