"At Will" employment. The French workers' reaction vs. Americans

Great Debates
141

No see, here’s where you are missing a fundamental part of the equation. No one expects you to PAY for the event if you do not attend. However, there are a lot of people who like that events exist. They like it to have good music, nice decor, and good refreshments. They know that venues, sound systems and artistic supplies cost money. They know that people rarely if ever make any money doing these sorts of events, and they know that without the support of a small modicum of commerce these sorts of things will never happen. However, they believe that THEY should have some special relationship with the event, that doesn’t involve them spending either their time or their money ensuring that the event will happen, even though they still want the event to occur.

However, many of these people will turn around and spend money on a movie, not have any expectation that it shouldn’t cost them money. They will spend money on something they have no social connection to, that lasts two hours, may or may not have any love and care put into it, without a problem. For some reason they don’t think they should spend money in their community with people struggling to survive, but for some reason will spend money on a big corporate machine that has some sort of perceived value, then they will turn around and bitch about the big corporate machine.

Do you understand what I am getting at? I am talking about a level of cognitive dissonance where people will put their effort toward the vision of some stranger that exists off in the ether, but they won’t support the person sitting right next to them. If you think about all the times people complain about there being nothing to do in their neighborhood, the basic complaint is that there is no culture. The thing is that lots of people would rather support a corporate marketing machine than creating a local artistic culture that will engage them personally.

The truth is, if you are a paper pusher, odds are you are not necessary. You have an illusion of production. Most administrative assistants could be replaced by superior computer skills, and they ARE being replaced constantly. If we continue to value people based upon a system of production eventually they are going to be unecessary because machines will do their job better, and they perception of value we place upon these individuals, as it is based upon their productivity, will be lower than that of a piece of database software. The only persistent value that humanity has left is the power of creativity, and our culture devalues this all the time, and the machine that runs our lives is being programmed by a culture that does not place value on the only things that humans have of value within the system of perceived value that we call capitalism.

Artistic creativity is the only thing that will save humanity from going obsolete, and if we don’t get away from these concepts of persistent value that we place on human life, then human life is going to become much less pleasant than it already is. It is this sort of attitude that has led to cubical culture, which is what most people are bitching about in this thread.

Erek

142

Basically, yes.

I don’t see how it’s directly related to the previous point. I already mentionned above the reasons why I think that it shouldn’t work the same way : mostly bcause in a work relation, the employer, in normal circumstances hold vastly more power over the worker than the reverse and because (still in unuual circumstances) the consequences of a termination for a worker are vastly worst than the consequences of a resignation for an employer.

Being in a vastly different position and with vastly different possible consequences, identical rules shouldn’t apply. That’s a pragmatical approach as opposed to what you’re proposing which seems to be based on an abstract concept of equality for both contractors, equality which would be only purely theorical in the real world. And I’m extremely warry of any argument regarding political or legal issues which is mostly based on philosophical and abstract reasonning.

That is to say, is everyone’s property rights over their job arbitrary, or only one side?

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

143

It’s also bad for low producing Joe. He’d probably be happier in another job where his contributions were more valued. How we get Joe to that other job is the key.

144

Why would someone, be it a community or whatever, spend big money on something like a party when they are “struggling to survive”?

I expect corporations to be trying to make money off me. It’s reasonable for them to take certain risks in the hope of getting certain rewards. They spend $100 million on a movie and only three people go. Sucks to be them.

I don’t think you really want me feeling the same way about my friends and neighbors.

145

You are probably right that its ‘key’…for Joe. But why is it societies problem? To paraphrase, no sparrow shall fall but (the great collective) shouldst know about it? :stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

146

I agree how should we do it?

I’d like to tell him that he missed the mark on his performance reviews x times running and that’s not acceptable here at XYZ Company. He service is no longer required, today is his last day, and he needs to find another job.

My rationale is that it’s more important to keep the company competitive in the marketplace so all of us at XYZ can have a job next year, get a Christmas bonus, get some profit sharing, and so on. The rest of the team having to pick up his slack already cost us a strong associate when Jane left us and as much as it sucks for Joe right now we are better off with him gone.

Good luck Joe and we really do hope you find a better fit at your next job. No hard feelings, “its just business”.
So where do you think I’m missing the boat?

147

That’s a reasonable response. Perhaps our disagreement would lie in that I think employers will almost inevitably reach a point where they have as much, or more, to lose as do their employees.

Partly for that reason I mentioned union contracts. A union strike can shut down a business just as surely as firing a person can endanger his financial position. An airline in my area (Northwest) recently filed for Chapter 11, for a number of reasons, including the extremely high cost of union wages, pensions, benefits and health care.

