You were misinformed or you misunderstood. Each check will have the employee’s half of FICA and Medicare withheld from it until the threshold is reached. At that point, the withholding stops.
Many payroll taxes are done this way (as are some benefit programs like 401(k)), including those paid by the employer, such as FUTA or SUTA.
A correction of the correction. 
At the threshold, withholding of FICA stops, but you pay Medicare taxes on every penny of your income.
Sua
If the employee was found in court to be unfairly dismissed then the company would have to re-hire them*, pay all salary lost during the process and pay any damages**.
Here if you’ve paid tax for over 24 months you get unquestioned benefit(approx $200 a week for a single person +rent allowance(means tested) +fuel allowance in the winter) for something like 18months followed by benefits based on means testing. There is no cap on the amount of money/time you can get these benefits for. Once you can show you’ve no hidden money and are at the very least interviewing for the odd job you can get benefits all your life until the state pension kicks in
A common way for a company to get rid of somebody is to just offer them a choice of leaving with a few weeks wages and a reference*** or be fire.
*Generally that is very rarely taken up by the employee.
** Lost reputation and anything else you they can think of to claim for.
*** This has kinda made ref.’s pointless over here.
It’s partly true in the case of the rather recent implementation of the 35 hours week. It isn’t in the case of the vacation time, that have been lenghtened over the course of many years as an expected social progress in a modern and affluent society, and for the most part before the crisis of the 70s. The 5th week had been added, if I’m not mistaken in 1981.
(there are only 5 weeks of paid vacations. I suppose the 6 weeks people mention here refer to holydays and such things).
Well, if an employer can’t fire an employee unless they can prove they are a bad employee, why exactly can the employee quit even though they can’t prove the employer is a bad employer?
After all, the employee is performing a vital service for society, why exactly should they be allowed to quit their job just because they “feel like it”? It’s only fair that if employers can’t fire employees, employees shouldn’t be able to quit their jobs. Hey, while we’re at it, let’s make occupations hereditary as well. After all, we don’t want wasteful competition for jobs do we? Why should someone be able to train to do my job and compete against me? Let them do their own job, I’ll do my job. Why should someone be able to take away my job? It’s my right to be employed, correct?
Err…the goals of society aren’t the needs of society??? It’s profitability for the sake of it?
And actually, french people clearly place social needs way above profitability, which is (generally speaking, refering to the “average” frenchman) only accepted as long as it clearly contributes to the general well-being. Don’t be shy with your “close to equal plane”. Still generally speaking, profitability is viewed with suspicion.
I would hazard the guess that the average frenchman is as warry of corporations and generally speaking employers as the average american is warry of the government. An employer is basically guilty until proved innocent and must be closely watched lest it would do very bad things.
Anyway…France is an affluent country. You might argue that its model can’t be sustained in the future if you want, but you can’t argue that it’s a ridiculouly flawed model that can’t work, because it did.
Again I speak of Ireland but it would surprise me if France isn’t similar.
Here you wouldn’t fire them, you’d make them redundant. When someone is made redundant you pay them redundancy. IIRC the mandatory package is ~5 weeks wages for every year worked. If they’re only in their first year they’re shit outta luck. I also think there’s some tax back you the employer gets on the redundancy package, so the State takes some of the pain.
I think the disagreement hinges on the term"reasonable". If I can make more money or improve the quality of my product or protect myself better with Employee Bob than Employee Joe, Joe is history. I think that is reasonable. If I can’t make such decisions I run the risk of having to fire all employees and losing my own job. I owe it to my company to maintain it’s health to the best of my ability. And the judge of that is the owner. In a large company, a CEO, representing the owners. How you can think that the decision to replace a worker is best left to anyone but the owner is baffling to me. If an Employee doesn’t want to be replaced, he should work toward making himself invaluable. As long as that is the paradigm, everyone wins.
Not at all. First, all businesses are not corporations. Many are just the livelihood of regular people. Second, corporations are owned by individuals, so your point doesn’t quite make sense in this context. Don’t get me wrong, I see what you mean, but when you go a layer deeper, the logic breaks down.
Let’s put it this way (while I beleive the following example is reasonable, it’s only an example so ymmv):
Let’s say I have a business that has small profit margins. If I am forced to keep an unproductive worker employed, my margins are affected because I’ll either have to ask my other employees to do overtime to compensate for the unproductive worker (UW), or I’ll have to hire yet another person to make up for the lack of productivity from the UW. Either way, I’m paying more for the same result. If this scenario is repeated, the impact on my profit margins can become severe enough that I have to shut down. Now, everyone’s out of a job because the government forced me to retain UW’s, and the business that I worked so hard to build up has been destroyed, for the sake of a few deadbeats.
OR
I have to raise my prices to compensate for the higher cost of operating due to the UW’s that are on my staff. So maybe the business stays afloat, but ALL of my customers are forced to pay higher prices to compensate.
Is that fair?
The situation is very much the same if we’re dealing with corporations, but the risk is just spread out amongst all the stockholders, so the damage *seems * to be less severe, but the result is the same. Essentially, you’re either inflicting financial ruin (to one degree or another) upon stockholders, or higher prices on consumers for the sake of UW’s.
