Re^4: On Finding, Hiring, Inspiring and Keeping

[wazoox]

How do people more established in their careers in France view this law, that would have allowed employers to 'try before they buy' prospective younger employees?

General consensus is that the law wasn't good. This law was tailored for so called "MacJobs" (low wage, hard jobs) and didn't pleased that much employers. As an employer, I wouldn't want to hire some youngsters (engineers, programmers), train them for some months, and see them go away as soon as they're beginning to get efficient and productive (because the law of course allowed the employer to fire anyone anytime, but it also allowed the employees to leave whenever they want).

It seems to me, sitting here (fairly ignorantly) in the US, that the 'entitlement mentality' evidenced by the protests and demonstrations against what appears to be a reasonable law will end up being very destructive to job growth.

Well, actually nobody really knows if protective work laws drag down job growth or not. There are no clear evidence in worldwide statistics that it really matters at all. For instance Canada had low protection and high unemployment, while Sweden had high protection and no unemployment.

Won't many companies simply relocate to find a more flexible workforce (perhaps with a lower price tag), leaving the youth of France with even fewer jobs? Am I missing something in this equation?

You can't relocate much services, anyway. Chinese can't ship your pizza in time, or clean your office at night :o) I actually believe this law would augment unemployment, here's why : right now, Pizza Hut, McDonalds and friends employ only part time employees. Why? Because this way, they are sure to keep their employees young, docile, and the turnover very high (because nobody but students or youngsters living at dad and mom's can live on a part-time minimum wage). This is the way they compensate for the job-protective laws : people will quit anyway, soon. But in case they could employ people full-time, then maybe they'd simply fire half their workforce, making unemployment actually higher than it is already.

[ptum]

Thanks for this thoughtful response -- I appreciate getting more context to understand this problem.

Here in the US we also have trouble with employers who avoid protections by hiring only part time employees. When I took a year off from college to earn some tuition money, I worked for a major supermarket where they hired three of us for a two-person job to ensure that we wouldn't get enough hours to qualify for benefits. It seemed pretty mean-spirited and weaselly to me, although I'm sure they could argue that 'market pressures' drove them to such 'strategic' employment practices. I left that job after six weeks with no regrets.

[jplindstrom]

For instance Canada had low protection and high unemployment, while Sweden had high protection and no unemployment.

Uh, Sweden hasn't had "no" unemployment in nearly two decades. It certainly ended with the economic crisis of the early 90s.

It's fairly difficult to fire people without cause though. I think that's a pretty good thing, because it paves the way for a less strict and hierarchical organizational culture. This in turn leads to more personal initiatives, more outspoken employees, etc. when people feel secure in their work environment.

/J

[wazoox]

Sorry, actually I meant "low unemployment", as low as USA or Great-Britain which are the favorite examples of "low unemployment" countries for the french government.