In an era of globalization and outsourcing, I don’t think you can always assume that the employer is a goose who needs only some appropriate legislation to compel her to continue laying golden eggs.

It is sort of like the classic recipe for rabbit stew, as written by an economist.

“First, assume a rabbit”. Most of this kind of discussion seems to assume that every business is awash in cash, and needs a bit of arm-twisting to fork it out - and that there will never be a down side.

ISTM the higher unemployment rates and lower productivity of the French in particular show the weakness in this kind of thinking.

Regards,
Shodan

148

Speaking as the resident pure libertarian ideologue ;), it seems to me that the problem is with the “acceptable”. What is acceptable to one person might not be acceptable to another. It might be a bit more bearable if localities were able to override the central plans; unfortunately, it is the other way around. Thus, a small independent distributorship where I worked at one time was held to the same standards by OSHA as the gigantic distributorship in a nearby large city. We were forbidden from storing cases of gloves on our top shelves because of the danger they posed to forklift drivers. Gloves are soft and unstable, and are their boxes in the warehouse humidity are prone to collapsing and falling from rough handling by machines. Only thing was, our warehouse was so small and our aisles so tiny, that we did not have a forklift. Nevertheless, we had to store our gloves in the lower racks where, with our limited space, we need to store smaller, faster moving items. Those instead wound up on top. So what happened was that everytime some guy came in for a few pipe fittings, we had to climb up a rickety, narrow roll-around ladder and try to balance on the thing while reaching for fittings to toss in the sack. Thanks to the one-size-fits-all central plan from Washington, we had four visits to primary care facilities for falls and dropped parts, one of which slammed onto my toe. After having the pressure relieved on my blood engorged digit by what looked to me like a woodburning tool, I was out of commission for two weeks. And besides that, it seems to me that nothing is more sluggish than a gigantic labyrinthine bureaucracy that won’t move its ass without Is dotted and Ts crossed on five-part forms submitted to the appropriate department. I’m not saying that the market is perfect, but to say that the market is sluggish while government is efficient seems a bit overreaching.

149

Again, I am not talking about a party that tanks because no one is interested. I am talking about a party that people are interested in having happen, the type of event that people regularly sit around and bitch about.

My example of a party was to point out a psychological aspect of my culture. There are many examples that are applicable.

However, as far as motivation. First off, ‘a lot’ of money is relative. People throw parties for many reasons. The first and foremost (hopefully) is to foment a community around themselves, something that will engender a healthy social setting for them and their friends. At least that’s the motivation for myself and the people around me. I’ve never turned a monetary profit off of a party. However, because I put on events, I have a certain amount of notoriety and my reputation sometimes precedes me in other communities with a similar social construct. I have been able to drastically reduce my costs and improve my life via this culture. I know what’s going on, and can find my way into the places I want to be much more easily because of this manner of socialization.

Events like these are a lot of work, and it would be nice to know that even if you are not compensated for your hard work that you won’t be in the hole monetarily for your effort. I have seen this lead to bitterness in many people who genuinely thought people were being honest when they said they wished this sort of thing would exist.

My commentary was meant to describe a larger attitude in society in general that values corporations who are capable of placing large ads over community driven efforts. The party was an example, but don’t focus too much on whether or not you think that the party itself has any value. I am describing an attitude that devalues one’s personal communal culture in favor of some glitzier big money culture that will probably never personally include them.

Another good example of this would be local elections versus presidential elections. People spend hours days months leading up to elections chattering about the president. Then once he’s elected they talk incessantly about what he’s doing. The reality of the situation is that the President is a celebrity figurehead that represents a larger organization where people behind him are making decisions and telling him what his opinion should be. He certainly has to make decisions, but he doesn’t handle the day to day stuff that affect you directly. Then you hear people complain about how the individual doesn’t really have a voice, when the local elections often have one candidate running unopposed, and the people who are blaming the president for all of their woes, have done very little to make sure that hte government they are most directly affected by is healthy. So they continue to be voiceless and their complaints go unheeded because they are bitching on a forum online rather than going out and maknig sure someone who will truly represent them is sitting in that city council seat.

Erek

150

sit and bitch about “not having”

Erek

151

I didn’t think the issue here was about being able to fire unproductive, or unco-operative etc workers, but rather, being able to fire workers entirely arbitrarily; I agree that a company should be able to apply discipline (up to and including termination of employment) where the worker is not meeting his contractual obligations; I think there’s a case, however, for some system of restraint hindering employers from firing their (adequately performing) workers, say, on an impulsive whim, or out of plain spite, or to make room for a friend etc.

