France: Mass protests against proposed labour reforms

[Chessmistress]

El Khomri doesn't allow to fire pregnant women.
El Khomri does allow to fire people without giving a reason.

So why raise it as an example?

Because El Khomri:
De jure doesn't allow to fire pregnant women
De facto allow to fire pregnant women

And that is very clear, since El Khomri allow to fire people for "no reason".

* sarcasm*
I still wait for a source about a document signed by Adolf Hitler ordering the Holocaust, otherwise we will never be sure he was agreeing with it...
* end sarcasm*

[Arkolon]

So why raise it as an example?

Because El Khomri:
De jure doesn't allow to fire pregnant women
De facto allow to fire pregnant women

And that is very clear, since El Khomri allow to fire people for "no reason".

* sarcasm*
I still wait for a source about a document signed by Adolf Hitler ordering the Holocaust, otherwise we will never be sure he was agreeing with it...
* end sarcasm*

El Khomri is a piece of legislation, Hitler only gave oral command to perform the Holocaust. You can quote a text, I can't go back in time. If you refuse to, we might as well not believe you.

[Chessmistress]

Because El Khomri:
De jure doesn't allow to fire pregnant women
De facto allow to fire pregnant women

And that is very clear, since El Khomri allow to fire people for "no reason".

* sarcasm*
I still wait for a source about a document signed by Adolf Hitler ordering the Holocaust, otherwise we will never be sure he was agreeing with it...
* end sarcasm*

El Khomri is a piece of legislation, Hitler only gave oral command to perform the Holocaust. You can quote a text, I can't go back in time. If you refuse to, we might as well not believe you.

There aren't proofs that Hitler gave commands, since there aren't documents proving it.
The same for El Khomri allowing firing pregnant women: it's not expresely written in the law - the law just only states that people can be fired with "no reason".

http://www.france24.com/en/20160305-fra ... signatures

The El Khomri law has angered France’s powerful unions, in part because it would allow companies to reach agreements with their staff over working conditions – including on maximum working hours and overtime pay – without the need to negotiate with the trade groups.

This is about the "forfait" practice: you'll work 5 hours overtime, you'll be paid 2 hours overtime.

http://www.france24.com/en/20160229-fra ... employment

Critics say the measures would effectively dismantle job guarantees for workers, forcing employees to accept longer hours for the same or less pay. Or allow employers to quickly fire staff if they refuse.

Currently French companies have to justify in court plans to shed workers due to an economic downturn, a process they have complained makes it difficult and expensive to trim staff when the economy slows.

They're lying: if they have operating losses, it's easy to document they have an excess of workers...

I didn't know such details until two minutes ago: I don't need such details about France, because I have see such kind of laws introduced elsewhere, in two different countries, and it's always the very same shit...

[Arkolon]

http://www.france24.com/en/20160305-france-labor-reform-petition-hits-million-signatures

The El Khomri law has angered France’s powerful unions, in part because it would allow companies to reach agreements with their staff over working conditions – including on maximum working hours and overtime pay – without the need to negotiate with the trade groups.

I don't see what delegating union-employer negotiations to the company (and not sector) level has to do with firing pregnant women. This clause is only important when an employee refuses to comply with an agreed contract put forward by his union and his employer in joint accord. If you refuse to work on a contract negotiated by employees' representatives and your employer, why should your employer keep you?

This is about the "forfait" practice: you'll work 5 hours overtime, you'll be paid 2 hours overtime.

http://www.france24.com/en/20160229-fra ... employment

Critics say the measures would effectively dismantle job guarantees for workers, forcing employees to accept longer hours for the same or less pay. Or allow employers to quickly fire staff if they refuse.

Currently French companies have to justify in court plans to shed workers due to an economic downturn, a process they have complained makes it difficult and expensive to trim staff when the economy slows.

They're lying: if they have operating losses, it's easy to document they have an excess of workers...

