French Riots

[Ping898]

For what seems like a month or so now 18-25 year olds in France have been rioting over a new labor law which if I understand correctly basically lets a business hire and fire someone under the age of 26 with less than 2 years service with no cause. According to the leaders of France this is supposed to help combat the like 23% unemployment rate in that age group. So I am wondering HOW?

Would a business be more willing to take a chance on a young person if they could dump them at anytime if times were tough or their work was bad? If that the thinking?
I am trying to understand the logic behind this law and what the thinking on how it is supposed to help is. Anyone out there been following this or have thoughts on it?

Latest article on it:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-28-france_x.htm

1 million French take to the streets over labor law
PARIS (AP) — More than 1 million people poured into the streets across France and strikers disrupted air, rail and bus travel Tuesday — even shutting down the Eiffel Tower — in the largest nationwide protest over a youth labor law.

 

[deadhand31]

I'm not sure if this is still law, but when I was 18 I spent a week in a French home, and the father of the household is a member of the municipal police. Apparently, according to French Labor laws at the time:

1.Anyone can strike at anytime, and not be fired. Striking is viewed in a very positive manner in the French culture.
2. It is illegal to work at one job for more than 35 hours a week. It is viewed that if you have to work more than that, you are taking a job from someone else who could use those extra hours.
3. You're not allowed to do custom automotive work. The only thing allowed in a car is the OEM parts. Even if adding a custom part improves performance, it cannot be driven on French roads. It has to be loaded onto a flatbed truck and driven on privately owned roads.
4. If a person calls in sick, you cannot request a doctor's note as proof as illness. An employer must take an employee at his word.

These were what were told to me at the time. I have not yet found an outside source, so I cannot ensure the validity of these. They were, however, told to me by a member of the French Municipal Police.

There is a reason that this would help increase the unemployment rate. Before the law, it was next to impossible to fire someone if they proved unreliable. If a person with next to no work history was hired, an employer was taking a risk that the employee would be unreliable and a burden instead of an asset. With this new law, hiring someone is less of a risk, as they can be fired if they have poor performance.

 

[jazkiljok]

I'm not sure if this is still law, but when I was 18 I spent a week in a French home, and the father of the household is a member of the municipal police. Apparently, according to French Labor laws at the time:

1.Anyone can strike at anytime, and not be fired. Striking is viewed in a very positive manner in the French culture.
2. It is illegal to work at one job for more than 35 hours a week. It is viewed that if you have to work more than that, you are taking a job from someone else who could use those extra hours.
3. You're not allowed to do custom automotive work. The only thing allowed in a car is the OEM parts. Even if adding a custom part improves performance, it cannot be driven on French roads. It has to be loaded onto a flatbed truck and driven on privately owned roads.
4. If a person calls in sick, you cannot request a doctor's note as proof as illness. An employer must take an employee at his word.

These were what were told to me at the time. I have not yet found an outside source, so I cannot ensure the validity of these. They were, however, told to me by a member of the French Municipal Police.

There is a reason that this would help increase the unemployment rate. Before the law, it was next to impossible to fire someone if they proved unreliable. If a person with next to no work history was hired, an employer was taking a risk that the employee would be unreliable and a burden instead of an asset. With this new law, hiring someone is less of a risk, as they can be fired if they have poor performance.

companies are not hiring at the levels the gov't believes they're capable of because of the if you hire them you keep them rules (and all the generous protections there after)-- if companies could fire incompetent workers, or those they deem not up to snuff, they would take more chances on hiring young workers. a lot of time and expense goes into training employees, so it's not in their interest to willy nilly fire anyone but they won't take the risk as often if they know they're stuck for better or worst when they hand some kid the job.

 

[Hand Sword]

Makes sense both ways. There should be a reason if someone is to get fired, or at least a history of reasons though.