Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 01:30 am
Quote:
Unions pile pressure on Villepin with threat of a national strike action

By John Lichfield, in Paris
Published: 20 March 2006

After a weekend of mass student demonstrations and scattered street battles, the French government faces the prospect of a prolonged social crisis unless it suspends its new youth jobs rules.

Smelling political blood, trade union leaders will consider calls for a national strike unless the Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, withdraws his "easy hire, easy fire" law for young, first-time, job-seekers.

More than a million students, sixth-formers and sympathisers joined largely peaceful and good-humoured marches against the law in 160 towns and cities on Saturday. But in Paris, running street battles went on for six hours after the demonstrations ended. One of the battles, around the Place de la Nation, in eastern Paris, mostly seemed to involve multiracial gangs from the poorer suburbs who burnt cars and smashed shop windows.

In a separate riot, on the Left Bank, around the Sorbonne university, militant students and far-left activists hurled cobblestones and Molotov cocktails at police in an attempt to re-enter college buildings cleared last week. There were 167 arrests and more than a hundred minor injuries.

The sight of burning barricades and the smell of tear gas on the Left Bank inevitably raised memories of the Paris student and worker "revolution" of May 1968. French political and social commentators - and even leaders of the 1968 revolt, such as Daniel Cohn-Bendit - insist that the dynamics of the present revolt are quite different, though not necessarily easier to control.

In 1968, France was economically prosperous but stifled socially by 10 years of Gaullist conservatism. French students, inspired by the explosion of youth culture in the US, believed that they were fighting for a freer, less-repressive society. The protest began with a demand that male and female students should be allowed to spend nights in one another's dormitories.

In 2006, France has been suffering from high unemployment, and especially high youth unemployment, for more than two decades. The protests are, in a sense, a conservative and inward-looking revolution. The students are demanding the same kind of job security enjoyed by their parents. Far from smelling freedom on the wind from abroad, many young people in France - as seen in the vote against the EU constitution last year - are deeply hostile to what they see as ultra-capitalist, Anglo-Saxon notions of globalism and free trade.

The protests began with an attempt by M. de Villepin to solve France's chronic youth unemployment by making it easier for employers to hire, and also fire, young, first-time workers. His contrat de première embauche (CPE) allows an employer to hire young people under 26 and fire them without specific reason, at any time in the first two years.

The new contracts, adding to rather than replacing a jumble of 700 pieces of existing labour law, are aimed mostly at under-qualified young people in poor suburbs where youth unemployment can reach 70 per cent. This was intended as a partial response to the five weeks of rioting by youth gangs in the suburbs in October and November.

It was not aimed at the university students who have led the protests. They, in the French system, are frequently not ready to look for a first job until they are 26 years old or more.

The vehemence of the protests has been fuelled by a kind of transferred anger. University students in France are part of a second-class system of tertiary education, underfunded and undervalued compared to the elite special colleges or grandes ecoles.

They know that their chances of finding jobs are relatively poor. The CPE, intended for them or not, has become the symbol of what they see as their exclusion from the kinds of privileges enjoyed by earlier generations.

Source
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 08:53 am
On a meeting with indiustry bosses and business managers, Villepin got full support for his law: "This law is a good law, thus it is necessary to keep it. We need it to advance, to grow", one of them said. ["Ce contrat est un bon contrat, donc il faut le sauver. On en a besoin pour avancer, pour croître."]

Those managers , however, wondered, why they (and the government) weren't supported by small and medium-seized firms. [ "Posons-nous la question de savoir pourquoi des chefs d'entreprise de PME n'embauchent pas", a ajouté le président du conseil de surveillance d'Axa. ]

The French Minister for the Small and Medium seized firms called anti-CPE demonstrators "to return to common sense ", and "to be pragmatic".


source: AP/AFP/reuters.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 04:15 pm
Seems that a general strike might happen all over France on March 28.


The government is said to have made today these possible changes to the law:
ad 1: the period of two years could be reduced to 15 months or even one years,
ad 2)reasons for the dimissal should be given by the companies,
ad 3) a compulsary training course for young people should be instituted.

Sources say, all this was rejected as insufficient by unions and student organisations: no CPE, they say.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 05:55 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Seems that a general strike might happen all over France on March 28.


The government is said to have made today these possible changes to the law:
ad 1: the period of two years could be reduced to 15 months or even one years,
ad 2)reasons for the dimissal should be given by the companies,
ad 3) a compulsary training course for young people should be instituted.

Sources say, all this was rejected as insufficient by unions and student organisations: no CPE, they say.


Just the sort of nonsense needed to discourage any investor or to dissuade any company from an attempt to grow the business. Why should an owner of a company, presumably a free man or woman, have to give the government a reason for laying off an employee? I think I'll review my investments for European stocks.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 10:48 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Why should an owner of a company, presumably a free man or woman, have to give the government a reason for laying off an employee?


Well, not the government (sorry, I might have mistranslated that) but the employee/worker - and that has a lot to do with human rights, law history and constitutions ... in our opinion´.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 11:07 pm
(I've just looked it up: employers had to give reasons for laying off a worker/employee at least since the times of North German Federation in 1869. [Don't have other literature here at home.])
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 10:06 am
Are there any limits on what constitutes a sufficient reason? Can an employer fire an employee simply because he is no longer needed? Is that a suffiucient reason?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 10:20 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Are there any limits on what constitutes a sufficient reason? Can an employer fire an employee simply because he is no longer needed? Is that a suffiucient reason?


Well, yes. Within the legal period of notice (either the minimum as said in Civil Code or in collective labour agreement [which is generally so]).

If the company/firm has to fire all workers/employees, a 'social plan' (welfare scheme) has to be worked out.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 10:21 am
(That's for Germany - I think, in France it's similar.)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 02:36 pm
Quote:
http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/imagerepository/RTRPICT/2006-03-21T194105Z_01_PAR507D_RTRIDSP_2_FRANCE_articleimage.jpg

French riot police clash with youths at the end of a student protest march against the youth job law (CPE) in Paris March 21, 2006. French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin told jobless people on Tuesday he was ready to improve his contested youth employment contract, but refused to bow to street protests and a national strike threat.
REUTERS/VICTOR TONELLI
source: Reuters
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 08:04 pm
I guess I find all this a bit confusing. In the U.S. laws vary a bit from state to state, but the normal and prevailing standard is "employment at will", which simply means that employment results from the mutual consent of employeer and employee. It can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason - unless it can be shown that the employer is guilty of unfair discrimination against any of several protected minorities. In such a case the burden of proof is on the accuser: the employer is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Employees also have access to the civil courts.for claims of unfair treartment, discrimination, or failure to adhere to a contract if there is one. However, in these cases too the burden of proof is on the party claiming damages.

Basically rthe government has no place in this process unless a violation of the laws against discrimination can be proven.

Is this generally similar to the situation in France and Germany?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 02:03 am
No, even not basically, I think.

We have a special court system for labour law - ditrict courts, state cout(s), federal court.
At court it "works" like in a civil cases:
- you are fired, think that was unlawful, go to court.
- you, the fired person, are the complainant, your employer is defendant.
- in a pre-trial, a composition is tried by the judge.
German system of Labour Courts


Mostly, that works.

And then, the normal procedure starts - up to the Federal Court of Labour.
(This system works here exactly like this since the Weimar Republic. Before, it was done similar at 'normal' courts. Since those days, btw, we've got Social Courts as well, same hierachy.)

In France, there's a similar system, the Industrial Tribunals
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 12:49 pm
Now, the (hardliner) interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy takes distances himself from Villepin more and more, as to be read in an interview, to be published tomorrow in Paris Match

For the French home secretary, the solution of the crisis consists "of two words: evaluation and experiment".

