Riots erupt after French protests

[pubmanager]

Tiny,

If your Daddy didn't have money to burn on your upkeep whilst you seek employment what whould you be doing right now?

[Nono]

Quote by: tiny (...) All they want to do is to ask for handouts from their fellow citizens who (under compulsion of the law) fork out 50% of their hard-earned money to subsidize them. (...) those student rioters who would gladly see total strangers hand them money under compulsion of law (...)

This cartoon world you inhabit and imagine others (such as French students) to inhabit, did you get that programmed into your mind by Daddy as well? Or do you get it from Fox News?

It really is hypocritical of you to accept welfare yoursself while criticizing others (people who, by the way, do something constructive with the hours of their day -- i.e. going to university) for protesting the disappearance of yet another hard-won security measure.

Someday, tiny, you may attain enlightenment and realize that the world has more than two dimensions and that your present one-line wrap-up of reality ("sucks") fails to explain reality.

[tinybear]

Nono, let's be clear about what I'm criticizing here. I'm criticizing a law which compels a person to hand over money which he earned to total strangers who are are now causing damage to public property, which he has paid to maintain. And all this without even a word of thanks too.

[tinybear]

Quote by: pubmanager Tiny, If your Daddy didn't have money to burn on your upkeep whilst you seek employment what whould you be doing right now?

I'd probably be starving. Or I might take on any job that comes along. Who knows? That's life. The fact that I can afford to be more choosy; well, that's life too. :)

[Nono]

Quote by: t Nono, let's be clear about what I'm criticizing here. I'm criticizing a law which compels a person to hand over money which he earned to total strangers who are are now causing damage to public property, which he has paid to maintain. And all this without even a word of thanks too.

Excellent idea, t -- let's be clear. This thread is about young French people giving the finger to a new law that undermines job security. Your comments (in their totality):

Hey, I saw on TV the mob was targetting American-owned shops and fast food outlets!!! What did we do wrong this time??? I'm bewildered. I'm ethinic Chinese; American citizen. Nono says I'm honary American. I wonder what that means. What's wrong with dismantling the welfare state? The welfare state sucks. Oooh, how did all that venom get into your system, Nono? Of course the welfare system sucks. It breeds disincentive to work amongst able-bodied young people and a culture of dependence and blaming others for a misfortune which they themselves are the authors. Did you see those who rioted in the streets of Paris, Lyon and other cities in France? Do they look like people who are unable to earn a decent living by their own efforts? All they want to do is to ask for handouts from their fellow citizens who (under compulsion of the law) fork out 50% of their hard-earned money to subsidize them. I'm trying to get a job. I just haven't succeeded that's all. Besides, Dad loves me and is very willing to give me his money *Smirk* Contrast this with the case of those student rioters who would gladly see total strangers hand them money under compulsion of law. Surely you see the difference, no?

And you want to be clear LOL?

Tell us a little something bout this lil ol law you're so up in arms against.

Or is your contribution to this debate just the jumbled, incoherent monologue of an over-privileged lotus-eater?

[tinybear]

Come come, being in Europe, you should know what the situation in France is at the moment. The present chaos is caused by the labor unions and the proferssional teachers and professors. The last time they were on strike, the government refused to pay their salary (they used to get paid even when they were on strike!). This time, they manipulated the students to do the job for them. Lazy teachers don't work and get paid and they watch on the sidelines as their students do their dirty job for them.

The labor unions control the major aspects of the economy. The civil servants are 25 % of the active population, about 2 times more than Germany and much more than England. Yup. Big government and big welfare spending. A recent poll reveals that one in two people under 25 dreams of joining the civil service.

25% of the population between 16 & 25 is unemployed. It goes up to 40% in some urban areas. Successive governments have not dared change anything since any such move would be met with the most severe response.

