France Abolishing Its 35-Hour Workweek

[Phaedrus]

French Lawmakers Abolish 35-Hour Workweek, Allowing Employers to Increase Working Hours, Pay

by Nathalie Schuck
Associated Press

PARIS -- French lawmakers effectively abolished the country's 35-hour workweek Tuesday by allowing employers to increase working hours and pay as the country struggles with high unemployment and stagnating living standards.

In a final vote, the National Assembly approved a government-backed bill permitting employers to negotiate deals with staff to increase working time by 220 hours a year in return for better pay.

The bill effectively clears the way for the gradual erosion of the 35-hour week, a flagship policy of the former Socialist-led government that gave many people more time off but added to concerns about France's declining global competitiveness.

The shorter workweek was introduced on a voluntary basis in 1998 and made compulsory two years later in a bid to force employers to hire more people. But France's current 10 percent jobless rate is testament to the policy's failure to generate the promised millions of new jobs.

The National Assembly, controlled by French President Jacques Chirac's conservatives, approved the new law 350-135. It does not formally abolish the 35-hour workweek but allows employers to offer staff extra working hours at a higher rate of pay.

It also enables workers to sell part of their holiday entitlement back to their employers or put it toward training or early retirement.

In order to apply the changes, however, companies will have to break away from their broad sector-wide agreements with unions unchanged by the new law and negotiate deals with their own staff representatives.

This means the effects of the reform will not be seen for some time.

Any such initiatives also could prove unpopular in France's present economic climate. Almost 1 million people participated in nationwide strikes and demonstrations earlier this month to protest the change to working time, as well as other threats to workers' benefits and public sector pay.

Many French workers have become accustomed to taking longer holidays and regular weekdays off under the 35-hour law, and a recent survey by polling agency CSA showed that 56 percent of salaried employees oppose the bill.

However, jobseekers, retirees and unskilled workers approved of the change.

Last year, a parliamentary committee reported that the 35-hour week cost France more than $13 billion a year, casting doubt on a labor ministry study that suggested it had created 350,000 jobs between 1998 and 2002.

Some also argued that the shorter week hurt living standards because employers froze salaries to make up for lost labor.

According to a 2003 OECD survey of 25 industrialized countries, only Norwegian and Dutch employees worked less time each year than the French, who worked an average 1,431 hours. German workers put in 1,446 hours, British 1,673 hours, Americans 1,792 hours and Koreans 2,390 hours.

 

[eek.]

In order to apply the changes, however, companies will have to break away from their broad sector-wide agreements with unions
unchanged by the new law and negotiate deals with their own staff representatives.

This means the effects of the reform will not be seen for some time.

This is the real sticking point. The Unions.

More than 48 hours is illegal in the UK under EU law without employee 'agreement'.

In the non-union place I worked in, management marched round and press-ganged staff into signing individual contract waivers to get around it.

This kind of coersion would be impossible in a unionised place.

 

[Phaedrus]

Why wouldn't they just quit if they didn't want to sign the waivers? Doesn't make any sense.

Also -- of course I am not up on UK law, but in America a contract signed under duress is legally nullifiable and can usually get the signer a big fat lawsuit settlement, especially if it's a woman or a black person or a homosexual or a black homosexual woman etc. Is it possible that you might be exaggerating the case a little?

(but again, absent the legality issue, why not just quit?)

The industry union outlived any useful purpose decades ago; just another sad socialist throwback at this point. Company unions can serve useful purposes but they're more and more rare as the power-grabbers that tend to find their way into influential positions at unions have no interest in anything that might actually curb the effect of union power.


Phaedrus

 

[WHALE]

Well, this is great for all the people that already have a job, but what's going to happen w/ the unemployed people.:sad3:

 

[919]

"nullifiable"

You have just created a new word.

 

[eek.]

I quit about a year later for various reasons.
Self-employed now, and got my life back.

I will never work for an employer again. No way hosé.

If the records at these places were checked you would find that 99-100% of the workforce 'signed' waivers.

BTW the company is a US company that is a household name in banking/finance.

 

[eek.]

Why wouldn't they just quit if they didn't want to sign the
waivers? Doesn't make any sense.

I believe it has something to do with putting food on your table, clothes on your kids and a roof over your head.

------------------------------
...and the first question your prospective new employer will ask is:
let me see you references and why did you leave your last place?

Afterwards Manager A(new company) phones Manager B(old company) for an unofficial verbal chit chat about prospective employee z.

This is extremely common if they belong to the same industry.
Managers who have been in the same industry for years know each other, sometimes they have even worked together, in previous years.

The only thing that Managers can't cope with via collusion etc is those dastardly Unions.
Unions force Managers to manage.
And most Managers are incapable of doing their job if they can't bully and threaten staff.
Most are politically astute bullies who lack the talent and ability to organise and motivate staff to generate the maximum outputs and wealth.

 

[eek.]

Dudes with half a braincell, a smidgen of talent and who don't mind working, are increasingly voting with their feet in the UK, and walking straight out the door.

