I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you. Perhaps “Evil Captive” would be more appropriate.
We’ve discussed at-will employment before here.
I believe that this is what has brought up the problem in France. They are an aging society. Despite all the problems the U.S. is facing with Social Security it pales compared to the French and German situation. Their population is decreasing much more than ours and thus the base of young workers available to pay the benefits of older workers and retirees is decreasing. At the same time Britain is in relatively good shape, due to a seemingly small (but foresighted) measure taken by Maggie several years ago. I would almost be willing to bet that the longer vacations and shorter work weeks were originally meant to decrease the unemployment problem. Obviously, it didn’t work and there will be fights in the future when the governments try to make changes in those areas. One answer would be to open the EU to massive immagration, but I suspect that would be just as unpopular. C’est la vie!
I’m sure that name would get the name from some of my former employers. 
What is the result of an unfair dismissal?
Here, termination is also taken as “without cause” by default, meaning that terminated employees can get unemployment benefits. If employees are terminated for cause, they can’t get those benefits. “Cause” can’t include the person simply not showing up for work, which I think is a much better reason to terminate than some of the reasons that are considered cause.
A recent example here: An employee threw a chair! at his supervisor. He was escorted from the building and terminated the next morning after review by personnel. He applied for unemployment and it was granted. We, as always, received a questionnaire regarding his termination that we are required to submit. We submitted the documentation. His unemployment benefits were reversed and he is required to pay back the monies he received and is not eligible to receive unemployment benefits until he has been employed for another company for a set period. I think it’s 6 weeks.
So his termination is considered to be for cause. Most terminations are considered to be not for cause, which is not wrongful termination (which can lead to litigation) but simply not enough reason termination.
I think the key difference between US and French employment law is that in the US, we believe that the reason people start businesses is to make money, plain and simple. All other considerations are secondary. It’s a very simple standpoint that, on the surface sounds cold and uncaring, but in the long run it works out pretty well for everyone. A prosperous company spends money, which in turn makes other companies prosperous, which in turn provides more jobs for more people. A company cannot be as prosperous when it is forced to carry more employees than it needs or wants. The freedom for companies to situate themselves in a position that allows greater profitability is of greater value than the needs of the society.
The French (and others) seem to believe that companies have a social responsibility and therefore force companies to do things that are potentially unprofitable. So they place the needs of society on a plane that is equal (or close to equal) to that of profitability.
It’s really just a matter of where you rank the needs of society in relation to personal freedoms.
would get THE NOD. THE NOD. THE NOD. :smack:
Or it’s just a matter of where you rank the needs of individuals vs. the needs of corporations. Sounds a little more accurate and to the point to me.
It works out pretty well for some and pretty badly for others, sometimes within the same company.
Why are needs even pertinent? Why do I have to need something to have it, and why am I entitled to something just because I need it? And who says who needs what? Maybe we would all agree that a cold man needs a coat, but do we all agree that a couple needs a second car?
You seem to forget that the employee too is taking a risk. Like leaving another employer (with a mandatory on month advance warning, by the way), or passing on another offer. And the results of a mistake are probably much worse for the employee than for the employer.
Besides, there’s a trial period during which the employed can be fired and the employee resign freely.
Also, it only applies to “contrats de travail a duree indeterminee” (permanent wok contracts). A worker can also be hired for a given period and at the end of this period, the employer can decide to keep him an offring him a permanent contract, or let him go.
So, the problem you’re mentionning doesn’t exist, and if it existed, it would be exactly similar if not worst for the worker, something you conveniently forgot.
Don’t Americans have a greater ability for upward mobility than their French counterparts? From what I’ve seen and been told, people are largely stuck in the class that their parents were from over in Europe, whereas in America that sort of thing is constantly in flux.
I personally like the “At Will” model better. I ran into my friend James yesterday who was selling lamps that he had pasted pieces of foliage to in the park, and he was selling some. That’s what I like about America, anyone with the wherewithall to print up some T-Shirts can go and sell them. Lots of people here make a living on Ebay.
I’m an employer, and the way we work is on a vendor model. We are a group of vendors that hire one another for jobs. We all have our own corporations with Tax ID numbers and we employ our friend’s corporation rather than hiring them. A lot of other people we hire freelance. At this point, people we have employed have made as much, sometimes even more money than we have, and our client has spent a lot of money without recouping any of that loss as of yet.
