According to this article in today’s NY Times, a huge number of French people are striking against the policies of the Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin.
Why is it that in the US, almost all employers have an “At Will” policy to fire or layoff employees for no cause and no compensation with no protest by the workers? Maybe American workers are just numb. Or are they dumb, as Bush takes the country to war in Iraq for no good reason, with no widespread protest.
Exactly what makes the US workers so numb/dumb compared to the French?
Well, since the unemployment rate in France is 9.9% and the unemployment rate here in my home state of NH is only 3.4% maybe us American workers aren’t so dumb after all?
By forcing companies to keep on workers when the free market would not support them on it’s own you do more damage than good. As a result, companies don’t hire workers to begin with and the economy suffers.
Do what? Why is the moral equivalent of insitutionalized squatting to be defended as somehow enlightened? If an employer can’t hire and fire whomever he wishes, why should a homeowner be allowed to invite and throw out guests at will? Why should a person have a “social right” (whatever that is) to plant his ass in a chair that doesn’t belong to him and collect money from a person who doesn’t want his services? I think the “numb/dumb” label should be pinned on those who think that an employer is society’s pig, to be barbequed and made into sandwiches for whoever wants one.
The simple answer is that the average French worker is reactionary and antisocial. The French worker’s attitude is “I’ve got what I want; screw everybody else.” The French worker doesn’t care that 10% of his compatriots are out of work, or that they only way that most of those unemployed are going to get a chance to find work is if the French worker would accept a little more uncertainty in his future with his particular employer.
In short, it is because the French worker is a selfish bastard who cloaks himself in the slogans of “fighting for the common man”.
In the 32 years I’ve been working full-time, I have always had the option of leaving my current job and starting a new job at a greater wage, if only slightly greater at times. The “at will” employment standard creates openings and employee mobility while enhancing employer flexibility. I attribute my numbness and stupidity to freedom and prosperity.
Just to clarify, is this about making jobs redundant due to financial constraints or about firing people at the employer’s whim, to be replaced by another doing the same job?
The first is essential to a flexible labour market which can compete with other countries: the protests would be myopic and unjustified. The second gives carte blanche to employers for unfair dismissal based on personal caprice: the protests would be justified.
At will employment refers to the ability to terminate a specific employee’s employment at will. While this is subject to some constraints due to anti-discrimination laws, it does allow capriciousness on the employer’s part absent any illegal discrimination.
Or perhaps the French have a different idea about society than you do … that is, perhaps they believe that those who own material wealth in society should not be allowed to make every last decision about what goes and what does not go within it. Maybe they see job security (so long as the job is done properly and is economically viable) as a natural right.
It is at least as justifiable a viewpoint as the ones being spewed in this thread, and not nearly so detrimental to human rights.
Because they presumably have a contract, on which they are reling for their livelyhood. A better homeowner anology would IMO be if the homeowner was renting out a house and kick out the renters out at will (i.e. just because he feels like it).
Actually, it is about hiring people in the first place. Every time an employer hires an employee, the employer takes a risk. The employee could turn out to be incompetent, unproductive, disruptive, or just not as good as a prospective employee who comes along a year later. Given that labor costs are the the highest cost of most employers, an unproductive work force is one of the greatest risks an employer has.
So, what would induce an employer to take the risk? The ability to correct a hiring error - by firing the employee. If you cannot do that, you are less likely to hire an employee.
It’s odd that you would attempt to seperate the two. How is the government of any country supposed to do this?
In any case, even if it were possible to differentiate jobs that are redundant due to financial constraints and jobs that are replacing people, it should still be the employers right to fire and hire who they like. If Lenny does a better job than Carl, then I fire Carl and hire Lenny from my competetor. Sue, it sucks to be Carl. But, utlimately society is better off with Lenny at my widget factory because everyone gets higher quality widgets.
Employers having the right to fire workers <> Employers making every last decision about what goes and what does not go within society.
It’s really, really numb and dumb that this needs to be said at all.
So, it’s up to the government to tell if a “job is being done properly” and “is economically viable”. Give me a break. It’s up to the market to decide what’s economically viable and it’s up to the employers to decide if the job is being done properly.
Why are you perpetuating the myth that employer -> wealth? Most employers are struggling to make ends meet just like you are, but with the added hassle of fending off Marxist idiots and venomous vultures who think they’re entitled to things that belong to someone else.
Wait, I thought this was legal. At least, when I was in a rented home, we came close a number of times to getting a 30-day notice to head out - because the owner was considering moving in.
I’m quite clueless - is there a similar creature in labor laws, say a two-week notice? That’s about the furthest I’d compromise; even that is pretty problematic (e.g. being required to keep an employee when he/she knows she’s going to be out of a job in X days would make for a terrible environment).
I think what we’re seeing are profound philosophical differences between France and the US about the way to organize society. To say one is better than the other is to sort of miss the point. France certainly has a much more rigid and regulated job market, which is bad for the unemployment figures, but at the same time offers some protections and benefits that American workers would kill for. Six weeks of vacation? Long, fully paid maternity? I could get on board with that personally.
We assume that the rigidity of the employment market makes French companies less competitive, though I’d like to see some actual proof of that (since we’re so tempted to make this assumption based on ideology alone). If so, the real question is whether in the age of globalization, France even has the luxury of trading efficiency for quality of life.