The protests against the CPE (Contrat Première Embauche = First Job Contract) have been ongoing for about five weeks now, disrupting quite a lot of services in France. Today massive strikes were held throughout France where not only students susceptible of being affected by this new law, but also workers in the private sector took part.

I'm lucky that my university is among the 25% of universities which are still operational, and has not been blockaded by its students. In Paris, some colleges, secondary schools and universities have already been blocked for five weeks, and classes can not be held there.

Now, I know that the French have a reputation for protesting for nearly anything they can protest about (I don't have statistics, but I'd wager a quite large bet on France having the most days of strikes during a year in Europe on average for the last couple of decades), but after a certain time it does get tireing.

There are already some student movements, which have formed against the blockading of universities, since some students (especially the foreigners, who can't stay until september to sit late exams) want to study.

And about the law everyone is protesting about: the main problem the students have with it is that in the first two years of the contract the employer (and coincidentally also the employee) can end the contract without giving any further explanation. This proposal was created after the troubles during november/december (the troubles during which a few thousand cars were torched), so as to facilitate young people from the "difficult" suburbs in getting jobs for themselves.

So basically whatever way this situation goes, it shall be bad for the french goverment and the prime minister especially who, going by the current trend, shall probably lose the next elections.

The students and the unions want the law to be fully withdrawn, while the prime minister says that he will not withdraw it, but might consider making changes.


My opinion on this issue is divided. While I can see what problems the protesters have with the law, I think the protests are going too far. I mean blockading universities is, as far as I know, illegal, since they are public places. I'm not referring to the trouble makers who slip among the crowds and throw various objects at the police here, because in any demonstration of a certain size, they shall be there. Luckily for the moment they aren't representative of the movement.

So...to cut a post beginning to get long short, what are other peoples' opinions on this situation?

Is that the law that states that people under 26 can get laid off from work without any explanation?

From: http://libcom.org/blog/what-is-the-cpe/

Edit: the link contains quite a bit more useful information about the subject by the way.

[ 03-28-2006, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: dplax ]

Look, the workers in France need to grow up. In the U.S. we are mostly employed "at will." Basically, most every employer here can fire a worker at will, without cause. Conversely, we can quit at will, without cause. I'm in a high-paid professional job, and can lose it at any moment.

Maybe if in France you had to live with this possibility on a daily basis, your workers would actually *WORK* rather than protest for 11 months and then take the entire month of August off.

That's not the whole story though - in the UK we live under the threat of a firing much like in the US and we work far longer hours and take less holiday than Europe.

Yet somehow those Frenchies are still at least 1/4 more productive then us by any measure - choosing a path other than a dog-eat-dog labour market does not necessarily lead to unproductive workers and idleness in the workforce.

[ 03-28-2006, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

I wouldn't like a system like that. Here in Quebec if you are fired without a good reason you can take it up to the government and get your job back. I like that an employer can't fire you just because he decided he doesn't like you.

[ 03-28-2006, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

We've got the two-weeks rule here (either side needs to inform the other of the decision to leave/terminate two weeks before the end of the employer/employee relationship,) and I've never heard anyone complain about it. While there is something to be said for job security, there is also something to be said for being able to install more competent people - it drives people to improve their performance IMO.

Isn't a contract worth anything in the US then ? I wouldn't want a job if i didn't have at least the certainty that my employer better has a damn good reason to fire me, other than that a little birdie whispered in his ear that he should lay me off. The same applies to me of course. If i sign a contract for one year, then my employer should be able to trust me to finish that contract, and not run to the competition after a few months. There has to be a certain level of trust for both sides.

Oh to be sure, Johnny, there are all different types of contracts here, too. But, by and large, many jobs are at "at will" contract.

Actually in my job (law), the "contract" attorneys with a year-to-year promise are in a *worse* position in the long run. My "associate" position may be "at will" but it also indicates they want me to become partner at some point, were I'd own a stake in the business. So, the "at will" "associate" is someone who is in it for the partnership, for the team, in really in a team don't you want it such that you either all want to be together or you part ways? The contract attorney, on the other hand, is not on any partnership track, and that is explicitly understodod.

<font color = lightgreen>In theory, "at will" employees will be better because they know they could lose their job at any minute due to a poor performance review. Many people, if given guaranteed employment, would settle into a routine of "hardly working" instead of "working hard".

France cannot afford to continute to guarantee employment to everyone, not if they want to avoid the disintegration of their economy. </font>