French workers strike at any little thing. I don’t think its a major indication of french workers integrity that they’re striking about this issue. Its like the boy who cried wolf.
Not that I disagree with your basic premise, but what about Carl? And Carl’s family? Would we (society) end up paying for his dismissal in a way that we would not if you passed on hiring Lenny?
btw- Arkansas is a ‘right to work’ state…I’ve not noticed that we’re any more prosperous or productive than anywhere else- in fact, I’ve noticed the inverse.
I second what Sua Sponte is saying (not so much the French being bastards, and such, that is open to debate, but I’m not too far off :)), but rather that the risks are inherent with the employer. Put another way, a good productive worker who brings value to his position has nothing to fear in the day-to-day. There is a lot of start-up costs for bringing on a new worker and the employer still has the social stigma to justify his layoff at all levels of management (i.e. no one wants to be the bad guy.) Employers are profit-seeking, and they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they were to arbitrarily fire workers. There just is no incentive. Forcing employers to keep on workers during recessions and down times is just asking the employer to fold up shop.
Carl will have to find another job where he will work harder and not be fired. He’s better off doing this in a strong economy with low unemployment where employers aren’t fearful of hiring new workers.
In the Netherlands, at least, you have more protection than that (unless you’re renting for a pre-determined length). This is probably because there is a shortage of affordable houses in most cities.
I’m not an employer, this is just what I picked up after being an employee for 7 years:
It’s three months here (in the Netherlands), and yes, an employer can’t just decide to fire people with a permanent contract without a valid reason (and wanting to hire someone who’s cheaper/better is not a valid reason). In practice, it’s not that hard to get rid of an employee you don’t want to keep, if only because unreconcilable conflicts are are a valid reason to fire someone. It tends to be fairly expensive, though: employees can sue you if they feel they’re being fired “unfairly” and if they’re found right, settlements tend to be about 1 to 2 month’s salary for every year the employee worked for you.
Employees tend to hire new personell for 1/2 to 1 year initially (it’s customary to have a 1 or 2 month “probation” during which the contract can be cancelled at will), and after that period, contracts can be extended (or not) 3 times or up to 3 years (in general). If you want to keep the employee after that, he should get a permanent contract.
Just to clarify - I did not call the French bastards. I called the French worker who wants to preserve his/her job security to the detriment of his/her fellow French person, and who then claims the moral high ground a bastard.
Hell, I don’t blame the French workers for fighting to keep their job security. If I were in the same shoes, I would probably do the same. What pisses me off is their dishonesty - their position is all about self-interest, not a stirring defense of the French way of life.
Sua
Round these parts, your landlord can only kick you out under very specific circumstances (like, for example, if he was planning to move in himself, or if you haven’t paid your rent). He can’t kick you out because he doesn’t like you, or because he wants to move someone else in instead, or because he wants to sell it to another landlord.
I’m no fan of the landlord-tenant laws here, but this is one area in which tenants are pretty well protected. Because the law acknowledges that, all things being equal, my right to a home is more important than my landlord’s right to do business as s/he pleases.
The analogy, of course, is about the degree to which a worker’s right to a livelihood is as important as the owner’s right to do business as s/he pleases.
I can’t get too worked up about the “at will” thing because lately, the trend has been more and more towards temporary and contract workers (who can get sacked at will because of their designations). It’s great IMO that permanent, full-time workers can’t be sacked at will, but employers are getting around that by hiring fewer full-timers and more temps.
It all depends on what you want, I guess. We have 5% unemployment; they have 10%. We earn more money and own more stuff. They have universal health insurance; we don’t. They’ve got a strong safety net in other ways; we don’t. They have a 35-hour work week and something like 6 weeks’ paid vacation a year; we’ve got a 40-hour work week that applies to a shrinking portion of the workforce, and no guarantee of paid vacation. (I’d guess off the top of my head that most Americans get 3 weeks or less paid vacation.)
When I was a child, I believed that America did everything the best way possible. I still think America does a great many things very well, but it’s been a long time since I believed no nation did anything better than we do. Maybe there are things we could learn from the way the French do things, and there are things they could learn from us.
I’m not too up on French law but I’d imagine it’s very like the Irish law. It doesn’t make it impossible to sack someone. You just have to go through the correct steps.
If someone isn’t hitting targets etc. They can be warned and then appraised to see if they have improved. An escallation of warnings verbal => written => final => sacked is used here. This process can be quite quick. It just removes the option to fire someone for no reason.
We have 4% umemployment so it’s not killing us.
Well, it’s one thing to find people who are not hip to their own interests or who ignore them in favor of other things. But it’s something else entirely to find someone who’s so vehemently opposed to his own interests.
I understand your larger point, RT, but you seem to be seeing causation where the is only correlation. The fact that the U.S. is “at will” is not the reason we don’t have universal health care, a strong safety net, and work more hours.
Sua
Maybe compared to France, but I think you’re overstating the case when you say “almost all employers.” If an employee has a contract (or tenure, in academic settings), the employer has to abide by its terms as far as when and for what reason the employee can be fired and what kind of severance package the employee gets. If an employee belongs to the union, the employee’s job security will presumably be protected to some degree. Unskilled workers have it tougher, but even then there are laws against certain forms of discrimination in hiring and firing.
Then you shouldn’t have said it. I would say that employers having the right to fire employers at will puts way too much weight on the side of the employers. People who are doing their job should have a reasonable expectation of being allowed to continue doing it, not put at the whim of their boss. This strikes me as so simple and reasonable a position that I am surprised that anyone has the gall to oppose it.
If all employers were reasonable and objective people, you would have a point. Sadly, many employers are creatures of ego, habit and whimsy, often little better than employees in the human foibles department. (I hope I haven’t shocked you unduly.)
Tell that to the 10%.
[/QUOTE]
Employers I am sure vary in personal wealth. I gotta tell you though, if Harry of Harry’s Pizza Parlor fires Betty Jo the waitress because he didn’t like the cut of her blouse, what Betty Jo typically does is go find work with Jerry of Jerry’s Pizza parlor down the street, because the struggling employers generally pay shit wages and provide lousy hours and the jobs they offer are not hard to replace. The kind of jobs that make one want to sue are generally provided by wealthy corporations/individuals. (There are exceptions to this rule, I"m sure, but that’s what they are … exceptions.)
I would argue that it sucks to be anyone living in a society where Carl can be treated so shittily.
We’re an at will employer and we do the same thing. We cover our butts by going through the steps.
The only thing we skip steps for is violence in the workplace.
Where did you get the idea that Carl can’t be fired in France for failing to achieve his goals? As I said this isn’t a block on firing it’s just that a valid reason has to be shown.
This law is more to stop a company firing Carl for personal or financial reason* even though he is doing the job perfectly well.
This is the kinda thing I’ve seen quite a bit of. It doesn’t help the customer at all.
*eg. Carl gets fire so the company doesn’t have to pay his high wages due to length of service +training + pension and hire a young person non experienced person.
Cool. Good for your company. Our companies have to do it by law though so they have no option.
Here every dismissal is taken as unfair by default
This is Irish law not French though so it doesn’t have much to do with the OP 
The business that you own, is it the exception or the rule?
I am a worker struggling valiantly in an evil capitalist society, kind sir.