Dancingwithwords.com

Living the dance
Dancing the life

1. kate.d. 3.24.06 / 4pm

   from an article on cnn today: The law allows companies to fire young workers in the first two years of employment without giving a reason.

   now, the current restrictions on employers that you note certainly seem unfair, but doesn’t the above just seem like swinging the pendulum the other way? not that i advocate the destruction of property, torching everything in sight, etc., it seems reasonable to me that youth in france want modifications to the proposed law. shouldn’t there be a middle ground here that’s agreeable to both parties?
2. Jared Goralnick 3.24.06 / 4pm

   I like the idea of middle ground–but how could that be practical? A middle ground would merit the involvement of a third party. That would mean someone could appeal when they were fired and then companies would be back where they started–in fear of letting employees go. We have this problem in our own government, and we already have instruments in place to deal with this. Just imagine if we extended that to private industry.

   On this side of the Atlantic companies have to be reasonable, but we can all be fired without reason. The fact is that an employer and an employee have a relationship that involves money and work product. It’s not like people are working for free or employers are hiring people for fun. If there’s a transaction taking place then that should be grounds enough to continue the relationship. I think employees have the right to be treated fairly, but I don’t think they have some sort of intrinsic right to their job. Think about how difficult and cumbersome it would be to require an arbiter to review whether or not an employee’s being let go was justified….

   I don’t think you have to look much farther than your own office. It’s been damaged as employees LEFT the employer–pretty much screwed them over, no? And to keep you on, they’ve given you incentives to stay. They need you. That’s where most employers are–they need their employees and wouldn’t just let them go for no reason. But employees do need to know that when people abuse their position that it’s not a guaranteed one.
3. kate.d. 3.24.06 / 7pm

   well it’s friday afternoon, so i don’t want to think TOO much about my employer and/or work in general…

   update: as i was typing that sentence, my sister called and talked to me for 45 minutes. so now i REALLY don’t want to think at all :) but i will come back to this, i promise….
4. kate.d. 3.28.06 / 2pm

   ugh, i haven’t gotten back to this yet have i? i can hardly think this week. but here’s one point:

   I think employees have the right to be treated fairly, but I don’t think they have some sort of intrinsic right to their job.

   i don’t think anyone has an intrinsic right to their job. do they have an intrinsic right to know the reason for which they’re being fired? well, probably not intrinsic, but i think it’s still a fair thing for which to advocate. there’s so much potential for employer abuse of the ability to fire “at-will” (hell, i’m sure there’s as much practice of abuse as potential for it). and i think we need to be continually balancing the interests of workers with the interests of employers. because it’s a symbiotic relationship, right?

   ok, back to work. sorry if that isn’t the most coherently put statement in the world :)
5. Jared Goralnick 3.28.06 / 2pm

   Well a couple points in response to this…

   1. It’s not that employers want to fire employees without explaining why they’re letting them go…it’s that employers have their hands tied behind their backs. They practically can’t let employees go regardless of the good reasons to do so. And this goes back to the discussion above: it needs to be flexible for the employer because otherwise an intermediary arbiter would need to exist.

   2. In the USA, the majority of employer-employee relationships allow the employer to cut ties at any point for any (or for no) reason. But we’re still people and we treat each other fairly in most cases. I don’t think it has to be so different in France.

   I guess our point of contention is what exactly are workers rights. France is still mandating that employers offer a whole suite of benefits that far exceed what we would expect from US employers. In other words, even with this measure the French would still have a lot of benefits.
   Workers rights comprise things like how much they have to work, the right to negotiate, an environment where they’re not in danger, and in some countries things like healthcare or various retirement options.

   I don’t think a worker’s right is a right to a job. To me it sounds a lot like in France there are workers worried that, even without doing their job, that an employer will be responsible for keep them employed.

Design based on Hemingway for WordPress. Copyright 1999-2008 by Jared Goralnick, unless otherwise noted. Contents under Creative Commons License.

Entries RSS Thoughts RSS Subscribe