If an employer offered me $100,000 tomorrow I would not hesitate to say no-thanks:- because you are giving up your life if you become an employee.
Once you have tasted life outside the Corporate cotton-picking plantation going back is almost impossible.

As a self employed person I am far more efficient, work fewer hours, have less stress, and I am happier and healthier.

So many people are doing it over here it's starting to bite into the tax-take.

Employers complain of a 'skills shortage' but the real problem is that capable individuals who can make a few buxx avoid employers.

(My own talents, which shall never be available to any employer ever again include taking a 500,000 tonne tanker anywhere in the world or doing pretty much anything a qualified accountant can do.)

-----------------------------------------------------

Taxman prepares trap for dropouts from the rat race
By Elizabeth Judge and Dominic Kennedy



INDIVIDUALS who try to flee the stress of urban life by “downshifting” and moving to the countryside could be the next target for the taxman.
The Government is drawing up plans to increase national insurance bills for people who leave employment to run small “lifestyle” businesses, The Times has learnt.


The measure, expected to be outlined in a consultation paper, follows growing Treasury concern about the loss of revenue caused by the fashion for downshifting.
But there are fears that the legislation will be a blunt axe that will end up clobbering traditional self-employed tradespeople such as plumbers, electricians and hairdressers.
Self-employed individuals pay national insurance at a lower rate than the employed; 8 per cent instead of 11 per cent.
In a double whammy for the Treasury, the taxman also loses national insurance paid by employers for each worker, at a rate of 12.8 per cent.
Ministers’ particular aversion to “lifestyle” businesses is the lack of contribution they make to the economy: in general they are run from home, with no employees and the owners often have no ambitions to grow them into large companies. There are an estimated 500,000 such businesses in Britain.
Though the plans are still being drawn up, it is understood that officials aim to penalise these micro-businesses by increasing the national insurance they pay by 1 or 2 per cent. The measure could raise millions of pounds of revenue. It is understood that the scheme could work by imposing the rise on those companies that fit criteria denoted by turnover or profit. It could catch all manner of self-employed people in the net.
The move would be the latest in a string of attacks on the small company sector by the Treasury. It recently closed what it called a “loophole” in the law forcing small companies to pay 19 per cent on profits extracted from their companies.
The Inland Revenue has also started to use an ancient piece of legislation, the Settlements legislation, to target husband-and-wife businesses, which it believed were not paying enough tax.
In the March Budget the Chancellor said he wanted to ensure that all small companies and self-employed people were paying the “right” amount of tax. But accountants argue that it would be virtually impossible to distinguish between “lifestyle” businesses and those the owner intends to grow into a large business employing hundreds of people.
They fear another confused piece of legislation similar to IR35, the tax that aims to reclassify self-employed people as employees, which has left many individuals uncertain of their status.
Accountants and groups including the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors have tabled a meeting with officials and accountancy firms this month to lobby against the plans and to warn the Chancellor that any changes to the small business taxation system should be made only after detailed consultation with the sector.
John Whiting, a partner at accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers, pointed out that while there are tax advantages for the self-employed over employees, they also receive fewer benefits and have to take more risks emotionally and financially than employed people. “All this seems to be forgotten,” Mr Whiting said.
Britain, which with Italy has a long tradition of artisanship, leads Europe in self-employment.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1240020_1,00.html

 

[mizagot]

As a self employed person I am far more efficient, work fewer hours, have less stress, and I am happier and healthier.

That's great. I'm too chicken to do it, and I have no clue what I'd do. But I am curious to know what you do that offers you less stress, and fewer hours? You must either be in a niche sector, be extremely unique, or have money saved away - how long have you been at it to get to that point? Everything I hear is more hours, no matter what the situation, and more stress at the beginning (unless one is independently wealthy).

 

[Dawoofdaddy]

Either the French change their workweek or the jobs will be shipped to Eastern Europe or Asia.

It sucks for the workers, but it is reality that unions have lost most of their power.

 

[eek.]

There is always stress at the beginning in a new venture, but it's a different kind of stress because you are now in control and you can make the decisions that make you more efficient and pull in cash faster.

I don't want to say exactly what I do but it's nothing glamorous.
You can sell stuff or provide a service , only you know what you would be best at when you are going it alone.
You might have a silver tongue, or be a physical grafter, you must find something that plays to your strengths.

I will give you the basic pointers, and a simple grafter example.

• immediate cashflow, the more immediate the better
• A decent margin. Each $ gives you $0.50 kinda thing
• small invoices/charges to reduce debtor default problems and the time spent getting your dosh
• barriers to entry that you can overcome
• the harder you work in an hour the more you make, so that when you get very efficient you can work fewer hours- If you want to.
• Do it part time to start with and see how you get on, building a client base and invaluable experience as you go.
• Don't expect it to be easy, nothing worthwhile is easy

Simple non-glamorous example: A London cab driver (wtf!)

Money:
Immediate cashflow. Small debtors. Great margin.
A tiny outlay of capital is required to get working.

