The Merovingian Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 article It seems as though the french youth has plenty of energy when it comes to burning things down, and throwing rocks. Perhaps if they worked this hard such laws would not have to be passed. Like I said in the title, if only they had such spunk in WWII maybe the outcome would have been different.
SilverNRed Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 I've been holding off on commenting on this because the reasons for the riots/protests seemed so idiotic to me that I was sure I was simply misunderstanding them. From the article: Tens of thousands of students marched in cities throughout France, including Tours, Orleans and Marseille, as part of rolling protests designed to maintain pressure on Villepin to axe a contract they say will create "Kleenex workers" whom employers can throw away at will. Unions have called a one-day national strike for Tuesday to demand the withdrawal of the CPE, which allows employers to fire people aged under 26 at any stage during a two-year trial period, without stating a reason. So basically the young French are demanding that they have a right to employment and that whoever finally does hire them should never have the right to fire them? Isn't the whole idea behind employment that you are paid to work for someone because you are valuable to them? Did that get thrown out the window? I'd never even heard of the concept of "Hire me and pay me for as long as I want to be around" until this past weekend. The rioters have not only heard of this, the very idea of not having guaranteed employment makes them violent. Unreal. It's not hard to imagine why France's economy is in the toilet these days.
VABills Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 I've been holding off on commenting on this because the reasons for the riots/protests seemed so idiotic to me that I was sure I was simply misunderstanding them. From the article: So basically the young French are demanding that they have a right to employment and that whoever finally does hire them should never have the right to fire them? Isn't the whole idea behind employment that you are paid to work for someone because you are valuable to them? Did that get thrown out the window? I'd never even heard of the concept of "Hire me and pay me for as long as I want to be around" until this past weekend. The rioters have not only heard of this, the very idea of not having guaranteed employment makes them violent. Unreal. It's not hard to imagine why France's economy is in the toilet these days. 640669[/snapback] They want what the Spanish people think they just gave themselves. They want a socialistic society where everyone gets everything they want. Great works on Star Trek, but this is the real world and you get what you earn. Having a socialistic society will only overprice your exports, cause undue duties on imports to help level the field, and really isolate a nation. Remember trade (money) helps form allieances. Lack of them causes enemies.
chicot Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 I've been holding off on commenting on this because the reasons for the riots/protests seemed so idiotic to me that I was sure I was simply misunderstanding them. From the article: So basically the young French are demanding that they have a right to employment and that whoever finally does hire them should never have the right to fire them? Isn't the whole idea behind employment that you are paid to work for someone because you are valuable to them? Did that get thrown out the window? I'd never even heard of the concept of "Hire me and pay me for as long as I want to be around" until this past weekend. The rioters have not only heard of this, the very idea of not having guaranteed employment makes them violent. Unreal. It's not hard to imagine why France's economy is in the toilet these days. 640669[/snapback] Is there no such thing as the concept of "unfair dismissal" in the US?
VABills Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Is there no such thing as the concept of "unfair dismissal" in the US? 640697[/snapback] Yes and no. In a lot of states, take Virginia where I live, an employer can lay you off for no reason. It's a right to work state.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Is there no such thing as the concept of "unfair dismissal" in the US? 640697[/snapback] Yes...but there's no real concept of anyone owing you a job. And realistically, an employer has to be able to show cause, or risk civil action for unfair labor practices. Theoretically they can get rid of workers at will...but as a practical matter, it's not nearly that easy, particularly if there's blatant bias at work (such as when an employer tried to fire me for being bipolar - a big no-no, as it's an illness covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act.)
Ghost of BiB Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 I emailed my friend over there, waiting on her feedback. She usually has a pretty good take on those things. Usually, the biggest fear anyone has is the resultant strikes that inconvienience everyone.