Perhaps I’ve just misunderstood the whole thread.

152

Yes and no, there has been an ongoing battle (from businesses) to increase the level of flexibility. I’m unaware of the loss of overtime so I assume by what you’ve written that it was blended into a weekly breakpoint vs a daily breakpoint. If I’m wrong then a cite would be helpful if you have one.

I disagree. The temporary decline in unemployment can logically be attributed to the reduction in hrs worked. If a factory had 400 workers times a 39 hr week then they lost 1600 labor hrs/week following the change to a 35 hr week. Over time the loss of efficiency would dictate market forces (loss of business), thus an increase in unemployment.

As a nation and a world we have sufficient data to understand how policy changes affect market forces. We’ve learned to put controls on banks and stock exchanges to ward off total collapse. There will always be consequences to employment rates when government dictates business policy.

153

Problem is, businesses DON’T fire workers ‘entirely arbitrarily’. They lay off workers for a variety of reasons that they deem essential to their business…including maximizing profits. This is generally held to be ‘evil’ or ‘bad’ around here for some reason, as if businesses aren’t entitled to do things in their best interest but are bound for some reason to only do things in the interest of others.

I can certainly understand why the idea of SOME limits being imposed on business with reguard to hiring/firing would seem attractive. The problem is, again, where to draw the line on forcing companies to hire or keep workers and when to ‘allow’ them to fire or lay off workers when its in their own best interest. I certainly don’t believe that imposing more and more complex rules in an attempt to think of every possible abusive loophole is the way to go (companies who want to abuse things will only spend their efforts finding loopholes…companies who don’t will wallow in the increased complexity)…its too constrictive to business, not allowing them to be responsive to rapidly changing conditions. I also don’t believe government is responsive enough, or knowledgeable enough for that matter, to decide whats best for business on a case by case basis. But the time government got its head out changing conditions may have made the matter moot…either because it was no longer necessary to the company or more likely because the company folded while waiting for the pencil pushers to take some polls and make a decision.

Its certainly a knotty problem.

I agree…it would be better, and I agree that generally it doesn’t work out that way unfortunately. The US has been moving steadily towards Federal level control for some time now, and while that has some attractive aspects it also has some serious drawbacks as far as local response goes.

-XT

154

I guess it depends on who is measuring “adequately performing” as in this post.

If you are Mary 10 blivets may be adequate in your eyes but what if everybody else is doing 15 and the candidate Jim can also do 15 bringing everybody an extra $X performance bonus why should everybody have to be stuck with Mary sucking things up because of an arbitrary “adequate” performance is fine with us policy?

Being forced to retain marginal employees means that if your goal is exceptional quality/service others will have to make up the difference. I’ve been there plenty of times and I get to really resent Mary for it over time. Excellence suffers if we are forced to accept adequate.

As far as firing people on a whim or impulse I think would be very rare. It’s damn expensive to train people, get them properly equipped to do the job, and otherwise “companied up” just to turn around and fire them on a whim would be foolish. Replacing them is also expensive. Perhaps the fired party likes to think it was impulsive and unjustified but companies of any size should have documentation to back up their decision (from my experience). As a matter of fact the first person I tried to fire I was instructed I could not because there was only one written warning. I learned then that they wanted a verbal warning, written warning #1, written #2, and then a dismissal form filled out and signed by the departed in all but severe cases. Hardly impulsive.

155

I notice the opposite effect. People so focused on what’s in their backyard that they don’t recognize that the president isn’t just a figurehead. “Hey, things are fine here, so why should I care about what’s over there?” “Iraq? Whatever.”

I don’t hang out much in my neighborhood because I don’t have anything in common with these people. We just happen to live near one another. If I could live somewhere else without changing jobs, I would, but I don’t have that flexibility, and I don’t expect ever to have that flexibility. If I’m ever bitching about my community, it’s when I realize that my freaking neighbors have the literacy of weasels.

And if you’re doing something like a party and getting bitter because you aren’t compensated, is that really someone else’s fault?

156

You’re still kind of missing the point. I’m not bitter that I’m not being compensated. I generally expect to lose money, therefore can only lack disappointment. I am disappointed in the lack of community consciousness in our society. I’m not necessarily referring to your neighborhood, but you must have some sort of community in your life. My community is certainly not defined by my neighborhood. But to put things into perspective for you, a good friend of mine is running a region in the mayoral campaign here, so I am somewhat connected to the local politics here. My connection is woefully inadequate and I intend to change that, but for now it is what it is.