Still not seeing anything about what you previously claimed. At this point I can safely consider it a lie, honest or not.

[Chessmistress]

http://www.france24.com/en/20160305-france-labor-reform-petition-hits-million-signatures

I don't see what delegating union-employer negotiations to the company (and not sector) level has to do with firing pregnant women. This clause is only important when an employee refuses to comply with an agreed contract put forward by his union and his employer in joint accord. If you refuse to work on a contract negotiated by employees' representatives and your employer, why should your employer keep you?

I'm beginning to have some doubts about your reading skills:
It says the "contract" would NOT be negotiated by employees' representatives, aka trade unions, that's the point.
Obiousvly this point is about not paying the overtimes, not about flying elephants or pregnant women.

This is about the "forfait" practice: you'll work 5 hours overtime, you'll be paid 2 hours overtime.

http://www.france24.com/en/20160229-fra ... employment



They're lying: if they have operating losses, it's easy to document they have an excess of workers...

Still not seeing anything about what you previously claimed. At this point I can safely consider it a lie, honest or not.

Yes, I understand I'm wasting my time.
That piece was about the "forfait": you'll have to work 5 hours overtime in order to get paid 2 hours.
It wasn't about firing pregnant women.
However, if you like to perform unpaid overtime, I think you'll be welcome by those employers. Even better if you'll work for free...

*sarcasm*
Still not seeing anything about what you previously claimed about Hitler ordered the Holocaust. At this point I can safely consider it a lie, honest or not.
*end sarcasm*

[Eol Sha]

And I had such high hopes for Hollande back in 2012.

[Major-Tom]

And I had such high hopes for Hollande back in 2012.

Hollande went through with many of his left wing promises, which included raising income taxes, increasing the welfare state, among other things. It nearly destroyed France, which is why his cabinet now has to move to the center.

It's ironic, the French left hates Hollande for betraying them, but he only betrayed his left wing ideals because they didn't fucking work the first time.

[Geilinor]

And I had such high hopes for Hollande back in 2012.

So did I, but that ended two years ago for me.

[Major-Tom]

And I had such high hopes for Hollande back in 2012.

So did I, but that ended two years ago for me.

Lord knows why anyone had hope for him after the first two months.

[Constantinopolis]

I respond to it by saying that the state should provide public sector jobs to the unemployed, and expand the public sector as necessary in order to do this.

And of course, ideally, the public sector should encompass the entire economy, but that's another story.

What would they do in the public sector? Building infrastructure ignores that not all unemployed are low-skilled and/or have the skills necessary (nor the desire, quite frankly...) to partake in such projects. Working in government administration is costly and inefficient, as all unemployed can't fit in the sector. And paying them for nothing disincentivises work and doesn't resolve the core problem.

You are displaying a rather shocking lack of imagination here.

The public sector is not limited to building infrastructure plus government administration. And even if it were, my point is precisely that the public sector should be expanded. State-owned enterprises should be doing more things. They can and should be set up in any industry. So, part of the unemployed could be hired to build infrastructure, but another part could work in energy production, and yet another part could be hired by state-owned heavy industry, or light industry, or agriculture, or scientific research, or software development, or even retail. There can be - and, ideally, there should be - state-owned enterprises doing all of these things, and more.

Obviously, I'm not suggesting that the French state should launch a million different projects at once. But I am suggesting that it should launch several different projects - not just in infrastructure, but also in other areas of the economy - and employ people to work on those projects.

[HMS Vanguard]

What would they do in the public sector? Building infrastructure ignores that not all unemployed are low-skilled and/or have the skills necessary (nor the desire, quite frankly...) to partake in such projects. Working in government administration is costly and inefficient, as all unemployed can't fit in the sector. And paying them for nothing disincentivises work and doesn't resolve the core problem.

You are displaying a rather shocking lack of imagination here.