Now if you step back from all of this, you’ll notice that the UW, the guy the government said needed to stay employed for the sake of society, has not improved his lot in life, rather it’s only worsened. Because now he’s out of a job, not likely to get a referral from his last employer, and to top it all off, all of his co-workers are out of a job too. If the government had left the individual business owner alone and allowed him to fire UW, the result would have been much, much better. But no, the INDIVIDUAL (be it a private business owner or corp) was not allowed to determine his own destiny (for the sake of society) and as such was ill-equipped to fend off the entropic forces that consumed his livelihood.
The right thing to do, would be to allow the business to fire the UW, but use taxes (or other forms of government income) to provide job training and education to the unemployed.
It’s a myth. Peole aren’t stuck in a class in France, and I’m sure plenty of people are unable to move upward in the USA. An american myth, I would add, because there’s no feeling in France that people are stuck in a class. At the contrary the frenchman theorical expectation would be meritocratic.
(I’m not convinced I’m clear, but I feel there’s a significant difference between the concept of “meritocracy” and the “american dream”, and that it has a lot less individualist feel to it. Maybe the expectation would be that the society will make sure, by leveling the field and provide support, like say free univerty education, that if you deserve to move up there, you will).
Actually, it happens to be a current concern in France. There are evidences that the “social elevator/lift” is broken, and that during the recent years, the upward mobility has significantly slowed down.
A number of people attribute it to a more deregulated economy, by the way. The reasonning being that less protections => less opportunities for lower class people to move upward socially.
This is a valid reason for termination in France. What is not is firing X to hire Y that you will pay less instead, for instance. If due to economical reasons,you need to downsize your company, you can terminate your workers.
There are extreme inefficiencies in private companies too. Believing that inefficiency is the sole domain of governmental bureaucracies is an illusion.
Doh! I knew I should have looked that up before posting. 
That’s essentially what I meant. The US places profitability above social needs, where France and other countries are vice-versa.
And although I came across as being more in favor of the US model (which admittedly I am), I do see the good in the French model as well (their retirement plan would be nice to have!). I just think that the same things can be acheived without hamstringing business in the process.
I got my hair; I got my head; I got my brains; I got my ears; I got my mouth; I got my teeth!; I got my tongue; I got my chin; I got my neck; I got my tits; I got my heart; I got my soul; I got my back; I got my ass; I got my arms; I got my hands; I got my fingers; I got my legs; I got my feet; I got my toes; I got my liver… Got my blood.
(Apologies to Gerome Ragni)
You forgot something else you’ve got…
my, my, my imagination oh cause I
I wanna make you see
Nobody else here
No one like me
(Everyone!)
I’m special!
So Special!
I’m gonna have some of your
Affection
Give it to me!
…and thus ends my Pretenders moment. Please go back to whatever it was you were doing.
If if there’s a serious issue, then you probably have a legal ground for termination.
If it’s only a trivial issue (say, you don’t like your worker’s tie), you can’t. What is your problem with that exactly?
You seem to believe that a french worker can’t be fired even if he decides to just sit and do nothing all day long.
That’s life for the worker, but that’s not life for the employer? Saying that you’re on equal ground with an employer is a nice concept, but approximately as realistic as the communist ideal. Especially unrealistic in a world without full employment (and I don’t expect to see full employment , be it in the USA or in France in any foresseable future). Also the consequences of a contract ending are way more serious for the worker than for the employer.
And under your system, only the employed is at risk? In what way is it better?
Maybe. But you know what? You won’t find here many people who would approve the american model. The safety net (longer and more generous unemployment benefits, for instance, public healthcare, etc…) probably helps. Also, what kind of jobs are we talking about? An unstable, low paid job where you can be fired at a whim, and not much in the way of unemployment benefits?
You can’t have you cake and eat it. These are different social models, with different expectations, and different consequences. And I would never exchange mine for yours.
So to recap, you have your opinions, I have mine. Amazing! Shall I notify the media?
Because, sorry to shake your marx…err…capitalist credo, employers and employed aren’t and never had been on equal grounds. If they really were, there would be no issue with a “fire at will” system.
However, workers can’t leave without an advance warning (legally, one week for industrial workers, one month for low level white collar, three months for qualified white collars or technicians, managers, etc… In practice, it depends on the collective agreements in the industry).
We legally have to give notice as well. Here the length depends on time served though not on positions. Usually a term is also set in the contract as well
What does that even mean, “equal grounds”? No two people on earth are on equal grounds. If they were, they’d be the same person. An employee can be so critical, especially in a small company, that his sudden flight could cause severe problems and possibly affect the livelihood of other employees. I wish people could, at the very least, acknowledge that there is no one-central-plan-fits-all solution. Sometimes, an employer is just a struggling schmuck who has hired one or two persons simply because he can’t handle the entire load himself. Honestly, wouldn’t it work out just fine to let people decide these sorts of things for themselves — who they will hire, and who they will work for? Don’t we all have enough in our own lives to keep us busy without trying to live everybody else’s?
I think the “philosophical” issue behind that is individualism. In France (or in other european countries), the owners aren’t expected to act just in their best interest (with a somewhat “blind faith” that it will result in a better world for everybody), but to play their part in the social fabric. If your decisions as an owner benefit yourself but are perceived as effecting negatively the rest of society, then you’re…err…not needed and should be made…let’s say redundant. You’re expected to play with the team, not just for yourself. References and public calls to the social responsabilities of employers are commonplace in France, including within the right wing or even from the employer’s unions representatives. It’s part of the social structure, a different set of basic assumptions.