And I don’t think what you described is actually the opposite of what I said. I bet those people who don’t pay much attention to the president, probably don’t pay much attention to the local elections either. As far as the president goes you can’t do much about him if you aren’t going through the pyramid up to him. If you don’t know your local people you can’t affect federal politics much. For instance, your local state representative could send a petition to your federal senator and it would carry much more weight than you simply writing a letter to your senator.

Basically it’s like this, we have more power in numbers, the power of the group is greater than the sum of it’s parts. It has to do with the power derived from authority. Elected officials have authority placed in the chair that they sit in. You have greater authority if you run a small business, are a veteran, or have a family than say a single person does. So if you linked your community and worked together toward common goals your life would improve individually. Meanwhile focusing on the president means that you are going to have very little impact on politics, but gosh, you’re well informed. It works on the same principles as slight of hand, you watch the President really closely and then you miss what his other hand is doing outside of your focus. That’s where the term “Think globally, act locally comes from”.

Here’s a little test, would you know your local representative, city councilman by sight if you saw them on the street? Do you know who the senate majority leader is in your state? what about the senate minority leader?

If you are working for a corporation that doesn’t care about you, whose vision you do not share, why do you support them by working there?

Erek

157

Yes, it is societie’s problem. For example, there are many Third World countries where little or no safety net exists for the poor. If you cannot find a job, you don’t eat. Very often in those countries, the wealthy have to live in walled enclaves. They must worry constantly about being kidnapped, or having their children kidnapped, by poor people trying to survive (or, more accurately, by the organized gangs that tend to arise under such circumstances. This is not like in the US where we have the occasional sicko kidnapping kids – in poor countries like Mexico, Brazil, etc., or where the social safety net has been ruptured like Iraq, kidnapping is a major undergound industry.

(My brother in law was kidnapped three times while he was working in Nigeria, for example, but only really feared for his life once, since it was a personal matter relating to a firing decision he made).

Maybe the prospect of having to have a well-developed social safety net for displaced workers like Joe is so horrifying to you that it would be infinitely preferable to have to worry about your children being kidnapped every day. Seems to me the one would be infinitely preferable to the other.

You let a lot of those sparrows fall, sooner or later, you’re gonna have a sparrow problem.

158

How big of a leap is that?

I ask because I don’t know not to be sarcastic. We do have a safety net by way of food stamps, wic, welfare, medical clinics, and other programs.

I have no idea how close/far away we currently are from the type of desperation it takes for roving gangs of kidnappers to start forming up but now I’m interested.

I suppose only somebody that works in this industry could know what *all *the programs are for housing, medical care, food, job training, etc. but where are we at right now?

159

We’re well away from being in a Third World country position, but not so far as many posters on this board would like to think. If we were in bad shape, we wouldn’t have so many workers coming from Mexico where kidnapping is a cottage industry.

However, we have large numbers of working poor in our country who are homeless, and those low-income workers who do find shelter have to pay a huge portion of their income for it. Most low-income and many middle-class individuals don’t have medical insurance. Check out post 118 on this thread for some cites with exact numbers. You’ve opened up a huge can of worms with this question, but to put it simply, the social infrastructure in the US generally depends on being able to find work or having a retirement income. Welfare as it used to be is mostly a temporary program which drops individuals if they can’t find work. It’s probably a good idea, and would definitely be a good idea if it were more rewarding to work in low-wage jobs. Which it’s not. The living wage where I live (metro Atlanta) for example has been calculated at $10+ an hour. The general starting wage for service jobs (store clerk, burger flipper, etc. is $7-8 an hour. Do the math.

160

Concerning productivity, I already mentionned in this thread (or maybe in another recent one) that actually though the productivity/year in the Us is significantly higher than in France, the productivity/hour is significantly higher in France than in the USA (for the record, the highest productivity/hour is to be found in Belgium).
So, this lower productity isn’t a consequence of inneficiency, but plainly a consequence of less hours worked. I could even argue that the french system is more efficient since the output is higher for an equal period of work.
So, we’re not (currently, I’m not going to bode for the future) trading more rights for the employed for more inneficiency, but quite simply less time spent working for less output. That’s a good deal IMO :slight_smile: as I mentionned in a recent thread.
(Actually, of course, we can’t really know what are the factors causing these diferences in productivity. For instance, maybe plenty of people in the USA are woking in sectors with inherently low output, or american people just don’t have any work ethic and all spend their working hours posting on message boards :wink: or whatever else. But in any case, productivity isn’t an argument that supports your position).