10 ms·

Why France Has So Many 49-Employee Companies

• briandon 14y ago
  Bottom-lining it: Business owners and managers want to enjoy the benefits of a developed economy with a humane social safety net and strong worker protections (i.e. an educated, skilled workforce) but will move heaven and earth to weasel their way out of contributing to it. Nothing new here. It's what's grinding the life out of the United States.
  • planetguy 14y ago
    No, the bottom line is that people respond to incentives, and that politicians are too blind to notice even the most obvious of perverse incentives in whatever schemes they happen to dream up.
    • briandon 14y ago
      How about this for an incentive: Want your children to grow up in a developed country with a social safety net so that they won't trip over toothless senior citizens scavenging for recyclables in garbage bins to sell for spare change to pay for a place to sleep for the night? Great, then be a responsible entrepreneur and don't try to slither through every crack in every law designed to keep the society that your kids will grow up in healthy.
      • planetguy 14y ago
        That's not how incentives work.
      • hgsj700 14y ago
        The economic illiteracy on HN is a little baffling. The incentive to live in your utopia is apparently not sufficient enough for those entrepreneurs who are probably much more concerned about breaking even.
        • briandon 14y ago
          People running multiple 49-worker companies and opening satellite factories up in developing countries to avoid sharing profits with their workforce(s), having once-a-week meetings, and the like are struggling to break even? If you would like to see the terminal state of a laissez-faire society, you can visit Hong Kong. More luxury cars on the road than anywhere else you'll ever see and plenty of the toothless, recyclables-scavenging senior citizens that I referenced earlier as well. Hundreds of thousands of people living in literal wire mesh cages because that's all that they can afford. A wealth gap that yawns like a chasm. It's easy to advocate policies when you think that you'll never have to actually submit yourself to living in the society that those policies will ultimately create.
          • wlievens 14y ago
            I think the argument here is not that it's a bad idea to create a safety net state. The argument is that as long as no law is broken, there is no such thing as "exploiting a loophole". Politicians should just learn to design better laws with less loopholes.
            • dmix 14y ago
              The choice: 1) pay a couple lawyers $300k to minimize taxes 2) pay the government $1 million Both are legal. Choose one.
              • wlievens 14y ago
                If the laws are drawn up well, then option (1) is in no sense unethical.
            • briandon 14y ago
              A: So you have three 49-person companies ... That's odd. B: I employ no more than 49 people in each of my companies and start new companies as necessary to avoid sharing profits with my employees, having to deal with worker councils, and the like. Playing corporate twister to evade the clear intent of laws sure seems like loophole exploitation to me. In addition to working around the intent of laws that empower workers, organized groups of business owners are constantly trying to overturn those laws and, in the meantime, discourage enforcement.
      • CWuestefeld 14y ago
        slither through every crack in every law How are we supposed to ascertain the difference between a loophole that we should pretend not to notice, versus an engineered incentive, where the regulators are intentionally giving us a nudge to behave in that way?
        • briandon 14y ago
          How are we supposed to ascertain the difference between a loophole that we should pretend not to notice, versus an engineered incentive, where the regulators are intentionally giving us a nudge to behave in that way? Use empathy. (1.) Imagine that you are one of the people who are going to be affected by your decision. Better yet, imagine that your parent/spouse/child is the one going to be impacted. (2.) Next, assume that the law was crafted with the best interests of society at heart or, if it's a flawed law, try to reason out the intent assuming that the author was someone with empathy. (3.) Try to cause the greatest good or at least minimize the harm of the action that you're about to take.
          • gaius 14y ago
            I'm imagining the massive problem of youth unemployment in France because employers aren't willing to take the risk of a bad hire. How's that for empathy?
            • briandon 14y ago
              Think critically for a moment about how it came to be that you were able to parrot the talking point about the percentage of unemployed youth in France but are seemingly unaware that employers are free to fire new workers during multi-month trial/probation periods or why the living standard of the one-fifth of French youth who are unemployed at any given moment is higher than that enjoyed by fully-employed people in the same age group in developed countries where employees have far weaker protections. It's sad that it's so easy for the proverbial one percenters to get everyone else, who should know better, on board with their agenda. Rather than copy and paste, I refer you to: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3953883 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3953883
    • glanch 14y ago
      How do you give business owners an incentive to pay more to the government than they already do?
  • learc83 14y ago
    There are better ways to establish a social safety net than forcing companies to employ workers they don't want or need. Look at the results of the law--not the intentions. The article says France has 2.4 times as many companies with 49 employees than with 50. This labor code is preventing companies from expanding, and encouraging companies to create new jobs in other countries rather than in France. The effect it is having is to protect existing jobs at the expense of new ones, and is an overall net drain on the economy. If they, as a society, have decided they want a social safety net, why not work on something like a guaranteed minimum income or a negative income tax system instead? Give them the money directly so the costs are transparent instead of this roundabout regulatory nonsense.