The intention of the new law is benign, in my view. It aims to alleviate the plight caused by the long idling youth population in France. It is far more productive for the under 26s to get employed for whatever length of time, half a year, a month or even for a week, let alone the allowance of the 2 years' statutory period. If you're good, you'd probably be asked to stay on. If you're unsuitable, you're out but at least you're paid for whatever service you've provided. There's nothing unfair about the new law; certainly there is no cause for these thugs to be wreaking the havoc and the destruction to their own country. And, whilst we're on the topic, why don't they stop targetting American assets??? We have nothing to do with this new law!!!

[Nono]

Quote by: tiny I'm criticizing a law which compels a person to hand over money which he earned to total strangers who are are now causing damage to public property, which he has paid to maintain. (...) The intention of the new law is benign, in my view.

Clear as mud. Thanks again, t.

[tinybear]

Let's get back on topic Nono. Do you think the new law is being unfair to those students and are they justified in protesting against it?

[Nono]

Would I place it on a par with, say, Hitler's Notstandsgesetz? No. But it's another brick knocked out of the wall, another very nice card slipped to those who already have the best hand.

In other words, it's a further step down the road of ruinously sterile, neo-liberal, market-fundamentalist orthodoxy.

Now you explain to us why you, as you stated above, criticize it. I'm just a-dying to know.

[SteveA]

Nono, if you disagree with Tiny on something or you feel he's not saying something clearly, why don't you offer him some help instead of simply saying he's not making sense.

I think his comments are correct that these riots don't differ much from the protests unions for public agencies hold everytime they have some sweet deal removed. The sad part is that in France the indoctrination into this mindset has been accomplished on so many people at young age.

I read some quotes that they believe this will lead to greater unemployment by the younger generation, whereas that's simply propoganda. If anything, employers would prefer to hire younger age groups now, so you'd expect it to be the people 25+ rioting that they don't have the same competitive advantage that the youth (and many foreigners) have. Not only that but realistically, keeping the law in place just allows for apathy and poor work ethics to set in. This law, in itself, doesn't help the economy there because, like Tiny said, it's more of a welfare system for jobs and it doesn't create more job opportunities but simply makes it so that once someone gets lucky enough to get into a job, the government applies pressure to keep that person there, no matter whether they continue to deserve it and despite others who might need work and be able/willing to do a better job. Besides, employers can easily claim a grievance against the government for this law because they're being unnecessarily limited in the natural ability they'd otherwise have to spend their resources as they wanted.

If someone wants cushy employment agreements that make it difficult for an employer to later terminate the relationship, they should be willing to expect it up front in the employement agreement and be willing to pay the additional costs these incur as well. Using "daddy"/government to give you a nice job is a cop out, so your teasing Tiny over "daddy's money" seems hypocritical to me. Actually, most the Chinese people I've met are hard working, emphasize education, and are family oriented as well as they help each other. If someones father is able to do this well, more power to them, I figure (at a minimum it keeps people out of the welfare lines).

[Nono]

Quote by: Steve Nono, if you disagree with Tiny on something or you feel he's not saying something clearly, why don't you offer him some help instead of simply saying he's not making sense.

Because tiny simply isn't making sense. On the one hand she expresses her horror at those who have been protesting the new law, and simultanrously grinds on about this awful law. Sorry, just can't make head or tail of her views (except to note that they sweep hugely complex things into microscopic piles -- one of her specialties).

You're right that the French need only hit the streets in huge numbers to put the fear of God in the government, which well remembers May '68. This works for rightwing Catholics just as it works for leftwing unionists.

As for the law itself -- sorry but it's yet another gift from a rightwing government to the business elite. Maybe some employers will use it to hire more young people. Others will use it to rip them off.

What I'm saying is that it's another step in the dismantlement of a system that has given France unparalleled prosperity over the past half century. The French are a nation of skeptics, and they don't believe every word of market-fundamentalist propaganda fed to them.

Using "daddy"/government to give you a nice job is a cop out, so your teasing Tiny over "daddy's money" seems hypocritical to me.

What?!! *I* don't work for the government I'll have you know, and I work plenty hard to earn my bread. So speak for yourself. The only sugar-daddy relevant to this discussion is the one keeping tiny (her ethnic affiliation notwithstanding) in splendid indolence, which affords her the leisure to bitch against hardworking Frenchmen. What bullshit.