The public sector is not limited to building infrastructure plus government administration. And even if it were, my point is precisely that the public sector should be expanded. State-owned enterprises should be doing more things. They can and should be set up in any industry. So, part of the unemployed could be hired to build infrastructure, but another part could work in energy production, and yet another part could be hired by state-owned heavy industry, or light industry, or agriculture, or scientific research, or software development, or even retail. There can be - and, ideally, there should be - state-owned enterprises doing all of these things, and more.

Obviously, I'm not suggesting that the French state should launch a million different projects at once. But I am suggesting that it should launch several different projects - not just in infrastructure, but also in other areas of the economy - and employ people to work on those projects.

When you impose a cost on employing people, as France has, you get unemployment among those whose labour is worth less than the fixed cost of hiring.

Suppose due to socialist regulations, in France it costs $5k/year to employ someone.

If someone makes $300k for the firm and demands a salary of $250k that is fine. We are still up $45k after paying him, and paying the deadweight costs imposed by the state.

If someone makes $15k for the firm and the law does not permit salaries to drop below $12k, we can only employ him at a $2k loss, so we won't employ him.

So, French unemployment is disproportionately of comparatively useless people. If the French state sets up complex enterprises, they will not employ these people, because those enterprises need skilled labour, not bottom-of-the-barrel unskilled labour.

If on the other hand the French state set up an enterprise providing lots of easy, low value jobs, like setting up teams to go around picking up litter or improving public gardens, it could employ a lot of these people. But, either the state must be exempted from the costly employment laws (in which case, why not exempt the private sector too?) or the state enterprise must operate at a loss, which means it isn't an enterprise at all, it's just welfare by another name.

[Constantinopolis]

So, French unemployment is disproportionately of comparatively useless people. If the French state sets up complex enterprises, they will not employ these people, because those enterprises need skilled labour, not bottom-of-the-barrel unskilled labour.

Being unskilled and being "comparatively useless" (by which you mean, being below average at your job) are two completely different things, and you are making a huge error in confusing them.

A software engineer can fall under your "comparatively useless" category, simply by being less good at his job than the majority of other software engineers. But that doesn't mean that he's unskilled. He's not a highschool drop-out. He's still a software engineer, just not as good as some other software engineers.

And furthermore, the French state does not need to tailor its projects to employ precisely those people who are currently unemployed. It just needs to create jobs. It does not matter if those jobs are filled by the currently unemployed, or by people who currently have jobs in the private sector. In the latter case - if the new state jobs are filled by people who already have other jobs - those people will leave their old jobs, who will then become available for the unemployed to take.

If on the other hand the French state set up an enterprise providing lots of easy, low value jobs, like setting up teams to go around picking up litter or improving public gardens, it could employ a lot of these people. But, either the state must be exempted from the costly employment laws (in which case, why not exempt the private sector too?) or the state enterprise must operate at a loss, which means it isn't an enterprise at all, it's just welfare by another name.

And here you are making another false assumption: You are assuming that the employment laws are "costly" in the very literal sense that it costs money for an enterprise to follow them.

Actually, for the most part, the "cost" of the employment laws consists of the fact that it is difficult for companies to fire people, so they are very cautious about hiring, because they are worried that if something bad happens in the future, they will not be able to downsize by firing people. This is not a "cost" in the sense that they are paying extra money to hire people. It's a "cost" in the sense that they are worried about their future prospects if they hire too many people.

The state does not have the same worries about future prospects, so it does not face the same "costs" when hiring, even if it follows the exact same employment laws.

[HMS Vanguard]

So, French unemployment is disproportionately of comparatively useless people. If the French state sets up complex enterprises, they will not employ these people, because those enterprises need skilled labour, not bottom-of-the-barrel unskilled labour.

Being unskilled and being "comparatively useless" (by which you mean, being below average at your job) are two completely different things, and you are making a huge error in confusing them.

A software engineer can fall under your "comparatively useless" category, simply by being less good at his job than the majority of other software engineers. But that doesn't mean that he's unskilled. He's not a highschool drop-out. He's still a software engineer, just not as good as some other software engineers.