    • briandon 14y ago
      No, the labor code is not preventing companies from expanding. The greed of the company owners/directors/management is preventing them from expanding. They don't want to share profits with their employees or have to rub shoulders with them and pretend for even a few minutes once a week that they are equal. The can't-shed-employees meat of the article is: Software maker Viveo Group, an arm of Geneva-based Temenos Group, began the required talks with the workers’ council in February 2010 because it wanted to cut about a third of its 180-member staff, according to court records. Viveo offered employees a voluntary departure plan in June of that year as the council dragged its feet on evaluating the earlier proposal, court records show. The workers’ council then went to court to block the cuts. It won a ruling against the original plan in January 2011 on the grounds that Viveo was forecasting an 18 percent increase in sales, meaning its future didn’t depend on the layoffs. France’s highest appeals court is reviewing the decision and is expected to rule on May 3. “What holds back hiring in France is the lack of clarity on how to legally cut jobs,” says Déborah David, a labor lawyer at Jeantet Associés in Paris who has followed the case. If the decision is upheld, Viveo will have to take back the workers and hand over two and a half years in back pay, she says. You have a company that shed a third of its workers. A workers' council fought for and managed to win a more favorable layoffs scheme for them than the employer would have liked but they were still layoffs. ["voluntary departure plan" is a terribly Orwellian name for a layoffs scheme] The company seems to have justified the layoffs as a matter of economic survival rather than claiming that a third of the workers that had been carefully screened, interviewed, and hired were actually no-good bums. It turns out that sales are now up 18%. If they were great, skilled employees regretfully laid off out of economic necessity then why not hire them back now that business has taken a turn for the better? The answer would seem to be that the company was not honest about their reasons for the layoffs. Either they used an excuse to rid themselves of undesirables and low-performers or they used the economy as an excuse to fire otherwise fine workers.
  • tomp 14y ago
    You can have the cake and eat it too: just make the government responsible for social safety net. It's separation of concerns at the most basic level - let the companies worry about the economy/profit, and the government worry about the society/people. AFAIK, that's how they do it in Denmark. It's very easy to fire people (and therefore easy to hire them), but the taxes are very high, so the government has enough money to provide social security for the ones who have lost their jobs.
    • scarmig 14y ago
      True. But the USA, believe it or not, is probably much closer to French politics and culture than it is to Scandinavian. (We have a similar tendency to do things to hide as many costs as much as possible, for instance.) So as far as you can do inter-country comparisons, USA-France is likely to be the more productive one.
      • dmix 14y ago
        > We have a similar tendency to do things to hide as many costs as much as possible, for instance. Are you saying that companies finding legal ways around an tax system is a cultural thing and not a product of a system? For example, the actors being companies with a predictable self interest playing within an incredibly complex tax system that is easily gamed if you can afford lawyers and accountants.
  • jdietrich 14y ago
    Youth unemployment in France is 20%. Their labour laws don't create a safety net, they just privilege workers over jobseekers.
    • briandon 14y ago
      Eighty percent of youths are employed. Of the one fifth who are not, it's likely that many of them are able to rely upon their parents or older, employed siblings for support while they themselves are seeking employment. Weaken employee protections and social responsibility provisions and large numbers of the older, higher-paid workers will likely be replaced by lower-paid younger workers. Neither the still-employed non-youths nor the newly-employed youths nor the eighty percent of youths who had jobs will have any job security anymore. That doesn't sound like a societal win at all. The people pushing the youth unemployment figure don't actually care about youth unemployment. The point is to beat everyone over the head with that figure to get them to agree to stripping everyone's worker protections away.
  • mhartl 14y ago
    Consider a limiting case. Upon hiring employee 50, you have to sell your company and donate the proceeds to charity. I hope that sounds crazy, but in case it seems warm and fuzzy bear in mind that all 50 employees are now out of work. Are you a greedy bastard for wanting to stay at 49? Now relax the assumption. At employee 50, you have to start complying with a bunch of onerous and expensive regulations. This limits your ability to make profits and to continue growing your business—which, among other things, means being able to hire fewer workers and having to pay them less. The magnitude of the effect is less than that of the forced-charity sale, but the sign is the same. These kinds of laws are based on a fallacy: they assume that the interests of companies and employees are not well-aligned. What is worse, such laws guarantee misalignment—thus exacerbating the very problem they're (ostensibly) meant to ameliorate. In medicine, this is called iatrogenesis. Did the bloodletting not work? That must mean we need more bloodletting! These laws also create a decoy, which has effectively distracted you from the real enemy. The object of your ire should be boneheaded labor laws, not the "greedy" corporations trying to evade their restrictions. It's a diabolically clever political strategy, and it ensnares many a well-intentioned voter. But it's never too late to escape the trap.
