4 ms·

Odd article, only giving one side of the story. What exactly were the employee law suits about? It doesn't say, and the effect is just to implicitly smear Franc

Odd article, only giving one side of the story. What exactly were the employee law suits about? It doesn't say, and the effect is just to implicitly smear France's worker laws. Because while some laws are rubbish and cause problems, lets be clear, sometimes companies are shit, we have laws to protect workers for a reason and lawsuits are very justified and deserve to win.

keithpeter 11y ago
If a judgement has been made, especially one that requires an immediate payment, then some documentation should be available publicly surely? Anyone from France able to comment?
- ajnin 11y ago
  Yes judgments are being made in the name of the French people, and thus are public (although this does not mean they are publicized on a website, you may have to go to the court to consult them). Decisions regarding the work code can be appealed, and in that case the execution of the sentence is suspended until the second judgment. If they had to pay immediately then it means they didn't appeal. That combined with their refusal to show the actual court decisions is fishy and looks like a spin to make the fired employees look bad and use them as an excuse for Mandriva's demise just coincidentally when they were on the brink of becoming profitable.
  - aout 11y ago
    Decisions exceeding 4000€ can be appealed but if paiement is due immediately it must mean that the court didn't had any doubts. Being French I completely agree with ajnin, it seems really fishy not to disclose the amount and the details of the decision.
girvo 11y ago
> The details of the suits, including names of employees involved, are confidential, he told us, and he declined to offer details That's in the article, but how true that is I don't know. You'd assume the details would be public record somewhere, but I don't know enough about France's laws to tell.
- jarofgreen 11y ago
  Yes, that seems odd to me but then I don't know French law at all. Any french commentators?
  - aout 11y ago
    French labour law is not what most people think, the employee does not have the rights to stay forever in a company. Yes it over protects the employee by restricting the power of the employer but both parties are still equals in front of Justice. How is that you might ask? Well, when you're suing your ex-company you go to a special trial called "prud'hommes" (like "safety-men") which is constituted by both employees and employers. You are judged by your peers. Prud'Hommes trials are long and decisions are rarely contested by the public opinion in France, even by employers. Employers can win at prud'hommes trials, they do when they respect the law. Also I'd like to point out that this is the 4th CEO change for Mandriva in something like 8 years. At some point the choices that some of the CEOs made were so bad that the investors forced them to publicly communicate with the community (for Mandriva the Linux community in France is extremely strong so it might be interesting to keep it updated and involved...). Basically the last CEO seems to have made some hard but good choices for the company but is paying for the mistakes of it's predecessors (so now he tries to save it's reputation by telling his side of the story which is understandable). Anyway, the company stays responsible when a bad CEO leaves and a new one comes along. "C'est la vie".
    - cm2187 11y ago
      It does take years to lay-off someone in France, and when you succeed, that's usually with a multi-years package. So you are right, employees do not "stay forever in a company" but they do make it really really hard to adjust your staffing to your business.
    - tajen 11y ago
      French here. Often, pro-employees partisans are enclined to believe that Prud'hommes are neutral. However I have never heard the same opinion from a boss who's had experience with firing someone. By the way the name Prud'hommes is a family name, and although it looks like "prudence", it has no ethymologic origin here. I'm frightened of hiring the first person in my startup, precisely because I can't get rid of them and an upset employee can draw lifetime savings in lawyer fees, penalties and fines. Therefore if you could convince me that Prud'hommes and French employment rules can be fair and deterministic, and make me meet bosses who reckon the Prudhommes took a fair position, you would literally create at least one job. Apart from that, you are right that some bosses aren't nice and we don't known enough about Mandriva to judge.
empressplay 11y ago
I expect (and this is just conjecture) that he laid off staff and then rehired for the same (or similar) roles at a lower rate of pay, which is a common tactic when a company needs to reduce costs but typically runs afoul of labour laws.
tracker1 11y ago
While I don't know anything about these cases specifically, or regarding Mandriva's internal structure... I think changing your name to be a rather obvious trademark infringement is a pretty bad place to start (Lindows), and then trying to grab any attention possible to increase market share from there. In any case I think that legally, sometimes it is appropriate for businesses to come to an end... and not in the, lets separate our assets from our liability so that we can sell off everything, and keep the brand around kind of way, but in that corporations have more rights than living entities in a lot of ways. I'm very pro business... but despite the spin, I'm unconvinced that anything that has happened in this case is necessarily a bad thing.
- Bill_Dimm 11y ago
  I think changing your name to be a rather obvious trademark infringement is a pretty bad place to start (Lindows) Uhm, what? Lindows became Linspire. Mandriva was originally Mandrake (renamed after merging with Conectiva). As far as I know, Lindows never had anything to do with Mandriva.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    Thanks for correcting me... I had confused the two.
rwallace 11y ago
Beware of assuming that every law passed with the intent of protecting workers actually has that effect. Yes, some laws really do protect workers (e.g. banning noncompete employment clauses). But laws that make it very difficult to get rid of employees (either because they're not doing a good job or just because you can't afford them anymore) act as strong deterrents to hiring, and that tilts the power balance strongly in favour of employers over workers - which is exactly what causes so many problems in the first place.
- Frozenlock 11y ago
  I would add to this that looking at the 'intent' of a law is the worst possible way to look at it. There's no law out there with the disclosed intent of killing children, or making sure some people stay poor, or protecting a market from competition. Every law is always 'for the good of the Universe and it's a wonder we survived this long without it'. The only way we can judge a law is by its REAL consequences, not the PR surrounding it.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - rodgerd 11y ago
    > Beware of assuming that every law passed with the intent of protecting workers actually has that effect. Be even more wary of believing a CEO's account of how he ran a company into bankruptcy is the fault of everyone but him.