I don’t understand how lack of funds isn’t an appropriate reason to fire someone. How am I supposed to run my company if I can’t scale back the operation to match my operating capital? I run an internet production company. If my revenues decrease, and I can’t fire someone, then how am I going to buy the servers I need to have the infrastructure to attract more clients so that I can hire back the employee I fired? Also, the thing I’ve found is that we as a company, not having a great amount of money are possibly losing a lot of the talented people we’ve been lucky enough to work with because they can go to other companies that have money. In our modern setting, the job market for NY, LA and SF are largely one pool. My friends go back and forth between New York and California all the time. We work in between the tech and entertainment industry. My event production company Dysco Noir has branches in New York and Chicago.
In my opinion government regulation largely gets in the way. I know a lot of smart and talented people who spend a lot of time running Copwatch programs to regulate the behavior of the police, because the police department has been out of control lately. I’d rather the government just back off, rather than see increased regulation. I go into the DMV or Social Security office and I see systems in place that are extremely inefficient. I can’t possibly look at these bureaucracies and think that expanding their power would be a good thing.
America, because of information technology is increasingly becoming a distributed hierarchy, with a very complex web of interdependence without infringing upon people’s indepedendence. It’s so easy to live off the fat of the land here. Computers are cheap, and there are plenty of free open-source solutions to business needs, that everything one needs to run business infrastructure is cheaply available.
The reason we don’t have socialized medicine is because of the Social Security Cap. A good percentage of American income is with people who make more than 90,000 a year, but that's where you stop having to pay Social Security. It's not that yuo have a limit of paying up to 90,000 either, it’s that if you make more than that you don’t have to pay anything at all. If we made all incomes no matter how high it was pay the $ 6.25% Social Security tax, we could have free universal health care in this country without really changing the system much.
Erek
Because when it comes right down to it, what else ya got?
This paragraph, at least, doesn’t really make any sense. Canada has universal health insurance despite the fact that the government doesn’t spend any more tax money per capita on government health insurance than the United States does. The U.S. doesn’t have “socialized medicine” because it chooses to spend the money on other things, including two extraordinarily inefficient partial health insurance systems.
Futhermore, the Social Security cap applies to the payments you make to… Social Security. Canada has the same thing, the CPP, and the cap is MUCH lower - it caps out just above $40,000. So what the heck does that have to do with health care?
Because Social Security could very easily be expanded. For some reason we have this idea in America that people make their money in a vacuum. People making more than $ 90,000 a year do not pay social security AT ALL. This is the lion’s share of the country’s money. It could very easily be used to pay for social security.
That’s all I am saying.
Erek
They pay the same percentage up to 90,000 that anyone else does. 6.2% I think.
So they pay $5580/year assuming our figures are right.
Are you serious?
You think that you know what’s best for all workers. I’m a worker. Since I disagree with your opinion of what’s best for all workers now I’m vehemently opposed to my own interests?
I find it difficult to even come up with the words to respond to such an argument, but I’ll try:
I know what’s best for all humans. It’s complicated, but it involved changing the constitution so that Bush can have a third term. You are a human aren’t you? If so, you need to do what I say because, remember, I know what’s best for all humans! If you don’t help me with my third term for Bush plan, then you are acting vehemently against your own interests.
It isn’t legal in France, either. A renter can’t be evicted (baring not paying, other legal issues, or the landlord selling the home or deciding to live in it himself) before the end of the renting contract, normally three years long. 
It happens all the time in France, with the mandatory warning period (both in the case of the worker resigning or the employer firing him). Somehow the fabric of society doesn’t collapse.
Anyway, if the employer is worried about the possible behavior of the worker, he can let him not work during the warning period (but he’ll have to pay him meanwhile, of course).
The kind of firing I heard about on this board (you’re called in your boss office, he announce you you’re fired and have you escorted out within minutes) is unheard of in France and would leave people speechles. It would also be comltely illegal. The worked must be advised by a registered letter, and have a meeting with the employer (where he can come with an advisor, unionist, lawyer, friend, whatever…) and he must be advised of the motives of his firing (and can contest them in specialized courts).
Hmm, I met with an accountant at American Express to discuss using them for our corporate accounting. What he told me was that if you make more than $ 90k per year, you don’t have to pay social security at all.
Anyone here make more than $ 90k per year and can confirm/deny this?
Of course the problem exists. You think that problems with an employee only come to light during the trial period? You think that problems with an employee will not happen once he/she is signed to a permanent work contract? Hell, right now, after several years I’m getting frustrated with my job and my performance is slipping (I’ve started a job search).
As for the worker, of course there is also a risk - but that’s life. There is no reason that the employer should bear all the risk and the worker none. “At will” work shares the risk - what’s wrong with that?
But I didn’t “conveniently forget” anything; I was making a different point. My point is that under your system, the employer is at risk when he makes new hires, and the safer course of action is to avoid hiring new workers whenever possible. Thus, you get your high unemployment
Sua