UConn James Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 I don't know how much of it is the feeling of "entitlement" to a job, as much as it's protesting those companies who hire and fire on a continual basis so they can escape having to pay health insurance, retirement, etc. Here in the States, we belittle anyone who doesn't start saving for retirement at age 20 b/c they will be woefully behind and never catch up if they start just 5 years later. You can easily dismiss this as 'lazy youth' but I doubt the French are any lazier at their jobs than we are (spoken from someone who humps 200-lb stones around 10 hours a day in wall-building season). Sure, you say, a kid who works hard doesn't have much to worry about b/c they'll prove their worth and they won't be fired... but that's not necessarily the case. Companies don't really care about turnover nowadays; it's the norm, and if they can save a few bucks, they won't bat an eyelash. This smacks of age-ism, and if one lived there and heard the whole story rather than 5 paragraphs, you might have a different take when you read the tax codes and get into the nitty-gritty. And then there's the sidealong argument -- Why they don't pass a law that says anyone 50 or older can be fired w/ no reason given? You know, b/c people slow down, become less valuable as their skills decline, get costly diseases....
PastaJoe Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Like I said in the title, if only they had such spunk in WWII maybe the outcome would have been different. 640657[/snapback] The French get a bad rap for WWII. Their military had fixed fortifications, out of date equipment, and weren't prepared for the blitzkrieg type of attack of the modern German military. The British and American military couldn't have stopped them either in 1938, but were fortunate to be protected by geography. But the French underground fought valiantly and lost many. If not for the French we wouldn't have a president, we'd have a King George with no checks and balances. On second thought...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 The French get a bad rap for WWII. Their military had fixed fortifications, out of date equipment, and weren't prepared for the blitzkrieg type of attack of the modern German military. The British and American military couldn't have stopped them either in 1938, but were fortunate to be protected by geography. But the French underground fought valiantly and lost many. If not for the French we wouldn't have a president, we'd have a King George with no checks and balances. On second thought... 640893[/snapback] Actually, they had better equipment than the Germans, for the most part. What they didn't have was radios, doctrine, and morale - the socialist movements of the '30s left French morale fatally weakened, so that resistance fairly melted away at the German point of attack.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Actually, they had better equipment than the Germans, for the most part. What they didn't have was radios, doctrine, and morale - the socialist movements of the '30s left French morale fatally weakened, so that resistance fairly melted away at the German point of attack. 640915[/snapback] They also had a sizeable portion of their population go over to the other side, and pretty well sold out IndoChina to the Japanese.
X. Benedict Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 They also had a sizeable portion of their population go over to the other side, and pretty well sold out IndoChina to the Japanese. 641005[/snapback] Vichy - National Socialism Lite - Same Great Ideology without the Commitment.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Same Great Ideology without the Commitment. 641015[/snapback] I believe you can shorten that to "It's the French".
X. Benedict Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 I believe you can shorten that to "It's the French". 641017[/snapback] C'est vrai. Am I the only one that finds it ironic that by definition a Merovingian is a Frank?
Alaska Darin Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 More proof that the French can be driven to fight only if the opponent is another Frenchman.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Maybe your title has something to do with the Lost Generation?... Of the 1920's How many did France lose in WWI? And CTM notes: Actually, they had better equipment than the Germans, for the most part. What they didn't have was radios, doctrine, and morale - the socialist movements of the '30s left French morale fatally weakened, so that resistance fairly melted away at the German point of attack. Interesting he doesn't much mention what happened on the western front during the late teens of the 20th century. Same ole franco-bashing rhetoric.
TheMadCap Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 C'est vrai. Am I the only one that finds it ironic that by definition a Merovingian is a Frank? 641021[/snapback] The thought had occured to me. Perhaps our boy has been watching too much Matrix and not reading enough history...
Chef Jim Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 More proof that the French can be driven to fight only if the opponent is another Frenchman. 641032[/snapback] And what's wrong with that. Either win or lose, there'll be less French. Leaves all their wine and cheese for us!
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 And what's wrong with that. Either win or lose, there'll be less French. Leaves all their wine and cheese for us! 641546[/snapback] I don't think they mean to leave you with whine and fumunda (from under what, I don't know) cheese, Cheffy
Ghost of BiB Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Interesting he doesn't much mention what happened on the western front during the late teens of the 20th century. Same ole franco-bashing rhetoric. Maybe it's because they had a penchant for human wave attacks against machine guns? Some of their generals never saw the front. It's simply history. I actually like France, and have a few French friends.
Recommended Posts