Well, protestors are students. I assume that in theory they shouldn’t have too much time on their hands, but they’re students, right?
Rioters aren’t students, for the most part. Rather youth from the disfranchised subburbs and extreme-left activists. Plus probably some thieves.
Actually, I rather agree with your post #9. Yes, protests, strikes, etc, are a national passtime in France, and actually, I like this way, personnally. The day when there won’t be as many protests, I’ll think that french civilization went the way of the dodo.
More or less every generation of french students just has to have its day of fame/ week of protest. I was pretty happy that students were demonstrating, since it shows that they’re somehow interested in politics.
I don’t think so. I have heard many Europeans say that the French have too many social benefits, but I don’t think many would look at any of the Scandanavian countries and say, “Man, that’s really not working.”
I could be wrong.
Back to France. I’m watching Euronews right now, and they’re showing images of hordes of people on the lawns in front of l’Elysee as wells as more burning cars all from this afternoon, I believe.
I wanted to add to my last statement that, I think the kids who are against the CPE have cause to be angry in that, if they are ever to be fired, they deserve a reason. Other than that aspect of the CPE, I think it would be good for the French economy.
Actually, an employee isn’t free to quit his job at will and with no explanation, in France. Though of course, his obligations are much more limited than his employer’s. He must notify his employer, generally two months in advance.
Amazing. What happens if he gives his notice and then just doesn’t show up to work after that? If he’s not thrown in jail or fined, then the law is meaningless, is it not?
Wow, so an employee is FORCED to work?
The French unemployment rates are already cited in this thread. Compare that to the (I’m sure you’d agree, far less ‘socialist’) US job market 2006 grads can expect. From Business Week: The Jobs Come Looking for Grads
Motto of the story; Mama’s, don’t let your babies grow up to be Women’s Studies majors - or Frenchmen.
He must pay an indemnity equal to what the employer would have paid during the notification period (actual salary+taxes+healthcare payments, etc…). So, it will cost him two months of salary and some more…
Nope. As I just mentionned, he can pay an indemnity, instead. Nobody forced him to sign the contract at the first place.
Besides, if he doesn’t like that, he can enter only in temporary work contracts, that bring no such obligations.
Scrape that. Temporary work contracts do bring similar obligations.
I’m finding this almost unbelievable. Why would an employer want an employee at his business who didn’t want to be there? That employee is likely to do more harm than good. Or, suppose he just shows up with his iPod and zones out listening to tunes all day.
What I’m trying to get at is, does the law actually reflect what happens in reality? Do people really stay on 2 months after they give notice, or is it just assumed between employer and employee that that the employee can leave if he really wants to?
It depends. Sometimes, the employer will let them go. But quite often, yes, people will wait for two months before taking their new job. The employer needs some time to find another employee, might need the former one to train them, etc…
I think that what you’re missing is that’s it’s the way things work here, so it’s expected by everybody. Hence, generally speaking, people will play along. There’s no particular reason to mess up at your current job just because you’ve found a better one. Except if you’re an asshole, that is.
Also, if you were really harming your former employer, or decided that you would just show up and do nothing, he could sue you. You owe him either two months of work or the value of two months of work. You’re defrauding him by acting in such a way. I suspect he might also like to warn your future employer too, if he happens to know who he is.
By the way, I was wrong when I said it was generally two months. Actually, it’s generally 1 month or 3 months (it’s generally not defined by statute, but by a collective agreement within a branch).
I would add that employers generally have plenty of workers who’d rather not be there, but still come because they must pay the bills. If the employer keep those, why wouldn’t he be willing to keep the ones who are about to leave too?
One last thing. I suspect that despite all the strikes, etc… Work relations in France might be on the overall less adversarial than in the USA , and that there might be a stronger tendancy to work things out in the best interest of both parties. More humane and less legalist, with a more limited tendency to do whatever you can get away with (on both side).
Howewer, I must say that this opinion is almost entirely based on what I read on this board. I’ll grant you it might not be representative.
I guess that makes sense. If you get a job offer somewhere else, that new employer probably expects you to not be available for a few months. If that’s the case, then maybe it’s no big deal. Usually in the US if someone is ready to hire you, they want you as soon as possible, and the unwritten rule here is that you give your employer 2 weeks notice. Of course there are so many different circumstances in which different time periods would be appropriate it’s esay to overgeneralize. It also depends a lot on whether we’re talking about hourly workers in low skilled jobs, or salaried workers in high skilled jobs. If an employer needs the employee to stay for 2-3 months, he probably better be willing to pay the worker a bonus to do so.
How does this work, in practice, if you fire someone because he/she just sucks as an employee? Are you stuck paying severance, etc.? I ask because some longtime friends of mine have a family-owned manufacturing business in the southern Paris suburbs, and the last time I talked to them about it, they were having a bitch of a time hiring qualified workers for the plant - my friend’s brother was selling more than they could manufacture, which I guess is a good problem to have, but he said it forced them to hire marginal employees just in order to keep up with the demand, and then not being able to get rid of them. At what point is it no longer considered firing someone “just because”? He says there was one guy in particular who they had fired right before the last time I visited them a couple of years ago who they’d been trying to fire for ages, and they finally decided to take the risk after he physically assaulted my friend’s mother (co-founder of the business).
Of course, as much as I love my friend and his family, I am sometimes surprised to find that he can be disturbingly intolerant and right-wing on certain issues, so it would be nice to have another informed opinion.
