It's quite a shame, and sure to keep France on the path to economic disaster. Furthermore, the main reason Chirac gave in was to stop the riots and protests - and yet, this is not going to happen, as it said above:PARIS — President Jacques Chirac on Monday threw out part of a youth labor law that triggered massive protests and strikes, bowing to intense pressure from students and unions and dealing a blow to his loyal premier in a bid to end the crisis.
Unions celebrated what they called "a great victory," and also were deciding whether to keep up the protests. The top two student union UNEF and FIDL said they would press on with demonstrations Tuesday across France.
Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, who devised the law, had faced down protesters for weeks, insisting that its most divisive provision — a so-called "first job contract" — was necessary to reduce high unemployment rates among French youths by making it easier for companies to hire and fire young workers.
Unions celebrated what they called "a great victory," and also were deciding whether to keep up the protests. The top two student union UNEF and FIDL said they would press on with demonstrations Tuesday across France.All the French government has accomplished is reinforcing the same lesson they always seem to do - surrender only begets further demands.
UNEF leader Bruno Julliard told AP Television News that the students "want to see how we can take advantage of this power struggle that is now in our favor to garner new victories."This is simply a pathetic decision and yet another example of the French being unable to make the proper choices in difficult situations. Clearly, the French not only need to learn economics, but history as well.
I get that the fact the riots aren't stopping is a shame, but are you saying you think the law was a good idea?
ReplyDeleteYes. The economic state of France is horrific: I recall reading projections that they'll be in dire straits by as soon as 2020.
ReplyDeleteBut it's blatant discrimination - how is that ok?
ReplyDeleteIf a boss doesn't like a guy, for whatever reason, he can be fired simply for being young! How are they supposed to build a confident workforce when they're constantly looking over their shoulder for the boss to get in a bad mood?
That's not quite true. But regardless, so what? There is no reason why a boss should have to keep a worker simply because he hired him: By forcing companies to retain people, they have no incentive to work hard; just avoid doing anything completely outrageous that would give "just cause" for firing. That's ridiculous - who can run any business that way!?
ReplyDeleteIt's essentially the same problem US beauracracies have, multiplied in measure and spread to every sector.
No, a worker shouldn't have to be retained, but to aim the law specifically at people under 26, it's outright discrimination.
ReplyDeleteYes and no. In a way, it would be better to not have such a rule at all; but they want to protect older workers from being fired simply for being old, so this is a means of doing so. A 25-year old should be able to find another job with some ease; a 40-something year old guy probably cannot.
ReplyDelete