    • briandon 14y ago
      You begin with a reductio ad ridiculum argument and segue into a spiel about employers' and employees' being aligned. I'm not sure whether your post earnestly reflects your position or was intended as a satire of the views of stereotypical Ayn-Rand-ites ("To the Gulch!"). Obviously, it's difficult to buy into the idea that employers' and employees' interests are aligned when business owners recoil in horror at the notion of having to meet once a week with the equivalent of shop stewards and bridle at having to explain why they need to lay off chunks of their workforce on short notice.
• thrill 14y ago
  The books "A Year In Merde" and "Au Revoir To All That" are poignant reads.
• maybird 14y ago
  After the owners of the Lejaby lingerie factory in Yssingeaux won court approval in January to fire about half their 450 employees in France and shift production to Tunisia, the company found itself thrust into the center of this year’s campaign. So Tunisians are to France what Mexicans are to us?
  • TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    Replace "Tunisia" with "foreign country with cheaper labour", and "France" with "other countries", and you'd be about right.
  • dusing 14y ago
    There is fundamentally something wrong with needing to go to court to get permission to fire your employees.
    • ernesth 14y ago
      There would be something fundamentally wrong if your employees could not go to court to contest their being fired.
      • wlievens 14y ago
        If fired for an urgent reason, without compensation, then surely. If fired with a sensible (defined by law) severance package, then absolutely not.
    • wazoox 14y ago
      You don't need permission to fire an employee. You need permission, however, to fire a significant part of your workforce at the same time. Typically you must justify it (for instance because your revenues dropped), and you can't fire in group again until after 18 months have passed. These rules made much more sense when they came into application mostly during the forties. Back then, just after the war, there were good reasons to be wary of the industry owners, who massively "collaborated" with the Germans (because you know, business is business), and deem them guilty until proven innocent.
• briandon 14y ago
  Tired of delays in getting orders filled, Pierrick Haan, CEO of Dupont Medical (not to be confused with chemical company DuPont (DD)), decided last year to return production of some wheelchairs and medical equipment to France. The 150-year-old company, based in Frouard in eastern France, created 20 jobs making custom devices at a French plant—and will stop there. Faced with France’s stifling labor code, Haan probably will send any additional production of standard equipment to what he calls “Near France”—Tunisia, Bulgaria, or Romania. “The cost of labor isn’t the main problem, it’s the rigidities,” Haan says. “If you make a mistake in your hiring plans, you can’t correct it.” The cited reason for moving production back to France (from where?) is production delays, which is safer than admitting quality problems. The company is based in France and the fact that it had to move its manufacturing back to France constitutes an admission that the French workers are more productive than the previous batch of non-French workers. The manufacturing jobs that this company is going to create in what Haan ludicrously refers to as "near France" (developing economies where labor is much cheaper -- but Haan isn't chasing cheaper labor, oh no) will be lower-skilled and/or that the resulting products will be labeled "Made in France" because those twenty workers in France were made to breathe on them or affix stickers to them at some point?
  • DrJokepu 14y ago
    I think you really misunderstand this. I did work as a junior mechanical engineer in both French and Eastern European manufacturing plants, small and large. In my experience, labor is equally or even better skilled in Eastern European countries than in France. Since we're talking about trained workers, not qualified professionals, productivity is much rather a function of the skills of the management than the skills of the workers. Generally, small ateliers is France can be more productive than the large factories of companies such as PSA Peugeot Citroën. I have noticed no such correlation in Eastern European factories.
    • briandon 14y ago
      Since the workers in both shops were, as you say, equally skilled, what was the wage differential between the French and Eastern European workers performing equivalent jobs. They weren't being paid the same wages, were they? I'm doubtful that the workers in the Eastern Euro locations truly were as skilled as their French counterparts because I have heard the same said by suits w/re to US workers and workers in various parts of the Far East and have had the opportunity to visit manufacturing locations in both and it never turned out to be the truth. Also, with regards to productivity of an enterprise being a function of the management, I would say that poor management is certainly capable of driving worker productivity into the ground but that the most can-do, gung-ho managers in the world cannot do much with low/un-skilled workers.
• Luc 14y ago
  Contrary to its stated bottom line, the main idea I got from this article is that being an employee in France is pretty sweet.