You have not understood what I am saying, which is that fixed costs on employment do not affect people equally across professions and classes. Here is what I said again:

"Suppose due to socialist regulations, in France it costs $5k/year to employ someone.

"If someone makes $300k for the firm and demands a salary of $250k that is fine. We are still up $45k after paying him, and paying the deadweight costs imposed by the state.

"If someone makes $15k for the firm and the law does not permit salaries to drop below $12k, we can only employ him at a $2k loss, so we won't employ him."

Fixed costs on employment disproportionately make low productivity workers unemployable. They reduce the employment prospects of the best garbage truck driver more than they reduce the employment prospects of the worst investment banker. This is one reason why France's unemployment - which is high for the total population - is devastatingly awful among its immigrant communities, while La Défense glitters almost as brightly as Canary Wharf. Guess what sort of social problems that can cause!

And furthermore, the French state does not need to tailor its projects to employ precisely those people who are currently unemployed. It just needs to create jobs. It does not matter if those jobs are filled by the currently unemployed, or by people who currently have jobs in the private sector. In the latter case - if the new state jobs are filled by people who already have other jobs - those people will leave their old jobs, who will then become available for the unemployed to take.

If the French state creates jobs that can only be done by people who are currently employed they will simply shift people from the private sector to the state sector (or some parts of the state sector to new parts) and leave total unemployment unchanged. The French state can well just increase the price of hiring a software engineer by introducing more competition to employ software engineers, without increasing prospects at all for someone who is only good at driving a garbage truck.

If on the other hand the French state set up an enterprise providing lots of easy, low value jobs, like setting up teams to go around picking up litter or improving public gardens, it could employ a lot of these people. But, either the state must be exempted from the costly employment laws (in which case, why not exempt the private sector too?) or the state enterprise must operate at a loss, which means it isn't an enterprise at all, it's just welfare by another name.

And here you are making another false assumption: You are assuming that the employment laws are "costly" in the very literal sense that it costs money for an enterprise to follow them.

Actually, for the most part, the "cost" of the employment laws consists of the fact that it is difficult for companies to fire people, so they are very cautious about hiring, because they are worried that if something bad happens in the future, they will not be able to downsize by firing people. This is not a "cost" in the sense that they are paying extra money to hire people. It's a "cost" in the sense that they are worried about their future prospects if they hire too many people.

It is a real cost. If there is a risk of large costs in the future, I must save money now so that I am able to cover those costs if they appear. It is just as much a real cost as my car insurance is a real cost. Doesn't matter that I didn't have an accident this morning, I must pay to cover the risk. Now, the risk of me hitting someone with my car is an unavoidable physical risk, whereas the French state's unemployment laws are totally avoidable costs; moreover they disproportionately hurt the worst off in society, so socialists shouldn't support them, only vested interests should (hello unions!).

The state does not have the same worries about future prospects, so it does not face the same "costs" when hiring, even if it follows the exact same employment laws.

Yes it does face that risk. If the state employs someone to pick up litter, he gets sent to prison, but still can't be fired, the state must keep paying him to do no useful work. Of course, the state can afford to continue paying - but it's still paying out money for nothing. As I said, either the state litter company is expected to make a loss - it is a welfare programme dressed up as a business - or it has to select employees preferentially who are unlikely to be sent to prison - in which case it will leave Banlieue residents on the shelf just as private sector companies do.

[Arkolon]

What would they do in the public sector? Building infrastructure ignores that not all unemployed are low-skilled and/or have the skills necessary (nor the desire, quite frankly...) to partake in such projects. Working in government administration is costly and inefficient, as all unemployed can't fit in the sector. And paying them for nothing disincentivises work and doesn't resolve the core problem.

You are displaying a rather shocking lack of imagination here.

