5 ms·
Making it harder to fire employees for another reason might protect the existing jobs, but it lacks the foresight to understand that these practices simply disi
by grantlmiller 10y ago
Making it harder to fire employees for another reason might protect the existing jobs, but it lacks the foresight to understand that these practices simply disincentivize employers from making future hires in the country. As a result, this is another move by the French gov to protect the status quo. The French labor market has already been regulated to the point of anti-competitiveness. This immediately hurts younger workers who are willing to work harder than their entrenched counterparts, but instead find themselves unemployed at a rate nearing 25%. More business as usual for paternalistic government lawmakers.
- yjftsjthsd-h 10y agoBut in this case the alternative is to punish workers for having work/life balance. The "younger workers who are willing to work harder than their entrenched counterparts" are an actively harmful influence, and all this does is level the playing field.
- smallnamespace 10y ago> The "younger workers who are willing to work harder than their entrenched counterparts" are an actively harmful influence Even if that's true, the solution should not be to actively penalize young workers, which this might do.
- yjftsjthsd-h 10y agoGiven that the rule is uniform, I'm curious how younger workers are penalized? I'd expect everyone to benefit here.
- yuhong 10y agoI once suggested a compromise of limiting US-style anti-discrimination laws to manual labor and similar jobs.
- ArkyBeagle 10y agoSince when is being on call 24/7 "competitive"? I associate it with people who provide public-service type services - doctors, first responders, electric utility workers, even cable TV/modem techs.
- grantlmiller 10y agoThis law does not seek to keep people from being on-call 24/7... it aims to provide a new "right" to workers where they can expect to go home after 7 hours and if they miss something important after hours (even if it hurts the business dramatically) not be concerned about losing their job. Again, this is in a country that already has 23% unemployment for young workers. I just want to make sure the rest of the world doesn't see these as "progressive" moves, but rather "regressive" as they strip the opportunity for young (currently unemployed) workers.
- RobertoG 10y agoThose laws try to avoid a race to the bottom for employees who, being the biggest part of the population, should be who benefice most of the economy. Of course, there is going to be downsides, but it's too easy speak about paternalistic government and not to mention the obvious conflict of interest between labour and business.
- grantlmiller 10y agoThis comment illustrates an important socialist fallacy... employees are not the biggest part of the economy, consumers are! Consumers win when the products and services they buy are less expensive & better (ie the people who produce them are more efficient).
- whyileft 10y agoAh, the old race to the bottom argument. Your comment applies to every single rule that applies to a corporation that any country creates anywhere. I'm unsure how this adds anything specific or new to this particular discussion.
- maverick_iceman 10y agoThis is the problem with socialists. They can never understand the unintended side-effects of their policies.
- temac 10y agoGood. Don't create a company in France. We don't want to work for you anyway.
- e2kp 10y agoI don't believe you can talk for all unemployed French people. This kind of mentality is what destroys an economy.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]