keithpeter 11y ago

If a judgement has been made, especially one that requires an immediate payment, then some documentation should be available publicly surely? Anyone from France able to comment?

ajnin 11y ago
Yes judgments are being made in the name of the French people, and thus are public (although this does not mean they are publicized on a website, you may have to go to the court to consult them). Decisions regarding the work code can be appealed, and in that case the execution of the sentence is suspended until the second judgment. If they had to pay immediately then it means they didn't appeal. That combined with their refusal to show the actual court decisions is fishy and looks like a spin to make the fired employees look bad and use them as an excuse for Mandriva's demise just coincidentally when they were on the brink of becoming profitable.
- aout 11y ago
  Decisions exceeding 4000€ can be appealed but if paiement is due immediately it must mean that the court didn't had any doubts. Being French I completely agree with ajnin, it seems really fishy not to disclose the amount and the details of the decision.

girvo 11y ago

> The details of the suits, including names of employees involved, are confidential, he told us, and he declined to offer details That's in the article, but how true that is I don't know. You'd assume the details would be public record somewhere, but I don't know enough about France's laws to tell.

jarofgreen 11y ago
Yes, that seems odd to me but then I don't know French law at all. Any french commentators?
- aout 11y ago
  French labour law is not what most people think, the employee does not have the rights to stay forever in a company. Yes it over protects the employee by restricting the power of the employer but both parties are still equals in front of Justice. How is that you might ask? Well, when you're suing your ex-company you go to a special trial called "prud'hommes" (like "safety-men") which is constituted by both employees and employers. You are judged by your peers. Prud'Hommes trials are long and decisions are rarely contested by the public opinion in France, even by employers. Employers can win at prud'hommes trials, they do when they respect the law. Also I'd like to point out that this is the 4th CEO change for Mandriva in something like 8 years. At some point the choices that some of the CEOs made were so bad that the investors forced them to publicly communicate with the community (for Mandriva the Linux community in France is extremely strong so it might be interesting to keep it updated and involved...). Basically the last CEO seems to have made some hard but good choices for the company but is paying for the mistakes of it's predecessors (so now he tries to save it's reputation by telling his side of the story which is understandable). Anyway, the company stays responsible when a bad CEO leaves and a new one comes along. "C'est la vie".
  - cm2187 11y ago
    It does take years to lay-off someone in France, and when you succeed, that's usually with a multi-years package. So you are right, employees do not "stay forever in a company" but they do make it really really hard to adjust your staffing to your business.
  - tajen 11y ago
    French here. Often, pro-employees partisans are enclined to believe that Prud'hommes are neutral. However I have never heard the same opinion from a boss who's had experience with firing someone. By the way the name Prud'hommes is a family name, and although it looks like "prudence", it has no ethymologic origin here. I'm frightened of hiring the first person in my startup, precisely because I can't get rid of them and an upset employee can draw lifetime savings in lawyer fees, penalties and fines. Therefore if you could convince me that Prud'hommes and French employment rules can be fair and deterministic, and make me meet bosses who reckon the Prudhommes took a fair position, you would literally create at least one job. Apart from that, you are right that some bosses aren't nice and we don't known enough about Mandriva to judge.

empressplay 11y ago

I expect (and this is just conjecture) that he laid off staff and then rehired for the same (or similar) roles at a lower rate of pay, which is a common tactic when a company needs to reduce costs but typically runs afoul of labour laws.

tracker1 11y ago

While I don't know anything about these cases specifically, or regarding Mandriva's internal structure... I think changing your name to be a rather obvious trademark infringement is a pretty bad place to start (Lindows), and then trying to grab any attention possible to increase market share from there. In any case I think that legally, sometimes it is appropriate for businesses to come to an end... and not in the, lets separate our assets from our liability so that we can sell off everything, and keep the brand around kind of way, but in that corporations have more rights than living entities in a lot of ways. I'm very pro business... but despite the spin, I'm unconvinced that anything that has happened in this case is necessarily a bad thing.

Bill_Dimm 11y ago
I think changing your name to be a rather obvious trademark infringement is a pretty bad place to start (Lindows) Uhm, what? Lindows became Linspire. Mandriva was originally Mandrake (renamed after merging with Conectiva). As far as I know, Lindows never had anything to do with Mandriva.
- tracker1 11y ago
  Thanks for correcting me... I had confused the two.

rwallace 11y ago

Beware of assuming that every law passed with the intent of protecting workers actually has that effect. Yes, some laws really do protect workers (e.g. banning noncompete employment clauses). But laws that make it very difficult to get rid of employees (either because they're not doing a good job or just because you can't afford them anymore) act as strong deterrents to hiring, and that tilts the power balance strongly in favour of employers over workers - which is exactly what causes so many problems in the first place.

Frozenlock 11y ago
I would add to this that looking at the 'intent' of a law is the worst possible way to look at it. There's no law out there with the disclosed intent of killing children, or making sure some people stay poor, or protecting a market from competition. Every law is always 'for the good of the Universe and it's a wonder we survived this long without it'. The only way we can judge a law is by its REAL consequences, not the PR surrounding it.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- rodgerd 11y ago
  > Beware of assuming that every law passed with the intent of protecting workers actually has that effect. Be even more wary of believing a CEO's account of how he ran a company into bankruptcy is the fault of everyone but him.