[Nyck]

I think its a fact of these students not reading the fine print

again in
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/17/ ... blabor.php

335 THOUSAND NEW JOBS as a result of the bill

"From August through January, 335,000 people[ were hired under the new rules, which allow employers to dismiss them during the first two years without showing a "real and serious" reason. About a third of these hires would not have been made without the new contract, according to a recent survey of French companies by the polling institute IFOP."

and

"The traditional French CDI, which still accounts for almost 90 percent of employment contracts, has an average probation period of 1.5 months, compared with 6 months in Germany, 9 to 12 months in Denmark and one year in Britain. After that, dismissals can cost employers 12 to 24 months of salary."

also

"Roubaud knows that firsthand. In his 33 years as head of Simonet, he said, he has fired only four people. Twice, the dispute involved years of legal wrangling; in one case the costs matched his company's annual profit.

"That sort of experience puts you off hiring," he said. "It gives you existential fears if you're running a small business.""

This contract made this guy more open to hiring people.


its also said
"What sets the new contract for small companies apart from past experiments, like the short-term and temporary work contracts introduced a decade ago, is that it is nominally a CDI, but with a longer probation period. The center-right government of Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin is planning a similar contract for employees under the age of 26, this time open to companies of all sizes."

which is showing the guy pushing for this bill for all companies.

Union workers of course back the protests because they think companies will just hire these new employees for a few dollars less, rather than deal with big unions.

I mean the article shows that this guy created 4 NEW jobs for people under 25 which would have not been there before because of his previous legal bullshits.

Are you more likely to try something if you arent stuck with it or have to pay for it if you dont want it.

Think wouldnt you like the ability to drop your cell phone service(or new employee) at ANY time during a 2 year period if it were unsastifactory and maybe try out a different service(employee) without having to pay a huge serverance fee?

Hell it would probably benefit the cellphone industry because more people would be willing to buy the service(or hire the new employee) to try out without fear of getting fleeced by the company or employee if its not what you were looking for in terms of service

[Madmartagen]

if theyre worried about severence packages why dont they just reform that? dont companies over here give you severence only if you have been with the company for a year? that 300k doesnt seem right to me. if a third of those jobs wouldnt have been created with the old system, then that would mean that 200k of those jobs would have been created whether the new law was passed or not. the new law created 100k jobs, not 300k.

[Sgt>Stackem]

Originally Posted by Madmartagen

dont companies over here give you severence only if you have been with the company for a year? .

no they dont. Here in Michigan we are "at will" employees. This means they dont need a reason to let you go. You only get severence if you negoatiated for it.


remember, you will never get paid for what you are worth, you only get payed for what you negoatiate

[Machette]

Looks like I need to do more researching.. oOo: