A Q and A page from the BBC....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4816306.stm
My view is that they brought in this law, knowing that it was too tough, in order to negotiate it down to the type of law that they wanted in the first place.
My brother is up to his neck in work in France. People are screaming out for electricians, and he really can't keep up with demand. He and his business partner employ seven men, aged between 30 and 40 ish, all carefully hand picked from electricians they have worked with in the past, as colleagues, before my brother set up his company.
They therefore knew from day one, that these guys were good, reliable and trustworthy.
They HAD to select their employees this way, as taking on a youngster (to train) means that after about three months, it becomes virtually impossible to sack them.
They have been down that road once, when they first started up and were naive, and ended up with a 19 yr old who, after his three months "trial period" was passed, became lazy, surly and unreliable virtually overnight. They made a policy there and then, not to go down THAT road again.
Luckily, the 19 yr old's family moved out of the area, and he decided to go with them. My brother and his partner went out that evening, to celebrate.
He was over here recently and we were discussing this issue. He is very much an old fashioned tradesman at heart, and would dearly love to "give back" in the form of training apprentices if he could, but just can't take the risk.
If this law comes into being, he said he would probably take on an apprentice, and so would his partner (and maybe one or two of his employees would do the same).
With the work demand, he could easily increase his employee numbers by five or six, but won't consider doing this unless the new law comes in.
The danger is, that both he and his partner (AND three of their employees) are seriously considering winding down, or early retirement, as the overloaded work scenario has both made them all earn a LOT of money, and made them feel overworked and stressed out.
He says that most of the building trades, with whom he rubs shoulders every day, are all saying exactly the same thing. Too much work, too much risk when it comes to taking on apprentices, and early retirement on the horizon.
What will happen to France, if this employer risk is not removed, in about five years time?
A large proportion of the skilled trades will have retired, and there will be no young French blood to replace them.
Then they will all complain (again....remember the main reason for rejecting the constitution?) about workers coming in from the Eastern EU, and taking over.
His other point was very interesting. All of the power on both sides of the argument, are only working out of pure self interest, in his opinion.
He says that the general opinion among his building site mates (from all trades, employers and employees...good, ordinary working men) is that the trades union bosses don't give a sh*t about their workers, but have to fight this law, in order not to upset them. If they didn't fight this law, they would be out of a comfy, well paid desk job that includes a wonderful expenses budget.
Their first point of call, when wanting to get the government to cave in, is to either get the farmers/transport people out there with their tractors and trucks, or get the students to stamp their feet.
The students are already doing their bit, so watch out for the blockades. Knowing the french, this will happen over the Easter holidays, and will probably involve Calais, the biggest tourist ferryport from England to France.
By doing this, they cause massive publicity AND annoy the Brits, which they see as a bonus.
The law will be watered down...........substantially, IMO.