Protests are one thing, and I personally believe we here in the U.S. could take a lesson from much of the rest of the world in terms of giving a damn what our elected officials do. But having had the joy of being tear-gassed in Paris in 1994 during a previous round of demonstrations over an unpopular attempted labor reform intended to create more jobs for young people (my French isn’t the greatest, but from talking to the demonstrators, I gather it was a decrease in the legal minimum wage for people with less than a certain amount of work experience), I wish they didn’t turn violent so often. Some teenage schmuck stole my camera, too - ripped it right off my neck and ran away while I was taking a shot of a smashed-up phone booth. I ran after him, yelling, but the cops were a tad preoccupied at that particular moment.
(Note to self: when the various police and military forces are being bussed in from all over the region to deal with the demonstrators, and are decked out in helmets, Plexiglass shields, and body armor, that would not be the most opportune time to go see what the demonstration is all about. Oddly, the minimum wage measure had been repealed the day before; I think that particular demonstration was just a nice excuse for the high school kids to cut class on a lovely spring day the week before Easter. When some idiot a couple of blocks ahead apparently decided to throw Molotov cocktails at the cops, and they responded with tear gas, and everyone started running back toward us covering their faces, I yelled that they were going to gas us, and the kids had no idea what I was talking about. And that wasn’t my dysfunctional French, either, dammit.)
I couldn’t really answer this question. I’m not that familiar with labor law. It depends on whether he sucks enough for this to be considerd a valid cause for firing him by the courts (note that in France, for labor law cases, it’s not real judges who sit in first instance courts, but elected representants of worker’s unions and employer’s unions. Appeals are dealt with by real judges.).
But I’m pretty certain that firing a worker because he assaulted someone at his workplace, as you mentionned, doesn’t involve any risk, apartfrom the risk of having him waiting you with his friends on the parking lot the following day.
Actually, regarding this example, simply insulting your boss or your coworkers is a common valid cause for firing an employee. Generally speaking, the main issue is that if your employee drags you to court, you’ve to show an objective reason and the court must be able to verify it. So, “he generally sucks” might not be enough.
And no, if you’re firing a worker with cause, he doesn’t get any severance package. Actually there are three levels of fault that allow you to fire a worker :
-“Faute reelle et serieuse” (real and serious cause), when you can show objectively that the worker, though by no fault of his own, isn’t able to deliver what he’s supposed to. For instance a long medical leave, lack of results, incompetence, etc… So, “he sucks” would generally fall into this category. Providing, that’s the most important part, that you’re able to present objective facts to support your position. For instance, you could show that his sales are significantly lower than his colleagues’ sales. In this case, he gets a severance package, and a notification period mirroring the notification period I mentionned previously for workers.
-“Faute grave” (serious fault??) : When the motive is the faulty behavior of the worker. For instance, he doesn’t show up to work, he harasses his coworkers, refuses to obey to your instructions, etc… In this case, there’s no notification period and no severance package. There’s still a procedure you must follow (sending a certified letter stating the cause, meeting in person the worker and if he wishes so his union representative or lawyer, etc…).
-“Faute lourde” (“egrerious fault”??) : when there’s an intent to harm by the employee. For instance publically berating your employer, providing informations to a concurrent, stealing from the cash-drawer, etc… In this case too, there isn’t any severance package, and the worker also lose accumulated benefits, like paid vacation days. Of course, this generally also opens the possibility of a lawsuit or criminal prosecution.
Indeed, highly mediatized protests often atttract an unsavory crowd. These are called “casseurs” (litterally “breakers”) in french. It generally happens towards the end of the protests. In the past, it was more often activists who wanted to have a fight with the cops and break up things, nowadays, it’s more often delinquent youth who want to steal stuff. They more and more commonly assault and steal from the protestors, who are often easy targets in a confused situation.
This, by the way, rarely happens during work-related protests, because they aren’t “sexy” enough and because unions are generally well organized, especially when it comes to ask the crowd to disperse at the end of the protest, and who have their own “service d’ordre” gorilla-types working hand in hand with the police to prevent disordedly conduct and incidents.
On the other hand, in student protests, protestors tend to want to hang out after the protest is over, to confront the police, to have some more “fun”, etc…, providing a perfect opportunity for “casseurs” to wreak havoc. During the last couple years, unions have often “lent” their “service d’ordre” for protests involving young people (like high-schoolers protests last year).
Busloads of anti-riot police is nothing to worry about. I’ve seen many a protest with way more anti-riot police than protestors. On the other hand, when the grilled sausage sellers (we often have those on the sidewalks during large protests) begin to pack up and the police to put on helmets and shields and block the streets, the only good reason to stay is having a couple beer cans to spare that you want to throw at the police, or a strong desire to have a first-hand experience of tear gas grenades.
Actually, if I were a tourist in France, I would probably want to have some shots of a protest too, along with the shots of the Eiffel tower, as yet another “typically french” thing. So I can understand that you wanted to take pictures. Actually, I’ve seen once the site of an american traveller who had dedicaced a large part of his pages about Paris to protests and picture of protests.
Well, for some reason it didn’t occur to me that it would turn violent - I’ve been to lots of protests here and never seen one turn violent. Of course, Mayor Daley, being his father’s son, remembers the 1968 Democratic National Convention and how it turned out, so 3 cops per protestor tends to be the rule rather than the exception.
(Besides, in a way it was professional interest - I was about to leave for grad school to study, among other things, popular political movements, so I wanted to see how they, ummmm, manifested themselves in other places.) I’m still not sorry I did it.