French Youth Riot Against Facism

No, sorry, if the French put as much energy into fighting facism and totalitarianism as they have into rioting against companies having the ability to fire incompetent or unnecessary employees, America wouldn't have constantly had to save their lazy butts.

Predictably, the fine folks at Alternet (in this case, Robin Craft) completely understand why giving employers a choice in who they hire and fire would have French youth rioting in the streets.

Craft notes:

Between 500,000 and 1.5 million people were mobilized Saturday afternoon against a new youth labor contract that would, among other things, allow employees -- that are 18 to 26 years old -- to be fired without cause during the first two years of employment.

How absurd that companies should have the same choice as employees--who can, of course, quit without cause at any time. And they aren't just given two years to quit, but can, in fact, quit any damn time they please. Why they would want to quit when they can do a bad job and still get paid and never get fired is beyond me, but, you know, the option is there. Maybe their years of experience at loafing could get them a better paying job somewhere else in the roaring economy of France.

As to why companies would want to fire outstanding or high-performing employees without cause is not touched on. Why they should be forced to keep people who don't perform--or, heck, just aren't needed due to changing market conditions--isn't mentioned.

But of course not! Companies don't exist to serve a customer or provide products to fill needs in the marketplace. They exist to provide paychecks to lazy, entitled, wine-swilling Frenchmen who can't be bothered to get off the couch long enough to defend their own country from Nazis, but can start turning over cars (not that it's that hard to tip the small and flimsy European cars they've been attacking) and setting things on fire to demand not to be penalized for their poor performance, or changing conditions in the marketplace. At least, not without driving the company that hired them out of business, too.

Of course, Alternet's take is predictable:

[S]tudents and labor unions united against what they see as a proposition for substandard labor protections, job insecurity and inequality reminiscent of American labor conditions.

Eeek! American labor conditions! what a terrible, brutal world we live in in America. Let's compare and contrast the brutal American job market with the soft, fuzzy French one, shall we?

Unemployment in France is 8.8%--which is great for such a quasi-socialist economy, and much better than it was in 1997, when their unemployment was 12.6%--the kind of rate American's associate with a severe depression, and would have Democrat's calling for impeachment. Indeed, even at under 7% unemployment, the Democrats attacked Bush on the job situtation constantly.

But the brutal U.S. unemployment rate is currently 4.8%. Even though companies can hire and fire much more easily than in France, our unemployement rate is 4% lower than theirs. Why is that, I wonder? Could it be that our brutal style of American economics ends up employing more people more consistently?

As for Purchasing Power Parity (roughly, how much the average citizen is capable of purchasing with what they make versus their costs and expenses), United States ranks #3. France ranks #20. The CIA World Fact Book ranks them as #24.

As far as Gross National Product, measured per capita, United States is number four, and probably would be number two or three if GNI (Gross National Income) wasn't calculated to include the economic productivity of non-residents in places like Luxembourg.

There are several different measures of economic growth, and we've been beating France for years on pretty much all of them. What a brutal economy we have!

Another worry is that the contract will become a favorite among employers, contributing to unemployment for older, unskilled workers as they are replaced by easy-to-fire young people, who in turn fear losing their jobs to others just before the end of the two-year trial period.

Well, then, they should work extra-hard to do a good job and learn valuable skills that would make it more expensive to replace them than to just keep them on the payroll. Again, does the employee get to quit the company without "cause"? Why should the government actively discourage companies from hiring people and trying them out by making the decision largely irrevocable?

In the end, if the folks rioting in France would devote that much energy to their jobs, their marketable skills, and taking responsibility over their own lives, they wouldn't need to worry about this, or any other, change in French law that makes it easier for companies to fire workers. If a worker is valuable, they either won't get rid of him/her or he/she will find it very easy to get another job. If a worker is not valuable or does not contribute, why should the company keep paying him/her for shoddy work?

It's been said before, but it's worth repeating. There ain't no free lunch. So stop trying to get someone else to buy your lunch for you, get off your ass and go make a sandwich.