  • endersshadow 14y ago
    Good luck getting a job, though.
    • simias 14y ago
      It's extremely easy to find a job as a developer in Paris. The problem is always with the unskilled workforce, in France and elsewhere. I find all the reactions in this thread about how we should "just remove all those silly laws and the unions and let the good job creators do what they want and everything will be great and everybody will have a job" a bit naïve, to say the least. The problem is complex and global, the "49 employee company" is just a red herring.
  • tomp 14y ago
    On the other hand, being unemployed sucks big time - you don't know if you're ever getting employed, because your stupid government is basically forcing companies to expand overseas instead of domestically.
• briandon 14y ago
  “For the 100 employees we have in France, we have 10 employee representatives, for whom we have to organize weekly meetings even when there is nothing to discuss,” Haan says. “Every time a social security contribution changes, which is frequently, we have to update software and send our HR people for training. We can’t fire anyone without exorbitant costs.” Instead of viewing the weekly meetings as a chance to touch base with his employees, learn about them, pick their brains for ways to improve the business, and the like ... he whines about the requirement to have the once-a-week meetings. Then, he complains about having to tweak their payroll/withholding software and send the HR folks for training. He must shed actual tears when regulatory agencies in the countries he sells his products into change the requirements that affect the design and source materials so that he has to have them tweaked or even redesigned from the ground up. Sociopathy in management/leadership is a very real problem.
  • pgmcgee 14y ago
    You do realize that these things cost real money, right? Costing money for meaningless, valueless endeavors makes a business's overhead go up. When the overhead goes up, it has to be cut in other ways, usually by cutting employees. Unfortunately, that's difficult in France, which is why he is complaining. It's not sociopathy, it's business.
    • briandon 14y ago
      Meaningless, valueless endeavors like the once-a-week meeting that Haan was terrified of having to have with representatives of his own workforce? Or is government mandated profit-sharing the meaningless valueless endeavor? Somehow, inexplicably, these pernicious overheads never manage to take a significant toll on of executive compensation, perks, and the like.
  • tomp 14y ago
    What the fuck are you talking about? He's not complaining about having to tweak his accounting software - he's complaining about having to do that frequently, and seemingly without any good reason. Usually, when regulatory standards about material products change, they change for good reasons - e.g. poisonous plastics in children's toys. Anyone can understand why such changes are needed. However, if you're changing this or that detail of a country's tax code, without any good motive (i.e. when the politicians are obviously just picking up the low-hanging fruit to please the superficial (majority of the) public, but allow the deeper, structural problems in the economic incentives to persist), you just incur an unnecessary cost on the companies! Kinda reminds me of the "menu costs", an implicit cost associated with inflation, which is the cost of reprinting the restaurant menus when the prices change too much. An economic cost that exists because of the inherent inefficiencies of our system.
• ap22213 14y ago
  To me, it seems like a decent structure, and I wish that the US had something similar. As the article says, there's nothing stopping the business owner from starting multiple 49-person companies. Therefore, the system isn't technically holding anyone back. It's just slowing down their greed and consolidation of resources, which is a good thing. There's also nothing stopping the companies from outsourcing non-core work to other 49-person companies. Seems like there's a lot of market opportunities that entrepreneurs aren't taking.
  • tomp 14y ago
    Take a look at how Denmark handles it. Companies are basically free to hire/fire as they wish, but there is strong social security, meaning if you loose a job, you're not without income. The problem with such stringent firing laws is that they only give security to the people who are currently employed. However, they do not necessarily benefit the society, i.e. new workers won't be hired when they're needed, and companies won't expand, and the economy won't develop as rapidly, simply because it's too hard to fire someone when you don't need them anymore.
    • ap22213 14y ago
      I don't see it that way. I see it as a society that that imposes big rules on big companies in a way to help keep many companies smaller. Maybe the details don't work out well. Perhaps 50 is too small. There are probably other issues in the details, but in principle, it seems interesting and useful.
      • tomp 14y ago
        > in a way to help keep many companies smaller That's an interesting idea, but mostly unnecessary - in most economies, the majority of the economic output is produced by "small companies" (including contract workers), so such incentive does not seem to be needed. And if it were needed, you shouldn't encourage the existence of small companies by preventing the successful companies from growing larger, but by enabling entrepreneurs with setting up new companies without much hustle! By effectively imposing a limit on the company size, you just incentivize business owners to bundle up a bunch of small companies (as you correctly noticed in your original post), however, that is a purely bureaucratic dead-weight cost to the employer, and therefore to the employees and to the society, that produces no actual value, only takes it away! No wonder lawyers thrive in this environment!
