Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on March 24, 2006, 05:09:27 am
-
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-03-23T180437Z_01_L23178518_RTRUKOC_0_US-FRANCE.xml&rpc=22
Honestly, I don't think they get anything accomplished unless they riot and destroy private property.
-
Well most of them are protesting peacefully. It's the idiots who are out looking for trouble who make the headlines and get the most attention.
AFAIK, people like those are just using the demonstrations as an excuse to screw over others and loot shops etc.
-
As per the CPE that they are protesting, I think that it is actually a positive thing.
-
How so?
That law enables employers to fire a worker without any reasons what-so-ever, as long as they've been working there for less than two years.
In the age group of the affected people there will most likely be primarily students, and just suddenly getting fired for no reason at all in the middle of a school year isn't exactly a good thing.
Having an economic security as a student is a very good thing, as that will enable you to focus more on the studies instead of working your arse off to make the ends meet.
-
So you're whining because it'll stop students slacking off at work in favour of studying?
Go sit in the ****ing corner.
-
I wasn't saying that.
If they should be able to have the job they should work for it too, if they don't they would just get fired anyway.
So in that regard, the law seems rather pointless.
-
Riots are the French national pastime. Ever since they in to the spirit back during the Revolution, they've been going at it every few years. Especially student riots. It's all in good fun, just letting off some steam. A modern liberal society has very few outlets for agressive tendencies, so every once in a while you just to duke it out with the cops in the name of whatever. Jobs, socialism, the Republic...any cause will do.
-
It was done because students are inherantly lazy or consumed by non-work work.
Previously, you couldn't fire people for coming in 5 minutes late every day, looking just that little bit shabby and a little hung-over, because those things would've been ignored as trivial by an industrial tribunal and you'd have had to fork over thousands of Euros on compensation.
All this new law does is give employers the ability to fire people for general scruffiness and being an asshole.
I, personally, think that if you own your own company you should be allowed to hire and fire for whatever reason(s) you wish, if any.
I mean, if I build a £3trillion business, single-handedly generate enough tax to fund a small country and provide hundreds of thousands of people with employment - all as a result of my own hard work and financial risk - why the **** shouldn't I be able to fire someone from the company I've built with my own blood, sweat and tears because they're black and I'm racist?
It's the equivelant of the government forcing you to buy beer for people you hate every time you walk into a pub.
-
It was done because students are inherantly lazy or consumed by non-work work.
Previously, you couldn't fire people for coming in 5 minutes late every day, looking just that little bit shabby and a little hung-over, because those things would've been ignored as trivial by an industrial tribunal and you'd have had to fork over thousands of Euros on compensation.
All this new law does is give employers the ability to fire people for general scruffiness and being an asshole.
I, personally, think that if you own your own company you should be allowed to hire and fire for whatever reason(s) you wish, if any.
I mean, if I build a £3trillion business, single-handedly generate enough tax to fund a small country and provide hundreds of thousands of people with employment - all as a result of my own hard work and financial risk - why the **** shouldn't I be able to fire someone from the company I've built with my own blood, sweat and tears because they're black and I'm racist?
It's the equivelant of the government forcing you to buy beer for people you hate every time you walk into a pub.
-are you a student? do you not like students for some reason?
-its not the upstart company that anyone put blood sweat and tears into that students end up working for. students usually work at big supermarkets, with faceless ownership and incompetent management
-and if they fire people for being assholes, you'd never hold down a job
-
Another item of consideration... what happens when your next employer asks for a reference? Do you have "fired for being a student" stamped on your work history? Could anyone take thatseriously? It seems like a cop-out to me.
-
The simple fact is, no company should ever be legally obliged to provide anyone with employment (with the exception of contracted employees).
It's bull**** quasi-politics used by governments to make it look like they're improving the economy because employment is down, when really the economy is still going to **** and it's just that companies are too scared to fire anyone because they'll end up with 10k students standing outside whining about how "he was only 5hrs late for work one time".
And yes, I do have something against students. Specifically, the ones who take protesting as some kind of carte-blanche for voicing their bull****, utopian ideals about subjects that don't ****ing affect them in any way, shape or form and are purely and completely academic.
The only people who're gonna be affected by this change in the law are ****-ups. The same kind of ****-ups who'll go skiving off work to attend a ****ing protest march. You do your ****ing job, keep your **** together and do what you're being paid to do and you keep your job.
And to be perfectly honest, students are the last people who need employment. Just because they're wasting thousands on education doesn't give them any special privileges when it comes to employment. They don't need to go to University - it's a luxury.