The public sector is not limited to building infrastructure plus government administration. And even if it were, my point is precisely that the public sector should be expanded. State-owned enterprises should be doing more things. They can and should be set up in any industry. So, part of the unemployed could be hired to build infrastructure, but another part could work in energy production, and yet another part could be hired by state-owned heavy industry, or light industry, or agriculture, or scientific research, or software development, or even retail. There can be - and, ideally, there should be - state-owned enterprises doing all of these things, and more.

Obviously, I'm not suggesting that the French state should launch a million different projects at once. But I am suggesting that it should launch several different projects - not just in infrastructure, but also in other areas of the economy - and employ people to work on those projects.

You're right, I am indeed showing a lack of imagination, only because the state can offer so few job opportunities these days. Without France going full-communist and nationalising every inch of private industry in order to fulfill your dream of universal job security - which I think I can safely say is not predicted any time in the foreseeable future - what jobs do you think the state could give its unemployed in the public sector, keeping in mind these people are of many different skills and trades?

[Kilobugya]

The myth that giving more powers to employers and allowing them to fire people more easily leads to higher employment is nothing but that - a myth. This law will do nothing but, once again, shift equilibrium in favor of the employers and stock owners, and decreasing the quality of life of most people. It's time for us French people (but not limited to us, sure) to stop this deregulation/neoliberalism nightmare, to not only block this law, but to actually conquer new rights for workers, and to fight back in the class struggle.

[Arkolon]

The myth that giving more powers to employers and allowing them to fire people more easily leads to higher employment is nothing but that - a myth.

Could you elaborate on how it is a myth? As far as I can tell it has been reasonably justified to believe that strict labour laws that make firing harder make hiring less attractive, and it's equally reasonable to assume the opposite. Since conventional thought lies on my side and the counterclaim on yours, maybe you would like to elaborate on your thinking on this one.

[Kilobugya]

You're right, I am indeed showing a lack of imagination, only because the state can offer so few job opportunities these days. Without France going full-communist and nationalising every inch of private industry in order to fulfill your dream of universal job security - which I think I can safely say is not predicted any time in the foreseeable future - what jobs do you think the state could give its unemployed in the public sector, keeping in mind these people are of many different skills and trades?

Many. It can start massive infrastructure building programs (in public transport, in public housing sector, ...); it can grant them training to fill the enormous need we have in education and healthcare. It can nationalize or re-nationalize some key industries without nationalizing every private industry. It can help cooperatives, allow employees of factories/companies that are closed by their owner to take back the means of production in form of a cooperative with interest-free loans to upgrade them. It can grant to elected representatives of workers additional control over management of companies, enough power to block most "oh let's move in China so we can pay workers less" plans. It can lower the working week to 32 hours, grant a sixth week of paid holidays. It can massively increase the minimal wage to stimulate demand. There are countless things the state can and should do, to shift the balance of power away from the capitalists, but instead improve the living conditions of workers.

[Kilobugya]

The myth that giving more powers to employers and allowing them to fire people more easily leads to higher employment is nothing but that - a myth.

Could you elaborate on how it is a myth? As far as I can tell it has been reasonably justified to believe that strict labour laws that make firing harder make hiring less attractive, and it's equally reasonable to assume the opposite. Since conventional thought lies on my side and the counterclaim on yours, maybe you would like to elaborate on your thinking on this one.

It has been done, and it just doesn't work. Countries like Italy, Greece, Portugal, and even France have been lowering workers protection since decades, and it didn't change unemployment rate at all. And it's not "reasonably justified" at all that making it easier to fire people actually leads to less people being fired, quite the opposite.

Companies don't employ based on easy it is to fire or how much they can exploit. Companies employ or refuse to employ based on how much activity they estimate they'll have - if they get lots of demand, they'll hire even if with strict labour laws, if they don't have much demand, they won't hire. What strict labour laws do is 1. protect workers during a recession, preventing the recession from deepening through vicious circle (less demand => we fire workers => even less demand => we fire even more workers) and 2. give workers enough ability to plan ahead their lives and enough bargain power so they can get decent salaries, which in turn increase demand.

[Arkolon]

You're right, I am indeed showing a lack of imagination, only because the state can offer so few job opportunities these days. Without France going full-communist and nationalising every inch of private industry in order to fulfill your dream of universal job security - which I think I can safely say is not predicted any time in the foreseeable future - what jobs do you think the state could give its unemployed in the public sector, keeping in mind these people are of many different skills and trades?

Many.

My post was a reply to another poster responding to my own claim that lumping everyone together in infrastructure/public works or administration was unfeasible since the sectors aren't big enough to accommodate a portion of the population as great as the French unemployed population. The rest of your post seems to be offering a differing vision of communism than the other poster's, so for everyone's benefit, maybe we should stick to scenarios probable in the confines of the real world and its immediate future and not one where the French government will either Bolshevikise or Kropotkinise itself.

[Kilobugya]

My post was a reply to another poster responding to my own claim that lumping everyone together in infrastructure/public works or administration was unfeasible since the sectors aren't big enough to accommodate a portion of the population as great as the French unemployed population.

Those sectors can be made quite big - especially since public healthcare and education are part of "the administration" as a whole, and since the French state already controls 80% of the only major electricity company (it used to control all of it) and a significant share of Orange (biggest ISP/cell phone provider), Engie (natural gas), Air France (aviation), Renault (car maker), ... it's not like the French state has no control over vast sectors of the economy if it desired to wield it.

The rest of your post seems to be offering a differing vision of communism than the other poster's, so for everyone's benefit, maybe we should stick to scenarios probable in the confines of the real world and its immediate future and not one where the French government will either Bolshevikise or Kropotkinise itself.

Front de Gauche being elected to govern France on a near future isn't impossible. Not the most likely event, but not impossible (especially when you see Syriza and Podemos), and definitely the one we should strive for.

[Arkolon]

Could you elaborate on how it is a myth? As far as I can tell it has been reasonably justified to believe that strict labour laws that make firing harder make hiring less attractive, and it's equally reasonable to assume the opposite. Since conventional thought lies on my side and the counterclaim on yours, maybe you would like to elaborate on your thinking on this one.

Companies don't employ based on easy it is to fire or how much they can exploit. Companies employ or refuse to employ based on how much activity they estimate they'll have - if they get lots of demand, they'll hire even if with strict labour laws, if they don't have much demand, they won't hire. What strict labour laws do is 1. protect workers during a recession, preventing the recession from deepening through vicious circle (less demand => we fire workers => even less demand => we fire even more workers) and 2. give workers enough ability to plan ahead their lives and enough bargain power so they can get decent salaries, which in turn increase demand.

Companies don't focus solely on demand/activity. Companies put primordial emphasis on profit: they will hire to increase profit and they will fire to increase profit. Everything they do is, in brute conventional business thinking, to increase profit. When firing, downsizing or restructuring comes with a cost (as in the burdensome plans sociaux in France) or legal barrier, hiring freely in the quest for profit comes with that cost, a cost of risk in case the person needs firing. This is antithetical to the quest for profit, and as such companies would prefer to stay small rather than quickly expand as they are more profitable that way. This slows employment growth.

You're also forgetting two things. Firstly, that there are other models to go by - my preferred one is the Danish model, which has a hyperflexible labour market (25% of Danish private sector workers change jobs every year) but a resilient, rich welfare system that provides adequate income security. This keeps demand high when there is a glut. Secondly, you're also forgetting that safe and secure job markets, although giving adequate security to those with jobs, "locks out" those without jobs from a quasi-impenetrable labour market as employers are less inclined to hire them. This has been the case in France: since the glut, for example, 90% of new jobs have been CDDs, which typically last about 3 months. CDIs are rarely offered yet those with CDIs are extraordinarily expensive to fire. This has not been very good at offering job security to those without jobs and has been better at doing the opposite: securing their unemployment.

