Riots erupt after French protests

[rmnunez]

Chiraq ratified the PCE law and the modifications were unsatisfactory to the critical left and associateds. More riots and demonstrations, protests, manifestations, strikes or what some Britons refer incongruously to as “industrial actions”, on the horizon for the Parisians.

(Chirac) pledged to shorten from 2 years to 1 the period in which youths under 26 could be fired –(“for cause”). Trade unions said Mr Chirac's plan was unacceptable, and crowds gathered in Paris booed and jeered his speech. Student leaders and unions have vowed to press ahead with a strike called for next week. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4866122.stm

The critical left is hard at work as international socialists plan for their wet dream of an epic General Strike, next week the French will rehearse.

[Nono]

Tell me something, rummie: Why is the left -- in your mouth -- always "critical"?

Are rightists a gang of push-overs? That's the only conclusion I can draw from your tiresomely repetitious verbal tick.

[rmnunez]

Yes, the lefties are always critical. They are basically just anti-establishment types but come in a variety of shades; environmentalists, pacifists, feminists, trade unionists, several types of socialists... you know what I mean. A shared trait as they denounce "the man" is to find plutocratic conspiracies in capitalistic imperialist industrial elites (read some Chomsky).

These are the sort of people outraged over the possibility rookie employees would be denied 2 years guaranteed tenure upon their first offer of employment. Of course, many among them think employment is a "right" and that the state has an obligation to provide it or compensation for its absence.

[bishop]

shit.. who isn't critical of something? you're just another one of those critical righties bub.

[rmnunez]

Sure, but I'm not a lefty. :)

[Matt W]

These are the sort of people outraged over the possibility rookie employees would be denied 2 years guaranteed tenure upon their first offer of employment. Of course, many among them think employment is a "right" and that the state has an obligation to provide it or compensation for its absence.

rmunez, you're wrong on this point. The outrage is not over guaranteeing someone a job for 2 years solid - it's about the removal of the right of anyone under 26 to any kind of employment rights, such as warnings, tribunals, etc, but instead allowing them to be fired without reason or warning. I suggest you study the case a bit harder.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez These are the sort of people outraged over the possibility rookie employees would be denied 2 years guaranteed tenure upon their first offer of employment. Of course, many among them think employment is a "right" and that the state has an obligation to provide it or compensation for its absence.

Maybe THEIR society DOES think it is a right. Who are you to judge? You people make me laugh when you keep calling France a socialist country and then can't understand it when they show how much they ARE.

[rmnunez]

its about the removal of the right of anyone under 26 to any kind of employment rights, such as warnings, tribunals, etc, but instead allowing them to be fired without reason or warning.

The right to terminate under 26 year-old, rookie employees at their first job without cause, should not be abridged. Just think about who we are talking about here. These are probably in most cases still living with their parents, about a quarter of them in some post-secondary institution. They share apartments, usually are unmarried and without kids, travel often. Its a demographic populated by inexperienced people with low levels of responsibility in transition to mature stability, what sensible employer would offer such people guaranteed 2 years employment? No references, no experience and credentials equal to 100 thousand others behind you?

[Matt W]

Quote by: rmnunez The right to terminate under 26 year-old, rookie employees at their first job without cause, should not be abridged. Just think about who we are talking about here. These are probably in most cases still living with their parents, about a quarter of them in some post-secondary institution. They share apartments, usually are unmarried and without kids, travel often. Its a demographic populated by inexperienced people with low levels of responsibility in transition to mature stability, what sensible employer would offer such people guaranteed 2 years employment? No references, no experience and credentials equal to 100 thousand others behind you?

Your're missing the point - again. It's not about guaranteeing people 2 years' employment, it's ripping up and throwing away the whole process of firing someone that is a problem. Why should a 21-year old, having aced their degree, commit to a company that's liable to throw him out in 2 years just because they can get a carbon copy and leave this graduate floundering without providing a reason and thus endangering his chances of getting a similar job? Why do you put profit on age discrimination?

[rmnunez]

Its experience, not age that matters. Twenty somethings lack much experience so they are of uncertain performance. Employers take into account the probability candidates will stay and twenty somethings are more volatile and likely to switch jobs.

Many jobs which require contracts in France are like McDonald's manager or Blockbuster clerk positions, requiring "people skills", not something readily reflected in academic degrees, so the uncertainty over lack of experience mounts.