"If the CPE creates jobs, why fear it, why reject it? Let's experiment. Let's evaluate it in good faith with the unions and student organisations," Sarkozy said.

"If there is incomprehension, it must be because we haven't had enough dialogue. We need to make up lost time. We mustn't get in a state. France is a country that accepts change, but the change has to be seen as fair," he said.

At this moment, he sees three possible solutions:
- either the law works, and in that case it should be kept,
- other and different things should be done, if doesn't work out well,
- if it works only partly, then it should be changed and/or modifies.
Sarkozy told Paris-Match that he supported a six-month test period for the CPE after which it could be evaluated and scrapped if it proved ineffective.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 02:59 pm
Yesterday and today, there were the first hints of new instability in the high-immigration suburbs of Paris where last year's rioting started, with reports of gangs of teenagers roaming the streets, smashing property and stoning schools.

"It is the first rumblings since the November riots," an official from the CRS riot police in the Seine-Saint-Denis department told Le Figaro.


With hundreds of thousands of high-school pupils expected to join university students in strikes and demonstrations tomorrow, officials warned that a climate of lawlessness could easily tip over into more vandalism, car-burnings and clashes with police.
(About 60 universities and nearly 600 colleges/grammar schools will take part in this nationwide demonstration tomorrow.)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 07:13 am
The demonstrations showed the first success:
Villepin hard line (= no discussion at all, the law will come without changes) broke: he offered talks and discussion with the unions and the student organsations about all and everything, on a date, they would suggest - and with the employer's organisation tomorrow or next Monday.

"I wish to meet the social partners quickly so that we can discuss and get answers answers about the concerns of our country's youth."
Quote:
"Je souhaite rencontrer les partenaires sociaux rapidement pour que nous puissions ensemble apporter des réponses aux préoccupations des jeunes de notre pays", a confirmé le chef du gouvernement en quittant le congrès de la FNSEA à Metz.
"Comme je l'ai dit devant la représentation nationale, je souhaite aborder avec vous, dans un esprit de confiance, de responsabilité, et d'ouverture par rapport à vos préoccupations, des discussions sur l'emploi des jeunes et leur parcours d'insertion professionnelle", écrit le Premier ministre dans son courrier.
"Je souhaite également que nous puissions évoquer sans a priori des mesures propres à lever les inquiétudes et les interrogations qui se sont exprimées ces dernières semaines au sujet du contrat première embauche", ajoute-t-il.
"Pour ce faire", Dominique de Villepin propose aux syndicats de les "rencontrer pour une réunion de travail", à leur "convenance le plus rapidement possible".
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 12:00 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Why should an owner of a company, presumably a free man or woman, have to give the government a reason for laying off an employee?


Well, not the government (sorry, I might have mistranslated that) but the employee/worker - and that has a lot to do with human rights, law history and constitutions ... in our opinion´.


Well, even here in the USA, reasons are usually given - as an essential part of the basic human transaction. However the government doesn't get involved in the process, and the failure to guve a reason is not punishable under the law - it is a matter strictly between the two parties.

I must acknowledge that civil actions through the courts by people seeking compensation for alleged damages are far more common here than in Europe. Indeed to some extent this process is a more cumbersome and costly alternative to government-operated administrative processes for adjudiucating such disputes that are common throughout continental Europe. I suspect the difference is our basic mistrust of government functionaries. Juries can be bad: but on the whole we believe bureaucrats are worse.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 03:37 pm
As to be expected, rampaging French youths set fire to cars and looted shops in Paris (and Rennes) today.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 04:29 pm
I know I expected it.

But, I thought it would be in response to the white student rioters, not with them.

Were they with them, or in response?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 06:01 pm
They were mostly with them, if in rather haphazard ways (with a general urge to cause mayhem and steal **** liberally mixed in).