[Arkolon]

My post was a reply to another poster responding to my own claim that lumping everyone together in infrastructure/public works or administration was unfeasible since the sectors aren't big enough to accommodate a portion of the population as great as the French unemployed population.

Those sectors can be made quite big - especially since public healthcare and education are part of "the administration" as a whole, and since the French state already controls 80% of the only major electricity company (it used to control all of it) and a significant share of Orange (biggest ISP/cell phone provider), Engie (natural gas), Air France (aviation), Renault (car maker), ... it's not like the French state has no control over vast sectors of the economy if it desired to wield it.

I'm not going to do the maths but I can safely guess all these sectors could not fit an additional 3+ million people among their ranks - and even then you're forgetting not all unemployed persons are skilled in any of these professions. We can't hire a baker to be a nurse or a steel mill worker to work in telecoms. A-job-for-all policy could be viable if the public sector encompassed the whole economy (and then the policy would only be inefficient at best) and that is definitely not foreseeable in the immediate future. Let's remember the nature of this thread: the current edits being discussed to the French labour law.

The rest of your post seems to be offering a differing vision of communism than the other poster's, so for everyone's benefit, maybe we should stick to scenarios probable in the confines of the real world and its immediate future and not one where the French government will either Bolshevikise or Kropotkinise itself.

Front de Gauche being elected to govern France on a near future isn't impossible. Not the most likely event, but not impossible (especially when you see Syriza and Podemos), and definitely the one we should strive for.

As cute as this sounds it still isn't the immediate future I asked that we confine ourselves to.

[Infected Mushroom]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/france-mass-protests-proposed-labour-reforms-160331180555863.html

Hundreds of thousands of workers and students took to the streets of French cities on Thursday, braving heavy rain to protest against proposed labour changes.

The demonstrations - which led to scores of arrests as youths and police clashed in a number of cities - were part of a nationwide strike against changes that could alter France's 35-hour working week and make it easier to hire and fire employees.

So, what do you think, NSG? I for one like the sight of young people and workers protesting against the curtailment of their rights. It seems like this is part of the government's attempts do decrease unemployment. The French parliament will vote on the labor reforms late this month/May. So, who do you stand with? The workers or the government? Comment below.

I'm not going to stand with either side. Workers want more money, government/employers want to maintain the status quo. Unless a contract has been breached somewhere, I'm not inclined to take a side. I have nothing to gain by supporting either side, I'm not even French.

[Daffyflippingduck]

If you take a baby's toys away, prepare for a tantrum.

[Roski]

Could you elaborate on how it is a myth? As far as I can tell it has been reasonably justified to believe that strict labour laws that make firing harder make hiring less attractive, and it's equally reasonable to assume the opposite. Since conventional thought lies on my side and the counterclaim on yours, maybe you would like to elaborate on your thinking on this one.

It has been done, and it just doesn't work. Countries like Italy, Greece, Portugal, and even France have been lowering workers protection since decades, and it didn't change unemployment rate at all. And it's not "reasonably justified" at all that making it easier to fire people actually leads to less people being fired, quite the opposite.

Companies don't employ based on easy it is to fire or how much they can exploit. Companies employ or refuse to employ based on how much activity they estimate they'll have - if they get lots of demand, they'll hire even if with strict labour laws, if they don't have much demand, they won't hire. What strict labour laws do is 1. protect workers during a recession, preventing the recession from deepening through vicious circle (less demand => we fire workers => even less demand => we fire even more workers) and 2. give workers enough ability to plan ahead their lives and enough bargain power so they can get decent salaries, which in turn increase demand.

yes and no.

Companies do employ based on how easy it is to fire. Risk management. If you open up shop in Paris, just to find out its not doing as well as your store in Clermont-Ferrand, then you fire everyone in Paris and close up shop, because you're losing money.

They don't hire based on how much they can exploit though.