France Hit By Wave Of Protests Over Jobs Plan

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
[!--quoteo(post=132429:date=Mar 19 2006, 03:22 AM:name=IronDuke)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Mar 19 2006, 03:22 AM) [snapback]132429[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]


In other words, this law will make it easier for French companies to remain competitive and PUNISH INCOMPETANCE. They won't fire a productive employee - it doesn't make business sense and hurts their bottom line.

[/quote]

That is theoretically true, truely idealistic, because it also means that if you are very competant, more than your boss lets say, he can fire you because he is jealous and doesn't have to give yo a reason why. In other words you can be fired for being a minority, because they don't like you (regardless of performance) or because it's your birthday and you can't do crap about it, because they don't have to tell you why you were fired.
 
[!--quoteo(post=132429:date=Mar 19 2006, 04:22 AM:name=IronDuke)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Mar 19 2006, 04:22 AM) [snapback]132429[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
In other words, this law will make it easier for French companies to remain competitive and PUNISH INCOMPETANCE. They won't fire a productive employee - it doesn't make business sense and hurts their bottom line.

France must be more of a nanny state than even Canada, and that is saying something.
[/quote]

Duke, please tell me what word I am looking for here:

Moscow%20parade%20(AP).jpg


darwin_beard.gif




Yes. That statement supports Social Darwinism. Incompetence is something that comes natural with young employees who have no work experience. They have to learn their jobs, and the best way is to learn by doing. It is a very often observed phenomenon that young employees have had the very best of theoretical education but come into worklife unable to do anything properly. Allowing companies to fire them at will means depriving the young employees of a chance to prove their worth. Of course there are black sheep who really are incompetent, but what about the employee who simply needs some time to learn his job but would become an exemplary worker? Not everybody is born with the qualification for a profession. Some have natural talent for something, but most people are born dumb with two left hands and ten thumbs and need to learn their skills. The perfect employee (20, university graduate, five years of work experience) doesn't exist. It's something the company bosses finally need to put up with.

I could start getting philosophical about it, but I'll put that on hold... for the moment!
 
Onhell got the point. That also mean that you spend your time wondering what will happen the next day: still working or unemployed? Nice, isn't it. For the peace of mind, that will be great.

Iron Duke, if you use "nanny state" as opposed as liberal state, yes indeed, France is... still. Not for long though if the government go on with the same kind of law as this new work contract for 26 years old and younger. For what I saw of the liberal states, I'm not so sure I want to live in one.
 
[!--quoteo(post=132664:date=Mar 21 2006, 10:25 PM:name=Le Hibou - The Owl)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Le Hibou - The Owl @ Mar 21 2006, 10:25 PM) [snapback]132664[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Iron Duke, if you use "nanny state" as opposed as liberal state, yes indeed, France is... still. Not for long though if the government go on with the same kind of law as this new work contract for 26 years old and younger. For what I saw of the liberal states, I'm not so sure I want to live in one.
[/quote]
Well, I’m afraid that Prime Minister Dominique Galouzeau De Villepin is close to the exit door if you see what I mean. I’m very happy to see the poor bastard off his position... I guess he’s going to find a new job soon.
[img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":D\" border=\"0\" alt=\"biggrin.gif\" /]
 
All I'm trying to say is this: If I'm a (hypothetical) employer, why should I be forced to keep people on my payroll who I don't want there? I started my business to make money; if someone makes money for my ompany, sure I'll keep them on. If someone is costing me more money than they bring in, shouldn't I have the freedom to decide whether to fire them or not?

what about someone who just doesn't get along with his/her co-workers and creates a bad workplace atomsphere? SHould all of my employees' performance (and stress levels) suffer because I'm not allowed to dismiss a shit-disturber?

Businesses aren't around to take care of people; they're here to make money.
 
[!--quoteo(post=133409:date=Mar 30 2006, 01:40 PM:name=IronDuke)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Mar 30 2006, 01:40 PM) [snapback]133409[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
All I'm trying to say is this: If I'm a (hypothetical) employer, why should I be forced to keep people on my payroll who I don't want there? I started my business to make money; if someone makes money for my ompany, sure I'll keep them on. If someone is costing me more money than they bring in, shouldn't I have the freedom to decide whether to fire them or not?

what about someone who just doesn't get along with his/her co-workers and creates a bad workplace atomsphere? SHould all of my employees' performance (and stress levels) suffer because I'm not allowed to dismiss a shit-disturber?

Businesses aren't around to take care of people; they're here to make money.
[/quote]

From a capitalist point of view, you are certainly right. However, this is where there is a conflict with the government. Many governments (those you call 'nanny states') have adopted a policy of being there for the people. They try their best at making sure that everybody has a job- they do not consider themselves as "rulers" of the people, but "servants". So, they tell the companies who employ somebody, that they are taking over a responsibility for that person. The government has the right to do that, because it is elected by the people. A company is not elected by the people, therefore it has no right to put itself above anything or anybody.

Besides, Duke, you are missing something here. Companies can fire employees if there is a reason. If an employee does nothing but disturb, it is a valid reason (I have witnessed that myself, fortunately not on myself). If the employer, on the other hand, just wants to get rid of a few people because they cost too much, that is against the principle of the state which wants to see its citizens employed.

In Germany, this type of economy is called "Social Economy".

---Note that all this is theoretical. Of course most politicians are in all this for their own gain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top