And, might I add, they're completely ignoring the fact that young people can find jobs infinitely more easily than older people. So all they're doing by passing this law and making them easier to fire is ensuring that when an older person does manage to get a job, they're more likely to keep it because the young guy they work with is just easier for the management to fire.
-
Another item of consideration... what happens when your next employer asks for a reference? Do you have "fired for being a student" stamped on your work history? Could anyone take thatseriously? It seems like a cop-out to me.
Because they know they're firing you simply for being a student, they'll feel bad and give you better references.
-
Then they should be able to fire people for consistently being late, hung over or shabby in appearence. Those are reasons I could cope with as - if I work for a company - I should be taught to uphold that standard as any adult worker should.
But simply being a student is not grounds for dismissal with no explanation. That doesn't teach young people anything except that the world is corrupt and unfair (which granted are good things to learn). But it sure as hell won't motivate them to work any harder as - what's the point - they'd only be fired again with no explanation.
It'd be like punishing a puppy simply for being a puppy, rather than showing it that peeing on the carpet is wrong. The puppy learns nothing except an inbred resentment.
-
i like to think that maybe if some of the people with utopian ideals survive employment, maybe a few of those ideals will get through and the world actually -will- become a better place to live in.
also, i remember coming into work usually about 5 minutes early every day, and not looking too shabby (the long hair, sometimes its difficult), and never being hung over (didn't even let the flu keep me home). If i was fired just because i couldnt work the right set of hours, i'd be ****in pissed
-
People should be fired for being students. As the rioting proves, they're ****ing jerks.
I sure as **** wouldn't want a goddamn civil insurgent handing me my coffee in the morning.
i like to think that maybe if some of the people with utopian ideals survive employment, maybe a few of those ideals will get through and the world actually -will- become a better place to live in.
Yeah, they tried that in the 60's. Didn't work.
Infact, Nazi facism and their general stance on genocide did more for the advancement of mankind than free love and drug abuse ever did.
Utopianism only works to the point where natural law turns on you. You could build a beautiful communist paradise and live for 10k years in glorious wonder - then have an asteroid wipe out the species because 'bombs are bad'.
Hell, you wouldn't even need an asteroid. You'd just need one guy with a gun and the will to use it. The only way any of the Utopian ****s could stop him would be to use violence, in which case even though he's defeated, violence triumphs over pacifism.
Put simply, violence defeats both violence and pacifism in all people. Pacifism doesn't really defeat anything and requires people to essentially surrender to it. At least some of the dip**** students understand this - which is why they started fighting.
-
That's why Anarchy is the natural state for mankind, the Police only work because we allow it to, if people suddenly decided that they preferred not to have Police, they outnumber them thousands to one.
Fortunately, most people prefer order, but the greatest achievers and the greatest villains in History are people who have realised that the rules only apply to them if they want them to.
-
Exactly. As I keep saying: Mwuahahahahahaaaa.....
-
I wouldn't over-analyze the situation too much. Yeah, yeah, it's about jobs. And why not throw in freedom, peace, justice and baby kittens, just for the hell of it. You're 25, financially secure, living in one of the most prosperous countries on the planet and the most exciting thing you've done in the past month is play Halo 2 for a few hours. Of course you want to go riot, that's where all the fun is. I would if I were them. You know the cops aren't going to do anything serious, and the crowd ensures that you will never be held personally responsible for anything you do. Under those conditions, would anyone here not join the rioting?
-
I find it ironic that you're waxing lyrical about ****ing with 'the man' and terrorising when things that you don't agree with pop up, yet when a bunch of students in France get pissed because they're being ****ed over you claim they're dicks?
As for their protesting, at least they're putting some effort into trying to change opinions rather than ranting about it to a bunch of guys on a web forum.
I'm not saying that they will get anywhere; governments are not well known for keeping the best interests of their people at heart, but at least they're trying.
Now the under 26's can be fired for voicing an opinion contrary to the management's, fired because they don't believe in the same religion as the management, fired because they come from an area the boss doesn't like, fired for suggesting a different store to a customer when they don't have what the customer is looking for, fired for not agreeing to push low quality goods to people.
And they won't have any kind of legal support because there won't be a reason for their dismissal.
-
I suppose my main concern is that this opens the door to things like sexual harrasment of young female employees by their bosses etc.
-
(http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/6606/frenchies4su.jpg)
-
People should be fired for being students. As the rioting proves, they're ****ing jerks.
