Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Demonstrations in France - March 2006

unheimlich manoeuvre

23:05 / 28.03.06

BBC News 28 March 2006
Hundreds of thousands of protesters take to the streets of Paris and other cities. Any similarities between this and other popular protests? I mean it's strange on the same day that one million Union workers in Britain protested for their meagre pensions.

01:24 / 29.03.06

It's just a coincidence that the two happened the same day. Or not. Who knows?

Anyway, the french demonstration was planned since some time. There were between 1 million and 3 millions people that hit the street nationwide.

The prime minister don't want to recall the new work contract which causes all the hubbub, saying the street don't govern. The actual french conservative government has close to no legitimacy, having lost by a wiiide margin the three last electoral consultations. It has nevertheless full legislative power. And it uses it, believe me.

There were some troubles at the end of the demonstration, and acts of vandalism, but it was way less serious than last demonstration (03/23).

01:29 / 29.03.06

Is Government policy decided by the Politicians or the people?

Both, really. In the case of policy affecting French students, it seems that French students have the upperhand. Their protests have stopped government efforts going back to the days of Charles de Gaulle. Students have actually blockaded schools around the country, something that boggles my mind.

08:24 / 02.04.06

I don't really get the point of the protests. The law is supposed to help youth unemployment. I understand that security in employment is nice but flexibility means more people will be hired.

power vacuums & pure moments

09:17 / 02.04.06

Getting an explanation for why you are being sacked and some notice is more basic than what i normally consider 'job security' to be. There is a lot of potential for employer abuse there.

14:39 / 02.04.06

It may be supposed to help youth unemployment, but will it in fact do that, and if so at what cost?
This is another example of the clash between the Anglo-American model of deregulation versus the European stronger state interference in the economy.
An example from the UK, the CBI are always bitching about the minimum wage and how it will cripple business, raise unemployment etc etc, and if only they were allowed to pay people next to nothing everyone would be much better off. However I think having a minumum wage is a good thing and we need government regulation to stop employers and corporations screwing the workforce.
Unfortunately I don't know enough economics to be able to say which model is better for the economy, but I do think that other considerations other than companies' profits should be taken into account when deciding your employment laws. This probably marks me out as a horribly old fashioned naive left winger, but better that than some Rand-ian libertarian (sorry Von Mises).

Tryphena Absent

23:52 / 02.04.06

Sorry Buk but like Phox and devo I don't really see the potential for tackling unemployment here. At best it seems geared towards getting people into work for short periods of time and then kicking them out again. At the moment 22% of French 18- to 25-year-olds are unemployed. Quite how making it easier to fire those under 26 is going to help them attain work is quite confusing because it seems as if they're taking job security away from the 78% or so who are currently employed. The year long trial period that was signed in on Friday is a huge amount of time to leave people hanging, it allows low skilled workers to be sacked at a moment's notice, it gives employers an unreasonable amount of power over their workers and it's ageist.

This law sucks. I am very pleased that people are getting off their arses to express that. Oh to live in a country where people actually respond to such suckage!

08:17 / 03.04.06

The CPE makes it easier to fire people. I know it sounds contradictory but I think this will encourage more people to be hired.

If you make it difficult to fire someone then you are less likely to hire them in the first place because if something goes wrong, economy tanks or part of your business fails, then they are going to be an extra cost dragging the business down. So the new law decreases the risk of hiring someone new.

France doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has to compete with other countries for jobs. If it has onerous employment law then jobs will go elsewhere.

Something has certainly gone wrong in France. Youth unemployment of 20+% is messed up. The UK has about half that. Reform is necessary. It seems the protesters are happy to live with high youth unemployment.

12:05 / 03.04.06

It seems the protesters are happy to live with high youth unemployment.

Because the one specific law they are protesting is clearly the only viable way to end youth unemployment.

Tryphena Absent

12:06 / 03.04.06

I agree that reform is necessary because there isn't any protection for employers but the idea that this is going to help reform the employment system... this is a quick fix. It's aimed at a small group of people, it will probably force people into very specific types of low paid work like retail, which prefer to hire people for small amounts of time. It creates a further imbalance in a system that's already riddled with problems and the only further reform it opens up is an extension of the one year trial period over all age groups. After that year you go into precisely the same type of contract as before unless you're on a limited term agreement.

It would have been far more practical to scrap the limited term agreements renewal rule, allowing employers to keep people on short term contracts for as long as they needed to and leaving them rights such as notice periods.

Shiny: Well Over Thirty

18:08 / 10.04.06

It sounds like the protesters have won this one, and I for one am pleased as punch. It’s nice to see that at least somewhere not very far away the people can and will still turn back these kinds of business friendly attacks that their governments try to unleash.

09:24 / 13.04.06

I wonder if it is the legislation itself or the cack-handed combat mode that Villepin attempted to introduce it with that caused it to fail.

I take the point that it would have taken away security from a lot of people without any guarantees that youth unemployment would be reduced. Something still has to be done about that though and coming closer to the UK system which has lower youth and overall unemployment sounds like a good step.

Shiny - Why are you so against "business friendly" government? Business creates jobs and wealth. Sure one of the roles of government should be to prevent exploitation but it shouldn't explicity set out to be anti-business.

18:00 / 13.04.06

Business only creates wealth through the exploitation of its employees and the spilt blood, sweat and tears of the proletariat.
Seriously though, while the above is an over-simplification (with a touch of hyperbole thrown in for good measure) I do think that often the interests of the workers and the interests of the corporations are directly opposed, and that an important role of government is to act as a limit to corporations behaviour.
As for coming towards the UK system being a good thing, I'm not so sure. Despite our lower unemployment I believe our productivity per capita is still lower and in general the French are happier with their quality of life.
(proviso: I have not researched this latter point properly, so am willing to concede I'm talking nonsense)

Shiny: Well Over Thirty

19:18 / 13.04.06

Hoom. Buk, I’d say the answer Mr Phox has given to your question is substantially the answer I would have given, although rather more articulately put than I myself might have managed. I would also like to add that unsurprisingly my personal political predilections are more than a little left wing and so I do feel that while government should not aim to be wilfully anti business, that one of it’s fundamental tasks ought to be to regulate and control business, with the aim of greatly reducing or preferably eradicating exploitation of workers by employers.

At the moment I feel that in the most countries of which I have any knowledge the law is already stilted to far in favour of business over the workers and I so I feel that any move to swing the pendulum farther in that directly would be quite unreasonable and really ought to be resisted. The balance is quite possibly considerably more healthy in France at current than in many other countries although I tend to be of the opinion that this is largely only because the French people have proven themselves time and again to be prepared to fight to keep it that way.

It’s also especially galling to me at the moment that a number of governments around the world are currently only too happy to introduce law after law reducing the freedoms of the ordinary citizen, whilst at the same time these governments seem dead set on introducing laws which allow the corporations more freedom to behave in any manner which they seem fit.

My, this post has possibly taken on some of the essential characteristics of a soap-box, for which I can only apologize, if such is needed and bring the dratted thing to an end.