And by the way, for a coupla years I worked for the (government-owned) post office. Nothing cushy there. And I've also worked in private industry (of the relatively 'unfettered' North American variety). I could tell you tales of inefficiency and cushiness that would curl your toenails.

So let's abate the ideology-driven bullshit. Markets are imperfect and need regulation for the general good. Regardless of who owns or runs an enterprise, the same laws apply. You can't defy gravity. The question is how the proceeds should be divided up.

[pubmanager]

I must admit to knowing little of the detail of the law that has got the french all riled up.

There does however, on the surface of things, seem to be a case that the law is unfair on grounds of basic equality. Why does the law only affect those who are under 25. Are all adults not equal in the eyes of the law?

[SteveA]

Quote by: Nono Because tiny simply isn't making sense. On the one hand she expresses her horror at those who have been protesting the new law, and simultanrously grinds on about this awful law. Sorry, just can't make head or tail of her views (except to note that they sweep hugely complex things into microscopic piles -- one of her specialties).

I admit some of my posts might have been similarly confusing. From the articles I read, the riots are over a modification to existing law. This modification/new law removes the prior law from applying to younger age groups. The prior version limits the abilities of an employer to fire people. So the rioting there is a protest over a "right", that was at someone elses expense and should have never exists in the first place. If you want such an employment agreement, go for it and expect it before working for an employer, but trying to drag everyone else along too is asking for problems (yes, and protests and rioting).

You're right that the French need only hit the streets in huge numbers to put the fear of God in the government, which well remembers May '68. This works for rightwing Catholics just as it works for leftwing unionists.

Yes, unions can hold almost religious beliefs at times.

As for the law itself -- sorry but it's yet another gift from a rightwing government to the business elite. Maybe some employers will use it to hire more young people. Others will use it to rip them off.

No, it doesn't simply apply to elites. If a company earns more from an employee, they can offer more in pay. There was no gift with the prior version that places a stranglehold on employment agreements. I admit this was likely done to help businesses in France but it's silly to believe this only benefits some elites. That's propoganda that you've been taught to believe. What immediate benefit does a society gain by trying to force people to work for a single company for a long time? If anything it allows employers to manipulate people even more as they can't easily get a job elsewhere because getting a new job is difficult when someone else has already laid legal claim to it irregardless of merit.

What I'm saying is that it's another step in the dismantlement of a system that has given France unparalleled prosperity over the past half century. The French are a nation of skeptics, and they don't believe every word of market-fundamentalist propaganda fed to them.

Fine. It appears you have many people that feel as you do in France right now and they're rioting. We can postulate a ton of things but reality will have the final say. I predict economic troubles in France for at least decades to come because of apparent beliefs similar to yours that these policies help things there. To me it simply appears they're spending their savings.

What?!! *I* don't work for the government I'll have you know, and I work plenty hard to earn my bread. So speak for yourself. The only sugar-daddy relevant to this discussion is the one keeping tiny (her ethnic affiliation notwithstanding) in splendid indolence, which affords her the leisure to bitch against hardworking Frenchmen. What bullshit.

I thought the bitching was about people rioting to keep stupid laws in place, and the expectation that a sugar-daddy government would do it for them. We apparently can read the same thing and get entirely different meanings from it.

And by the way, for a coupla years I worked for the (government-owned) post office. Nothing cushy there.

Of course not. Supporters of the Soviet Union probably thought it was going to be a great deal also but whatdayaknow if reality doesn't set in and the fact that lunches are free finally sets in once people get hungry enough.

And I've also worked in private industry (of the relatively 'unfettered' North American variety). I could tell you tales of inefficiency and cushiness that would curl your toenails.

At least they're doing it on their own dime, though personally, much of the overhead paperwork I've had to do at my work hasn't been the desire of the employer but simply pressured by their need to comply with government policies.