Barriers to entry are excellent:
Apparently it takes about 12 months to learn the street 'knowledge' for the London cab office test and most people (who are not motivated) will simply give up.
Doing the nightshift with its drunks and whackos will eliminate pretty much every female who wants to be a cabby(50% of your competition), and a lot of blokes too...

Taxi plates are handed out for a nominal fee by London Council so you can get your own cab if you want to, or you can rent nights off a bloke who does the day shift in his cab.
You can do it part time as well as your job, to see how you get on.
It can be built into a larger business if you want to work really hard, or you can bumble along doing minimum hours (cherrypicking the shift) and pay your bills.

People laugh at black-cab drivers but I have never actually met one who has jacked it in and gone to work in an office.
From the sets of accounts I did, adding on a percentage for undeclared earnings, those guys are pulling $50-100,000 a year...
...and no boss to mess with your head too....

I saw a lot of businesses because I did sets of accounts for a huge range of clients in years gone by.
The better the margin the easier it is to land on your feet running but you must use your imagination.

-------------------------------
A second simple example:
Looking after Special needs people.

The heavy regulations over here are for establishments with more than 3 residents so if you get a house with some extra bedrooms and you or the missus are a social worker or a nurse, (or else you will have to go through the licencing/vetting system), you can pull around £500 p.w. per resident, and that's from the state.
Private care is £500-£1000 p.w. depending on the level of service.


The only limits are your imagination, determination, and what you are willing to do to make a bukk.

---------------------
In my own case I have turned into a bit of a skiving git.
I could make more if I was more ambitious, but I am happy making enough to trundle through life.

-------------------------------------

BTW I was talking to a painter/decorator the other day and he was thinking about giving it up because he's got too much work.

He's booked solid until august.

He was thinking about becoming a cab driver...

 

[Phaedrus]

posted by 919:

"nullifiable"

You have just created a new word.

Well, a little short-sightedness on my part, but surely you were able to glean the meaning from the context.

Nullify is a word, of course; according to my dictionary so are nullified and nullifying. Anul and anullment are related.

No idea why nullify and the suffix -able are apparently not allowed.

But good strong argument!


posted by eek:

Why wouldn't they just quit if they didn't want to sign the
waivers? Doesn't make any sense.

I believe it has something to do with putting food on your table, clothes on your kids and a roof over your head.

The option is there. No one is forced to work for any particular company by the management. Despite your hatred for human civilisation, surely you do not assert that company managers are specifically responsible for the circumstances that lead people to seek employment in the first place?

...and the first question your prospective new employer will ask is:
let me see you references and why did you leave your last place?

Afterwards Manager A(new company) phones Manager B(old company) for an unofficial verbal chit chat about prospective employee z.

This is extremely common if they belong to the same industry.

Managers who have been in the same industry for years know each other, sometimes they have even worked together, in previous years.

Again, I don't know the particulars of UK law, but in the States this is grounds for a major lawsuit -- a condition to which I am naturally opposed. What is the point of references if they can't be checked?

The only thing that Managers can't cope with via collusion etc is those dastardly Unions.
Unions force Managers to manage.

And most Managers are incapable of doing their job if they can't bully and threaten staff.
Most are politically astute bullies who lack the talent and ability to organise and motivate staff to generate the maximum outputs and wealth.

Your description of managers can easily be applied to union leaders. In both cases there are obviously exceptions, but I'd lay good money that if a study could somehow be commissioned, these traits would be far more common among the union types.

Dudes with half a braincell, a smidgen of talent and who don't mind working, are increasingly voting with their feet in the UK, and walking straight out the door.

And I think that is fabulous! I really do. It's what I did. It's what I think most people should do, except for the nuances of the production economy that prevent all people from being able to do so. No doubt this fact strikes some as an "injustice."

I will say that I am shocked and pleased that you recognise that it is only people who are smart, talented and dedicated who will be able to throw off the shackles, so to speak. This is an enormous improvement over your general deprecation of all productive people everywhere.

So many people are doing it over here it's starting to bite into the tax-take.

Even better news! You've made my night!

There is always stress at the beginning in a new venture, but it's a different kind of stress because you are now in control and you can make the decisions that make you more efficient and pull in cash faster.

Now I'm falling in love. Please shave your legs ASAP.


Phaedrus

 

[Phaedrus]

PS.

I love this bit:

Ministers’ particular aversion to “lifestyle” businesses is the lack of contribution they make to the economy: in general they are run from home, with no employees and the owners often have no ambitions to grow them into large companies. There are an estimated 500,000 such businesses in Britain.

Socialists are so fûcking funny sometimes.

Assume (albeit arbitrarily) that so-called "lifestyle businesses" average out to just 0.5 employees each aside from the owner, including temps and contractors. That's 750,000 people, or approximately 1.25% of the entire British population. Think of all that payroll, all those services rendered and products delivered, all those suppliers (e.g. paint and brushes and tarp and such for housepainters) being patronised, all those UK consumers receiving the goods and services for which they pay with money for which they work and on which they are presumably taxed, all that inescapable VAT, etc.

"lack of contribution to the economy"

LOL

Phaedrus