6 ms·

The justification is that you can fire people who are underperforming. France has had huge problems recently because they have strong 'workers rights'. The pro

The justification is that you can fire people who are underperforming. France has had huge problems recently because they have strong 'workers rights'. The problem is that the unemployment rate for young people is huge because there is no movement of labor capital. In general the entire economy gets gummed up from a lack of labor movement. Also, businesses have to subsidize the costs of retaining their worst workers.

arethuza 15y ago
I think what the UK has is a reasonably compromise - workers can be sacked for pretty much any reason within the first year, after that the employer has to go through a staged process. However, if the role no longer exists, rather than the employee underperforming, you can be made redundant at any point.
- epo 15y ago
  IANAL but I thought the normal probationary period was 3 months, never heard of a year.
  - arethuza 15y ago
    IANAL either :-) "Am I protected against unfair dismissal?" "In most circumstances you must have at least one year's continuous service before you can make a complaint to an employment tribunal." From: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1797 http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1797
  - joe_fishfish 15y ago
    A normal probationary period is 3 months, yes. But in England at least an employee can be fired for gross misconduct within the first year of employment and will not be legally allowed to challenge it (certain exceptions involving discrimination and health & safety notwithstanding). So an employer can pretty much get rid of anyone in their first year of employment - they just take it through gross misconduct and the employee can't fight it. I think it's different in Scotland, though.
danssig 15y ago
>France has had huge problems recently because they have strong 'workers rights'. [citation needed] France is doing fine. They laid off thousands in the Auto industry when they were in trouble. "Strong workers rights" isn't a "problem", it's a trade off. It has good sides and bad sides. IMO, more good than bad and I think this Zygna scandal just reinforces that.
- corford 15y ago
  I'm sorry, I live in France and that simply isn't true. French labour laws and the accompanying tax system are the key causes behind France's huge problem with youth unemployment and a cripplingly bloated and inefficient public sector (google Aurélie Boullet). Add the powerful transport and general workers unions in to the mix (who's members go on strike at least bi-monthly) and you can see that the French labour market has some serious problems. The above is why the auto-entrepreneur scheme (introduced by Sarkozy) is such a runaway success as it gives individuals a chance to bypass all this bullshit.
  - danssig 15y ago
    I live next door and see plenty of French news and they don't appear in any more trouble than anyone else. Do you realize that the first world country most opposite (the US) has around 20% unemployment?
    - corford 15y ago
      In France, over 50% of the working population are fonctionnaires (civil servants), if the unions and labour laws weren't as inflexible as they are, this figure would be a lot less and the unemployment numbers would rise accordingly. You might say that the current state of affairs is preferable to that but the problem is that France is slowly choking to death and faces huge structural problemls in the near future. The public sector has massive unfunded pension liabilities (because virtually all of France works partly or fully on the "black" due to the crippling tax regime) and the young working population are shut out from the majority of higher paying professional jobs as these are all occupied by unsackable (often unionised) career workers that still expect a job for life. Meritocracy plays second fiddle to who you know and what connections your family has.

arethuza 15y ago

I think what the UK has is a reasonably compromise - workers can be sacked for pretty much any reason within the first year, after that the employer has to go through a staged process. However, if the role no longer exists, rather than the employee underperforming, you can be made redundant at any point.

epo 15y ago
IANAL but I thought the normal probationary period was 3 months, never heard of a year.
- arethuza 15y ago
  IANAL either :-) "Am I protected against unfair dismissal?" "In most circumstances you must have at least one year's continuous service before you can make a complaint to an employment tribunal." From: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1797 http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1797
- joe_fishfish 15y ago
  A normal probationary period is 3 months, yes. But in England at least an employee can be fired for gross misconduct within the first year of employment and will not be legally allowed to challenge it (certain exceptions involving discrimination and health & safety notwithstanding). So an employer can pretty much get rid of anyone in their first year of employment - they just take it through gross misconduct and the employee can't fight it. I think it's different in Scotland, though.

danssig 15y ago

>France has had huge problems recently because they have strong 'workers rights'. [citation needed] France is doing fine. They laid off thousands in the Auto industry when they were in trouble. "Strong workers rights" isn't a "problem", it's a trade off. It has good sides and bad sides. IMO, more good than bad and I think this Zygna scandal just reinforces that.

corford 15y ago
I'm sorry, I live in France and that simply isn't true. French labour laws and the accompanying tax system are the key causes behind France's huge problem with youth unemployment and a cripplingly bloated and inefficient public sector (google Aurélie Boullet). Add the powerful transport and general workers unions in to the mix (who's members go on strike at least bi-monthly) and you can see that the French labour market has some serious problems. The above is why the auto-entrepreneur scheme (introduced by Sarkozy) is such a runaway success as it gives individuals a chance to bypass all this bullshit.
- danssig 15y ago
  I live next door and see plenty of French news and they don't appear in any more trouble than anyone else. Do you realize that the first world country most opposite (the US) has around 20% unemployment?
  - corford 15y ago
    In France, over 50% of the working population are fonctionnaires (civil servants), if the unions and labour laws weren't as inflexible as they are, this figure would be a lot less and the unemployment numbers would rise accordingly. You might say that the current state of affairs is preferable to that but the problem is that France is slowly choking to death and faces huge structural problemls in the near future. The public sector has massive unfunded pension liabilities (because virtually all of France works partly or fully on the "black" due to the crippling tax regime) and the young working population are shut out from the majority of higher paying professional jobs as these are all occupied by unsackable (often unionised) career workers that still expect a job for life. Meritocracy plays second fiddle to who you know and what connections your family has.