Employer's can't tell from the resume of a recent graduate whether he is likely to stick with the job, is reliable, wakes up on time, gets along with coworkers... and all sorts of practical and very necessary features which do not provide adequate "cause" to terminate, but yield often disruptive employees who need to be easily removed at minimum cost.

Work is regimented, organized and subject to evaluation on strict standards, ex-students don't take well to any of this and since they lack experience are more often than not energetically opposed to such constraints.

Additionally, often recent graduates come into the workforce full of radical ideas which, though sometimes imaginative and even meritorious in some way, not always are -but they don't accomodate differing views as well, especially those taught by experience. This would cause friction with more experienced workers the candidates will have to work with.

[Matt W]

None of this anecdotal 'evidence' remotely justifies firing them without a reason or notice.

[rmnunez]

Firing without reason or notice is one thing and termination "for cause" standards are at the opposite extreme. Between these two ends we've got all sorts of gradations which justify an employee's termination, sometimes even without notice. My guess is that the PCE allows under 26 year olds to be terminated from their first job within 2 years too close to "without reason or notice" than the critical left finds acceptable. But the critical left thinks employment is a human right too.

[Matt W]

You really love your idiotic labels, don't you, rmnunez? What is it with this 'critical lefties' BS?

I don't view employment as a human right, but I do say that an employer has a duty to it's employees. Age discrimination is an erosion of that duty.

[tinybear]

What's wrong with age discrimination in employment? Let's say you wish to employ an office messenger. Is there anything wrong with you preferring to employ people under the age of 40 because the job requires frequent physical exertions and it's quite obvious that a younger person will get the job done more efficiently?

[jose]

What's wrong with age discrimination in employment? Let's say you wish to employ an horny secretary Is there anything wrong with you preferring to employ people under the age of 40 because the job requires frequent physical exertions and it's quite obvious that a younger person will get the job done more efficiently?
and if she doesn´t ..er shape up fire her arse, ring any bells tiny? :)

[rmnunez]

Matt, a "critical lefty" is someone with two obvious features:

a) they can be counted on to always find fault in whatever the government, 'establishment' or authority seeks, regardless of its sense and need,

and

b) their answer involves taking money, power or priviledge from some dark conspiratorial plutocratic elite only they can see and which allegedly controls everything.

People who don't think they are "critical lefties", but find themselves always objecting to everything the authority does finding some dark ulterior motive and invariably advocating an answer which involves government spending (preferably by seizing property from the ulterior motivated), consider yourself aluded to. Like they say, "if the shoe fits..."

[Matt W]

Hah. Interesting definition, but sadly wrong. Go think of people as individuals before punching out one-size-fits-all labels.

[rmnunez]

Yes Matt, but it derails discussion. If I get into a discussion with you over whether you specifically might fit within the label "critical lefty", you will trot out your ideological premises and highlight the outstanding features which makes this wordview of yours so sound, sensible and the only reasonable answer to whatever the issue in discussion, however, this ideology is irrelevant, you should be correct regardless of your perspective.

[tinybear]

'French Are Lazy Frogs'
Updated: 10:36, Tuesday April 04, 2006

The head of a UK low-cost airline has defended himself for branding the French "lazy frogs".

Philip Meeson, chief executive of Jet2.com, was incensed when one of his planes was delayed flying back to Britain by protesting French students.

Police at Chambery airport in the French Alps allowed about 50 students to stage a runway sit-down that stopped Jet2's passengers boarding a Boeing 737.

The plane eventually took off for Leeds Bradford airport, where it arrived 90 minutes late.

On his airline's website, Mr Meeson had complained last week about a strike by French air traffic controllers and called for "lazy frogs to get back to work".

He repeated the comment after the latest delay, claiming the police had done nothing to stop the Chambery runway protest.

"The 'lazy frogs' comment was meant to be a bit of fun. It was tongue-in-cheek. After all, the French call us 'les rosbifs'," said Mr Meeson.

"It seems to me that either the air traffic controllers or the students run France at the moment."

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...517205,00.html

[Nono]

Quote by: sky "The 'lazy frogs' comment was meant to be a bit of fun. It was tongue-in-cheek. After all, the French call us 'les rosbifs'," said Mr Meeson.

Yeah, lotsa fun. What an asshole. Can you imagine if a senior Air France official made a public remark about "les rosbifs"?