Which is arguably (if, as of now, I admit, rather tentative) material for the case that the suburban, multicultural rioting sprang primarily from social and economic, rather than religious, motivations.

Quote:
Youths from multi-racial troublespots join riots

By John Lichfield in Paris
Published: 23 March 2006
The Independent

France is facing disturbing signs of renewed violent unrest in its poor suburbs, ignited by the deepening student protests against a new jobs law for the young.

There were running battles between police and lycee (sixth-form) pupils in several parts of the northern Paris suburbs yesterday - in the same deprived areas where five weeks of nationwide rioting began last October.

Groups of teenagers stoned riot police and smashed cars after leaving their schools to join the protests against a new "first job" contract, which makes it easier to hire, and fire, first-time workers under 26.

The French Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, now faces the prospect that the student unrest could re-kindle a separate, but related, crisis: the smouldering problems in the poor multi-racial banlieues. Police fear that an influx of teenagers from the suburbs could add a violent edge to peaceful student marches planned in Paris and many other French cities today.

The degree of real political commitment of the suburban youths to the wider student cause is open to doubt. In recent days, small, multi-racial groups of teenagers from the banlieues have been joining the university demonstrations, burning cars and fighting the riot police - but also mugging the older, middle-class students.

In a first sign of a serious split in the centre-right government on how to handle the crisis, the Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, yesterday called for the new jobs law to be applied for a six-month "experimental" period only. This ran directly counter to M. Villepin's statement the previous evening that he would not "suspend" or "tamper with" the law.

In an interview with the magazine Paris-Match, M. Sarkozy denied rumours that he planned to resign before the crisis scarred his hopes of winning the presidency next year.

He did, however, issue a stark warning - in an interview conducted before yesterday's clashes - that the "effervescent" student protests could "re-awaken the agitation in the suburbs, which remain very tense".

M. Villepin's jobs initiative - the contrat première embauche (CPE) or "first job contract" - was intended partly to respond to the crippling youth unemployment in France's poor suburbs. The law provides a two-year trial period in which an employer can sack a young worker without giving a reason.

The Prime Minister argues that this will make it easier for employers to give underqualified, or unqualified, young people a first job.

The CPE has been attacked by university students and trade union federations as an attempt to treat the young as disposable "Kleenex" workers, cheated of the job protections of their parents.

Until the last few days, youngsters in the suburbs have ignored the protests. Some have even welcomed the law as better than no jobs at all.

Since the end of last week, however, lycees pupils have mobilised against the law, including many from the deprived suburbs.

Yesterday, a group of 200 to 300 pupils from two schools stoned riot police and smashed car windows after trying to halt lessons at a lycee in Blanc-Mesnil, in the département of Seine-Saint-Denis, north of Paris. It was in this département that riots began last October, which eventually spread throughout France.

There were also smaller clashes between police and pupils outside lycees in nearby Noisy-le-Sec and Villepinte.

The authorities have become increasingly alarmed by evidence in recent days that suburban youth gangs have decided to intervene in the mostly peaceful student demonstrations. Masked youths battled police for six hours after a march in eastern Paris on Saturday.

So-called casseurs, or vandals, joined other demonstrations in Paris on Tuesday, smashing car windows with baseball bats and stealing mobile phones from other demonstrators.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 12:11 am
Lash wrote:

But, I thought it would be in response to the white student rioters, not with them.


As far as I saw by eye-view in Paris myslef, as far as I could follow French media (printed and televised) and as far as I know from any other possible source: the student riots weren't "white" or of any other colour.
(Which a couple of photos I posted directly or via a link, prove as well, I think.)

What happens now is what the French call - like in the headline of Le Fifaro's frontpage: "Les casseurs déferlent sur les manifestations" which translates to something like "The rioters pour now in the demonstartions":

http://i1.tinypic.com/s42w74.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Riots in France
  3. » Page 12
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/06/2025 at 02:42:25