Jump to content

Talk:First Employment Contract

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over-Simplification ?

[edit]

"...a proposed French law set to take effect in April 2006 that gives employers the right to fire without justification workers under the age of 26 in the first two years of their employment." Isn't this an over-simplification of the implications of that contract, and one without NPOV at that ? I think there's more to it than only a new "fire at will" clause. This article needs more meat Xibe 17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source and fix it. I wrote that based on what I read in the newspaper articles I had access to. – flamurai (t) 05:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, really, there is not over-simplification :) The only difference with an indefinite contract is the lack of justification from the employer - but there was also a reform of the law about indefinite contracts (for instance, very large or total tax-cuts for an employer who hires a long-term unemployed worker)... As the CPE is legally a form of indefinite contract, it has the same advantages, but the only difference with a "real" indefinite contract is the lenght of the "période d'essai" (in a "common" indefinite contract, this period was usually from 1 month to about 3 months), during which the employer can fire without justification. J-b 13:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, AFAIK, it's not much "without justification" than "whithout written justification", which is a bit different already. No one can fire at will (pun intended), because that would break the ILO conventions. An employer still has to have a reason (good or bad, but a reason anyway) to fire an employee, and must let the employee know about it. That's a different perspective from what is said in the article. Hence, POV.
I'm still learning about the whole thing, so please prove me wrong. Xibe 12:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be fair balanced to me. removed npov --Alohawolf 11:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the "Critics" section has about four times the text as the "Supporters" section (and, until recently, the last line of the supporters section had a jab at the supporters' logic, the article is not looking too balanced. User: GPwhite 6 April.

It's more precise. The employer hasn't to give reason, unless the worker goes to courts. And there other diffences bewteen CPE and other contracts: after being fired, indemnities are different and the worker has the right to receive some "teaching". 82.229.147.109 15:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to "First Employment Contract"

[edit]

I moved it to "First Employment Contract", because our policy says "Use English". Also, it is the most common name in English media, see Google News: 540 vs. 55 bogdan 19:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence with British strikes?

[edit]

"The protest coincided with a mass strike in Britain to oppose proposed pension changes." Does anyone know if the protests were deliberately timed to coincide with the pensions strikes in Britain (or vice versa), because if they weren't, then this is largely irrelevant, and should be removed. --Scott Wilson 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't coordinated, it is irrelevant and I have removed it Fanx 22:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article currently needs expanding.

[edit]

Could someone better explain the burden of proof part. I also feel the article at this time spends to much time on the protests and not enough time going in depth on the law itself including language, points, counter points and similar laws in other countries. I hope I am not voicing this too soon. Thanks--Doom Child 01:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This stands in contrast to the dominant American view that except in extreme cases, firings are neither 'just' nor 'unjust', but rather are simply the result of free choices among both employers and employees." This is the view of non union employers....not employees!

Really? Not one employee in the entire United States agrees with the view that the flexibility of at-will employment, the ability of either the employee to leave the job at any time or the employer to end the employment at any time, is a reciprocal free choice system? Not one? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and lose credibility further when they are unsigned. LeoO3 04:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The view from the top of the food chain is decidedly different from the bottom view. The right of employers to terminate workers without restriction is the reason unions came into being. It seems the heart of the protests in France address the protection the workers have had removed. Minimum wage folks don't get "golden parachutes" the cushion the fall. The ability to fire does not equal the ability to quit. As far as unsigned....you have links to military and conservative causes....that's your credibility?
"The view from the top of the food chain is decidedly different from the bottom view". Certainly. But WikiPedia is not a place to share points of view, but facts. You have to back your writings with fact for them to have credibility, and you have to sign your edits for accountability. If don't do at least both, don't expect us to listen. Xibe 16:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"But WikiPedia is not a place to share points of view, but facts." Of course! And that is why I took the following statement.... "This stands in contrast to the dominant American view that except in extreme cases, firings are neither 'just' nor 'unjust', but rather are simply the result of free choices among both employers and employees." to be an inappropriate opinion, slipped in to put spin on the reported protest. Like the man said,..."just the facts, maam"


This stands in contrast to the dominant American view that except in extreme cases, firings are neither 'just' nor 'unjust', but rather are simply the result of free choices among both employers and employees.

Well thanks but what defines just and Unjust and who determines that? Plus I should have said other countries besides the US, other EU nations.--Doom Child 03:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DoomChild, have a look at the Job security article - the bit about indefinite contracts. Jameswilson 03:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

could someone explain why this law is supposed to help reduce unemployment? it doesn't make much sense to me so I assume that I'm missing something 128.197.81.181 19:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opportunity to fire new employees easily allow s the employer to basically try before he buys. This should make it more attractive for employers to hire new young employees, since the risk of getting a bad employee you cannot dispose of is lower. 130.37.24.62 14:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that one of the arguments, although almost all European systems do include a probationary period. More important is that if a company has one good year, it wants to expand and take on new workers, but it doesnt necessarily want to take them on for the rest of their lives. Thats too risky a committment in case the company has a bad year two or three years later. So, to generalise, most US companies that have one good year will take on extra staff; whereas in Germany, say, the company will instead invest in new machinery or train up their existing staff, to get higher productivity without taking on more staff. Both systems have their pros and cons, but obviously if you are already in work the German system is better for you. If you are looking for work, you'd find it easier in the US. Jameswilson 22:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few links to your remarks, and developped a bit the environment in which CPE was voted (and eventually rejected). I feel it should be made clear that in most countries in the world normal employement conditions include contract termination "at will" by either the employer or the employee (with a few weeks notice according to countries). It is actually the same in France, but the difference is that in case the employee sues its former employer, the court will usually side the employee... Knowing that, employers are particularly cautious when hiring someone... The 2 years clause of the CPE contract . In other words, for most international readers of this article, it should be explained that what French students and unions are rejecting is probably something normal in their own countries (including the US, the UK, Hongkong, and even China, for the countries I personally know...)! I'd like to add that translation of the word "précarisation" should be chosen with care: the word in French is a "marketing" word repeated by the unions, the communist and the socialist when talking about the government's action and its consequences on employment, therefore using the word itself is very POV...Sarreau 14:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English