So let's abate the ideology-driven bullshit. Markets are imperfect and need regulation for the general good. Regardless of who owns or runs an enterprise, the same laws apply. You can't defy gravity. The question is how the proceeds should be divided up.

Bull. The only thing that needs regulation is overbearing people that can't stay out of others business(es) and there's absolutely no public debate necessary over how to divy someones resources up. You've got a lot of nerve. These riots were caused by socialist policies and propoganda identical to what you spew.

[Nono]

Quote by: Steve Rioting ... rioting ... rioting ...

Jeez, Steve, don't believe everything you hear. There were, as so often, a handful of violent shitheads who ruined it for everyone else (like company goons on a picket line). Doubt a single one of them was an actual student.

At least they're doing it on their own dime.

Both companies I worked for (National Steel Car and Westinghouse) were recipients of lavish corporate welfare. Still are of course. Name one big company that isn't.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Nono Jeez, Steve, don't believe everything you hear. There were, as so often, a handful of violent shitheads who ruined it for everyone else (like company goons on a picket line). Doubt a single one of them was an actual student.

This might be true. There's probably plenty of propoganda over this thrown in as well, though in many ways it might be that it's time for some real conflicts to erupt. They should probably go ahead and fire anyone rioting (not to mention hold them accountable for damages) and wait until and understanding finally sets in about who's providing who what service. Some ignorance is only curable through the school of hard knocks.

Now don't misunderstand me and believe I'm saying there aren't real grievances many employees can have over many issues but an imagined right to government enforcement of ones employment isn't one of them.

Both companies I worked for (National Steel Car and Westinghouse) were recipients of lavish corporate welfare. Still are of course. Name one big company that isn't.

True, point taken and this again is part of the problem with socialism. I worked for a long time for an aerospace company of which probably half the money they received came from government contracts. Once I realized how working there was simply feeding the beast, I quit and have moved on. 3/4ths of the work I did there was in one form or another mandated by government. Half the work was directly for government, including some for the military, and half of the commercial stuff was still trying to comply with federal agencies. The federal government even managed to get them to implement a goal setting program for employees, so we can spend more time planning (like many people don't spend enough time in meetings already).

[Osborn F Enready]

Pubmanager said: There does however, on the surface of things, seem to be a case that the law is unfair on grounds of basic equality. Why does the law only affect those who are under 25. Are all adults not equal in the eyes of the law?

I say:
Good question, and nice angle. I would like to here that answer.

[Nono]

Quote by: Steve This again is part of the problem with socialism.I worked for a long time for an aerospace company of which probably half the money they received came from government contracts. Once I realized how working there was simply feeding the beast, I quit and have moved on. 3/4ths of the work I did there was in one form or another mandated by government. Half the work was directly for government, including some for the military, and half of the commercial stuff was still trying to comply with federal agencies. The federal government even managed to get them to implement a goal setting program for employees, so we can spend more time planning (like many people don't spend enough time in meetings already).

As someone who'd describe himself as a socialist (for lack of a less baggage-encumbered label) I'd call most of what you describe bureaucracy, which -- and here I speak with some authority -- is just as prevalent in the private sector as the public sector, since it's a function of size.

Though excessive military spending is deplorable, the government contracts do keep some people in employment. (Spending on public goods is far preferable, especially as it enriches society as a whole.)

At the same time, though, government contracts mainly serve to line the pockets of the company's shareholders. There has to be a way of getting that cash back into circulation other than vacation homes in the Caribbean, limos, etc.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Nono a system designed to keep people far less fortunate than yourself out of abject misery by lifting them just clear of absolute poverty,

But it doesn't.

It's supposed to. That was the intention.

But it doesn't.

[jose]

Last time tiny had a job he/she was posting about 20 a day:-)

[Nono]

Quote by: tman It doesn't.

Don't know how far your experience extends beyond the howling wilds of North Dakota, t. But just across the border in Saskatchewan was one of the first places to show how it's done. Course I wouldn't dream of dragging you out of your two-dimensional black/white world or anything.