• JVIDEL 14y ago
  Nothing new here, this is what happens when politicians make their work easier by making everyone else's harder, case in point in Argentina because politicians there can't bother to fix the deficit they raised taxation to almost 60% across the board. Result? everyone from rich to poor evades taxes and the grey market is over half the economy, with (some say) 2/3 of unskilled workers being paid cash-in-hand, no questions asked. Because customs charge a similar 60% on imports plus a 27% VAT on top almost everybody in the country buys stuff from smugglers, from shoes and clothes to computers and even cars. Piracy and counterfeiting are so out of control that some companies are shutting down, leaving people on the street. So at the end that country losses more money and has an even bigger deficit than if they had much lower taxes, why? because evading taxes is hard and risky, you are not going to bother doing it if it barely improves your numbers. But at 60% taxation you might go broke if you don't evade! see the problem? Lots of policies are ridiculous, but others are far beyond that: unrealistic, you simply can't ask that much and expect the economy to keep going. EDIT: if you want to know more about the anti-business craziness going on in Argentina read this http://bit.ly/lUbWOo http://bit.ly/lUbWOo
  • tomp 14y ago
    However, it is to be noted, that high taxation is not the problem per se - in Scandinavic countries, taxation is also high, but the citizens get much in return: free healthcare, free (and very good) schools, some serious social security benefits, etc...
    • wlievens 14y ago
      It's probably more about fair taxation: knowing that you get something back and your neighbouring isn't paying less though making more.
      • CWuestefeld 14y ago
        knowing that you get something back and your neighbouring isn't paying less though making more I think you've misunderstood the nature of the debate. Nobody is claiming that people making more are paying less, at least not significantly so. The complaint is that some people who are making more have paid a lower overall rate.
• aristidb 14y ago
  When even Germany has a comparatively flexible labor code, you're doing something wrong.
  • wlievens 14y ago
    Germany's labor code is very flexible compared to the rest of Western Europe.
    • aristidb 14y ago
      Which countries comprise Western Europe for you? Is, say, Denmark included in that set?
      • wlievens 14y ago
        I'm not expert on labor laws in Europe, sorry. I do know that my country's labor laws are certainly more strict than Germany's. I'm from Belgium.
• paulhauggis 14y ago
  " “If you make a mistake in your hiring plans, you can’t correct it.” This is the problem right here. It doesn't give the business owner the freedom to fire bad workers easily. It's funny because unions are mini versions of France (and they come with all of the same problems).
  • simias 14y ago
    We have a trial period when a company hires someone, I think it's 4 months that can be extended to a maximum of 7 months. During this period you can fire the new hire if he or she doesn't fit. So if after 7 months you suddenly realize that you've hired a bad worker, you're doing something wrong. Being able to fire people easily is good for the business owner but bad for the employees. That's part of the reason unions exist and are useful.
    • paulhauggis 14y ago
      "Being able to fire people easily is good for the business owner but bad for the employees. That's part of the reason unions exist and are useful." This line of thinking has ruined the auto industry in the US and it's one of the the reasons we have a terrible education system. If I have a bad worker (even after 7 months), I should be able to easily get rid of them (with cause). As a business owner, I shouldn't have to waste my time going to court or having some sort of 3rd party vote on whether I can fire them or not. Businesses will never thrive in this sort of environment.
      • TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
        I have no experience in business or the workplace, but I wonder if the "need" for unions would be lesser if it was easier to get a job, i.e. it doesn't matter you've been fired, because you can easily find a job somewhere else?
        • faboo 14y ago
          Historically, in the United States anyway, unions were less about making it harder to fire people (per se), and more about forcing employers to think about things like safety, reasonable work hours (supposedly, one of the first major labor wins was the bakers' 10 hour day), reasonable wagers, and harassment. An employment market with too few workers (where it's easier to find a job) is good, but isn't enough if all the jobs require 14 hour days, working with deafening machinery with little to no safety equipment or training, for paltry wages. Now, if we're honest, modern unions work for all of those things too, even if major unions are sometimes seen in less positive light sometimes.
• paulhauggis 14y ago
  After reading through the article, it looks like one big shell game to me. They are forcing companies to keep people employed, even if profits are low. Not only that, they are trying to solve the job problem by just adding a bunch of jobs to the government dole. Eventually, this will catch up to them and it won't be pretty. I just hope the proper people are blamed and they learn from their mistakes.
• chris_wot 14y ago
  Worst. Logic. Evar. "if cars are more complicated today than ever, why shouldn't our labour laws be as complicated?"
• gren 14y ago
  This is a bug for me, it seems we have a discontinuous function in the Code Du Travail !