[edit]

I don't know if this article has been partly tranlated from the French Wikipedia, or whether one or more French editors are just not quite familiar enough with the language, but some of the article contains mistakes or reads in a very French sort of syntax. I've fixed everything obvious I can see but some things still aren't quite natural, and there are some legal terms I'm not sure about. It's hard to tell how I can reword some parts without broader knowledge of the subject, so if anyone could go through it that would help. BigBlueFish 18:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(re pic caption) The verb précariser is specific in French. Jobs without indefinite contracts, where workers can be sacked "at will", are described as precarious - even if the company is booming. Jameswilson 23:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
just to repeat what I said above: "précariser" is not only specific to French... but it is also specific to the opponents of the CPE (the socialist and communist opposition, and particularly the unions, about basically everything the right wing governement does)! It should be translated and used with care as it is a totally POV word!Sarreau 14:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

taboo facts and ideas that should be in the article

[edit]

Here I have for your consideration a few points and facts that are not mentionned in the article. Most of it are disputed or even taboo ideas, usually rejected by the opponents of the CPE, meaning they would be deleted or disputed:
- This CPE law, just like the "CNE", the other contract created by the same government a few months before, is part of a more general project of the right wing government to break the current rigid employment system, and make it more flexible for companies, hoping eventually to help growth come back inside France, and help companies being more competitive. In other words, the idea is to break the protective measures of the past that are now considered too costly for the economy. Something other European countries have been trying to do as well. Painful reforms, that many (see articles I quoted in the article) feel are necessary.
- it should be explained that unions in France, who pushed for demonstrations and strikes, do not represent a majority of employees, but only a minority in few branches (for reasons I don't know). I think (sorry, I don't have the figures available) they represent less than 15% of workers in France, a rate that is particularly low.
- it should be explained also that the two most active unions calling for strikes and demonstrations are the CGT and FO, both connected to communist ideas and parties. Both are usually accused of following communist ideology rather than finding and negotiating workable solutions. The more moderate CFDT was much less involved in demonstrations and strikes. In other words, the main organizations behind demonstrations and strike are of communist background!
- it should be explained (this time siding the opponents views) that "flexible" contracts like CDD, interim, but also "helped contracts" contracts already exist and are widely used by employers. Meaning the CPE contract won't bring more flexibility than those, and would arguably not make much difference as opposed to those.
- it should be reminded more clearly that the CPE is for people below 26. In other words, the demonstrators reject the CPE because of alleged long term consequences on their lives, but given the 2 years "fire at will" clause stops at 26+2=28, the CPE has in itself actually no impact on employement conditions after you turn 28!
- About 65% of the below 24 are NOT on the job market, meaning probably a near majority of the below 26 (that the CPE targets) won't have to worry about it (check here, sorry, the French statistics board is in French! Problem with those is that it stops at age 24).
- It should be explained that the below 26 on the job market ALREADY suffer from unstable contract condition (apprentice, "interim", "CDD", interships and others that sometimes won't be takein into account in statistics). I personally found particularly striking that I could not find any figure or even mention about this in newspapers!!! - From a broader view, demonstrations and unions action goes beyond the CPE itself as it would arguably have had limited consequences, but is intended to stop government reforms, after the unions own failure in stopping the "CNE": a contract with similar issues for small companies who do not have unions!
- Most important of all my points, the CPE, which has been rejected, exists here in wikipedia. Surprisingly, "CNE" does not, though it brought a much bigger change in employment law as it implemented the same debated "two years fire at will" clause, without being limited to the below 26! Probably because "CNE" also did not appear much in the press! And I guess it has been little covered by the medias because it was voted during the summer holidays when people were having holidays.~

Well, that's it for now. I hope I brought in a few ideas... I won't bother to write anything without having some opinions first, as I think some might face strong dispute and deletion attacks, I want to see if I might have backup... Also, I am just hoping to bring some lights on things that are not always covered or explained to international readers. Mostly, I feel too much is already said! I'll be checking on CNE and try to write something proper. Please write here what you think! Sarreau 16:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why are you bothering about making supposedly NPOV edits that you very well know, as you've just written here, are not so NPOV? (The only way you say "communist and socialists are opposed to the law" is quite funny... why not go all the way and say "socialo-communiste" while you're at it? The CGT is not any more officially linked to the Communist party, and those parties have changed since 1917, haven't you noticed? But, why are you bothering about starting an edit-war if the law has been rejected? Who cares anymore? Is rewriting history that important? In any cases, please be careful with controversial edits. Lapaz 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remind you, dear, that the Union for French Democracy (UDF) was also opposed to it. Another socialo-communist party? Lapaz 21:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


thanks for making my point, thanks for your censorship, and goodbye wikipedia!Sarreau 09:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

It clearly appears that the external links selected in the article are not respecting NPOV, they are all justifying the CPE... no other point of view here ? Jahsensie 21:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:032806 francelaborprotests2.jpg

[edit]

Image:032806 francelaborprotests2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First Employment Contract. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Employment Contract. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Employment_Contract&oldid=1207233846"