Oh come on, you read the same page we all did right? Some dicks who - for want of a better word - we can call chavs or pickeys - decided to get violent and screw up everyones day. The whole thing indicates that it was a minority of idiots who cast a bad light on what was otherwise a peaceful protest.
Heck, I find it doubtful they were even students. Probably bored benefit kids who wanted to cause a little damage.
-
Businesses should be allowed to hire and fire indescriminately (or otherwise).
The simple fact is that the whole point of a business is to make money for the owner.
Now why should the owner be forced to fund the lifestyle of people who he hates?
And while the employee might be making them lots of money, would you take money from a paedophile? A rapist? A feminist? No. So you got no grounds to *****.
And if anyone starts ****ing around, demanding sexual favours from employees for promotions, firing people because they're black - then their company will just end up totally ****ed, with a load of hot women who can't do simple math but can suck cock like a pro running their marketting division with about as much skill as a can of AIDS and nose-diving their business into the ground.
You don't give money to people you don't like, and you don't take money from people who stand for things you despise.
Simple as that.
And incidentally, regardless of wether the protest was peaceful or not, they were still protesting. Would you want to employ someone who understands the concept of civil disobedience?
-
If it's the lifestyle you disagree with then don't employ them in the first place. At least then they can keep looking for a place that will take them on. Employing someone then firing them without any explanation? Well that's not helping anyone out - you have to look for another employee and they're left with no idea why they were laid off.
As for them protesting... I thought you of all people would be against lying down and taking something you don't agree with without any protest whatsoever.
-
Protesting is stupid.
Revolutions, on the other hand....
-
Everyone assumes that because they are students they will be fired or screwed over. Frankly, the companies are getting just as screwed over the other way and honestly neither situation is optimal for either group. I honestly don't see what the big deal is. We have this in the US and it is not an issue. We find jobs, we work, and go to school. It is not a big deal. I am not sure what the general attitude and state of the French business enviroment is so it might not be a totally applicable situation. Basically, to put it simply, they are afraid of change and the uncertainty it brings.
-
Everyone assumes that because they are students they will be fired or screwed over. Frankly, the companies are getting just as screwed over the other way and honestly neither situation is optimal for either group. I honestly don't see what the big deal is. We have this in the US and it is not an issue. We find jobs, we work, and go to school. It is not a big deal. I am not sure what the general attitude and state of the French business enviroment is so it might not be a totally applicable situation. Basically, to put it simply, they are afraid of change and the uncertainty it brings.
Can companies in the US sack (a specific age group of) people within their first 2 years without having to give a reason, then? I mean, this applies to any under-26 year old. So I could move out my house, be living alone, and then be sacked the next year and end up in deep financial trouble, through no fault of my own.
-
Actually yes, you can. There is no protection in the US according to discrimination laws, for young adults. Now, if you are a woman or an minority that is a different story. I also doubt that anyone would fire an employee just because. It costs money to hire and train an employee and it is not in their best interest to fire young employees left and right.
-
:eek2:
It's like DETROIT!!
-
Only with fewer car thefts and KISS concerts.
-
Actually yes, you can. There is no protection in the US according to discrimination laws, for young adults. Now, if you are a woman or an minority that is a different story. I also doubt that anyone would fire an employee just because. It costs money to hire and train an employee and it is not in their best interest to fire young employees left and right.
Lots of places would fire a employee 'just because'; particulalry unskilled jobs (which often employ the poorest and most vulnerable groups), and where it's a good way to save money. Or even to avoid having to implement some statutory requirements like raises, extra working rights, etc. Or maybe to sack a pregnant worker before they can excercise their maternity leave. Basically it removes a bunch of protections you'd have as a worker from being ****ed over by a business, or even by a manager who decides they don't like you. Bear in mind this is summary sacking, not any process that requires a valid reason for it.
Are you saying the US has laws against race discrimination, sex discrimination- but not age discrimination?
-
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/03/28/international/28cnd-protest.1.184.jpg)
BEAM WEAPONS!
-
For the first time....ever, I have a strong urge to actually visit Paris. If they threw these sorts of parties more often, it might attract some tourists, no? Germany has Octoberfest, France can have student riots, replete with anarchists, molotov cocktails, barricades, tear gas and everything else that goes into making your stay in the City of Light an unforgetable experience. You could even follow the standard route and overcharge foreigners for everyday things, like "Throw a stone at a cop - $20" or "Light one (1) car on fire - $500".
-
WOW! :wakka:
I was eating lunch in the dfac and watched those rioters get sprayed with watter for a good 30min! :yes: