I agree with every single sentence in this article. A pig just flew by my window.
Posted by hegadumb at May 29, 2007 12:04 PM
53% to 47%……….”trouncing”?…..clear mandate?
Posted by jwtruther at May 29, 2007 01:41 PM
When democracy gives you what you want – it’s a beautiful thing.
When it doesn’t – it’s flawed.
Hey, Karl Rove said that Bush’s last victory (51%) was a clear mandate to govern for a generation. So, in that regard, 53% is a trouncing.
Nonetheless, France has some serious problems that need a “firm hand”. Of course, the definition of a “firm hand” is much like the definition of democracy I offer above.
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at May 29, 2007 02:47 PM
Yes, isn’t it just awful that working class people should have the gall to think they deserve vacations, leisure time, safe workplaces, rights, etc.? Who do they think they are? Capitalists?
Perhaps Sarkozy can weld together a strong state with forced/slave labor, like China, or Nazi Germany?
Posted by hyperbolus at May 29, 2007 07:11 PM
Hyperbolus:
Seems to me the issue is balancing the leisure with productivity. I’ve always liked the idea of mandatory vacation and a reduced work-week; mandatory maternity/paternity leave is a nice feature too. But these perks have made French labor completely uncompetitive.
Developing economies in China and India, and to some extent, developed nations like the United States, espouse virtual slavery in exchange for money and advancement. That the tradeoff can be unsatisfying is not secret to anyone, but the French want more than leisure and job security; their employment system inoculates workers from performance related dismissals. If anything is truly problematic in French society, it’s the inability of employers to hire and fire at all.
Again, that doesn’t imply that labor should work (or not work) at the whim of selfish capitalists, but having seen what deeply entitled labor can do to overall productivity.
I can appreciate how a little fear for your job security can be a good thing. My uncle worked for a state-run fertilizer company in Western Burdwan (West Bengal, India) that hadn’t produced fertilizer in over two decades, yet still guaranteed salaries (albeit meager ones) to all of its employees, jobs to their children, 5 weeks off, etc. etc. My uncle would go to work and write poetry or play cards for 7h per day. The reform government privatized that operation about seven years ago, and they are now operating at a profit, and salaries have quadrupled. Of course, now people need to actually work at work…
In dealing with France’s entitlement society, I find the first of Sarkozy’s plans to be quite interesting; tax exemptions for any income earned beyond that 35-hour work week. This way, those who want to work more can reap additional benefits, while those who either don’t need or want the extra money can enjoy their leisure time.
Posted by chatman at May 29, 2007 07:58 PM
This doesn’t really seems like real France. My wife’s lifelong friend Huguette was just fired for a typing mistake which costed her employer 8000 EUR. This after having worked there for her whole life, often overtime without pay. So where are the famous French laziness and foolproof jobs?
It seems that a lot of spin has been set in motion here - just like us Swedes were told in the 70s that we had a huge national debt we couldn’t ever pay back unless we cut our welfare system. Afterwards it was discovered that we owed most of this debt to ourselves.
But I would really rejoice if Sarko could get rid of the ridiculous agricultural subsidies. But I don’t think he will, because most of it doesn’t go to family farmers at all but to aristocratic agribusiness owners, most of which are part of Sarkozy’s power base.
Posted by Jan Wiklund at May 30, 2007 05:30 AM
Jan:
I think that your friend is an exception. I worked for years in HR for a global fortune-500 and any time we talked to our peers in France they would blow our minds with their stories relative to their inability to terminate even the most worthless of employees. Terminating people was basically so incredibly difficult it was often just not even attempted. These sorts of difficulties, faced by employers in France, are very well documented.
Posted by hegadumb at May 30, 2007 08:48 AM
Agreed. What’s wrong with 5 weeks of holidays ? or a 35 hr work week… ? What’s the extra 2.5 hrs going to change ? Do we really think we can compete against billions of low cost workers in 3rd world countries around the world ?
I shall grab a coffee at Timmies and read the free dailt tabloids as I ponder this, im sure im missing something.
Posted by bigsugar999 at May 30, 2007 11:04 AM
As a lifelong hard-working person, and son of a strict German father, I have no sympathy for lazy people. Especially when they start “demanding” all sorts of goodies that normal people would never see in their lives.
Five weeks holidays?!?! That’s incredible! I’ve never had five weeks holidays in my entire working life. 35 hour work week? Every company I’ve worked for expects 45 to 50 hours. People who only work 40 hours are considered lazy, and would never ever be considered for promotion or any type of career advancement.
Eric stated that almost half of all French workers are employed by the government! That’s absolutely insane. They produce nothing, and are a giant vacuum on the productivity of the remainder. It would be nearly impossible to get motivated in such an economic environment.
Being unable to fire incompetent people is a crime against; the business, the customer, the public and the co-workers. All to protect someone who can’t do their job. That part is just incredible to me.
I’ve always wondered how wonderful the world could be if all the effort that people put into avoiding work and protecting their handouts actually went into work. It seems that people are willing to move mountains to protect their right to do nothing.
Jan Wiklund… Your friend sounds like the exception to the rule. I could be wrong though. But I’m perplexed by your comment that the Swedish debt (of the 1970’s) was only owed to “ourselves”. So if business ‘A’ borrows from bank ‘B’ the business can default because they’re all Swedes? That doesn’t make any financial sense.
Rabinovitz: …. You left out the words EYE-raq and EYE-ran. Are you feeling okay?
DCanuck
Ain’t No Hippie
Posted by D. Canuck at May 30, 2007 04:26 PM
To French People… Never mind china or India… 80% of people i know here in Canada works over 60 hours a week, only 44 shows on every paychecque the rest appear as bonuses… Why? no over pays… why not complain? You lose the job, yes they can fire your a….
SO MY POINT TO FRENCH PEOPLE IS.
Before you elected this circusy guy (whatever the spelling) you should have visited Canada, checked out the work condition, got a clear idea if it was worth electing this gentleman…
Posted by Js8Me at May 30, 2007 04:34 PM
a good old capitalist revolutionary…coupled with his hatred for the already disenfranchised immigrants, wonder how he’ll handle the inevitable shockwaves to hit paris…France is set to become more polarized than it already is…
Posted by blitz at May 30, 2007 06:25 PM
Chatman:
Yes, of course, it’s all about productivity, or efficiency, or competitiveness (it’s always all about whatever serves to reduce the power/position of the working class). But for whom? From whom? Who sacrifices for the sake of productivity, and who reaps the benefits (all disproportionately)?
I find your Indian example illuminating, but not I think in the way you intended. The U.S. (by which of course I mean the ruling class of the U.S.) would indeed love to see France (and Europe) become more like India, or Turkey (which is why the U.S. is so keen on Turkey joining the E.U.), or any other third world country (as again it proved in its “advice” to Russia after the end of the Soviet Union).
Jan Wiklund is right. The Anglo-American, neo-liberal media has been complaining about France for a long time, as it has complained about other such grave dangers as inflation, national debt, the Soviet Union, WMDs in Iraq, etc., all of which serves the purpose of further concentrating wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands.
DCanuck: Your criticism of the French working class is clearly based on resentment. Why should they and not you have five weeks vacation and a 35 hour work week? But why then don’t you feel even greater resentment toward capitalists like Eric, Conrad Black, etc. for their even far far greater standard of living?
Posted by hyperbolus at May 30, 2007 06:58 PM
hyperbolus,
…because people should work for what they have, not have it given to them. Someone somewhere has to pay. I resent laziness. You are right about productivity - who does it serve? 95% the business owner and maybe 5% the actual worker.
I have no complaints about my standard of living - it’s a result of my hard work (radical concept, I know). Okay, maybe I don’t own a private jet.
Neo-liberal media??? God I hope you’re not talking at the American media!
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at May 30, 2007 07:28 PM
i’ll only work hard when i run my own business where i reap the benefits of my hard work…not when some bourgie a-hole is getting the rewards…
until then, i will try to get away with doing as little work as i can (while still keeping my job, trust me its an art form) for my corporation while its busy sponsoring a war in some third world country…
Posted by blitz at May 30, 2007 09:22 PM
Once again Mr. Margolis shows his fascination with fascism and slavery. This isn’t the first time that he’s shown us how giddy he is about how Sarkozy will decimate France by turning it into another United State of America.
In the past he’s also stated that France’s citizens must work more in order to keep up with China. Yes, going back to slavery and forcing people to work 60-90 hours a week is necessary in order to keep up with communist China. We must show the world that capitalism is more efficient than communism and if that means sacrificing the lower class and lower middle class so be it. Unbelievable.
Mr. Margolis is worse than a neocon. He has no problem with the destruction of the conventional family. Studies have shown that one of the main causes of broken families is long work hours. How are parents supposed to properly raise children if they’re forced to work 45-50 hours a week.
Sure it’s possible but it’s also possible for some really dedicated parents to raise children while working 70 hours a week but that doesn’t make it right. A proper balance between work and leisure time is necessary in order to lead a decent life but Mr. Margolis couldn’t care less about the quality of life of a mere common person.
I’m also puzzled about some of the comments made to this story. In Canada, if you people who work for the government work 35 hours/week. Most other companies implement 37.5 or 40 hour work weeks.
Those who work 50+ hours/week and are proud of it are very sad people. They proclaim to be proud to be working so many hours… in fact, in some twisted way they consider it a badge of honour.
These people aren’t the ones who NEED to work 50+ hours/week to make ends meet. No, these people count their dollars up until the day they die. The reason they’re so proud about working a ridiculous amount of hours each week is because their life is so empty that they have nothing else but work.
Traditionally, this has been a North American mentality. By and large, the French people realize that this is a stupid mentality and they don’t want to waste their entire life working.
Sadly, many of them felt that a drastic change was necessary. But it’s ironic that the French often mock Americans for being dumb enough to elect George W. Bush twice since they have now fallen into the same trap and put their faith in the hands of an elitist who looks down on the poor with disdain. The French have proven to be no wiser than the “stupid Americans” they like to make fun of.
Back to Mr. Margolis. While his knowledge of the Middle Eastern region and military strategy is top notch, his knowledge of world economies is sorely lacking. Either that or he purposely lumps one problem with others in order to construct an argument. I can’t tell if he’s ignorant or a devious liar.
Posted by Mike Daly at May 30, 2007 11:19 PM
Mike Daly:
“These people aren’t the ones who NEED to work 50+ hours/week to make ends meet … The reason they’re so proud about working a ridiculous amount of hours each week is because their life is so empty that they have nothing else but work.”
What an obnoxious assumption. You know, there are people who are proud of the things they do, and for whom work is a profession or calling, rather than a form of enslavement keeping them from the things that humans REALLY want to do. I know so many good, dedicated people who are both balanced, and work long hours because, through their work, they make a difference in some area other than their bank account. Clearly, you have no idea what sort of profession might provide enough substantive reward in itself fill a person’s life. In fact, some of the hardest workers I know don’t earn six figure salaries, went to school for years to earn the privilege to do what they do, and barely make ends meet while committing their time and energy to something other than themselves. Some are artists, some doctors, some attorneys… the fact that you presume that any person committed to workplace productivity is only after money, and that such work cannot itself be a source of pride and satisfaction, is incredibly short-sighted.
Posted by chatman at May 31, 2007 02:25 AM
Hyperbolus:
“…all of which serves the purpose of further concentrating wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands.”
India’s reforms have led to unprecedented prosperity and growth in the working and middle classes. The wealthy get wealthier for sure. However, under the prior “third world socialism” model, 99.9% of the people were living hand-to-mouth with no opportunity to advance through merit or talent, while 0.1% were so rich and powerful they had no idea what to do with their money. Now, about 10% of the country is wealthy enough to save money in a bank account, 1% of the country is fabulously wealthy, and 90% are dirt poor, though more capable of breaking the cycle of poverty than they were 30 or 40 years ago.
Not everyone has transitioned well from socialist economies that were supposed to enfranchise workers to their benefit; India’s own transition is quite uneven and fraught with problems, but clearly, the old way was not working. Few systems that completely ignore classical, bourgeois definitions of productivity have withstood the test of time, because they don’t put incentives where they best serve to improve the lives of all people concerned.
You complain that productivity only benefits the business owner, but benefitting the business owner also means that the business owner continues to provide jobs, income, and a demand for skills. Hence, there is a benefit to all parties concerned, and that benefit evaporates if worker productivity is so low that no sane business owner would want to hire labor in a given market.
Again, I don’t espouse slavery, and some labor strategies (i.e China’s 60h workweeks) are not worth competing against. But is it really fair to guarantee unproductive workers jobs? How does that create an incentive for workers to grow and develop professionally?
We already have one poster here who states that he would not be willing to work any more than he has to for a business not his own, professional development notwithstanding. Yet, not everyone can be an independent business owner or entrepreneur. How would you propose ordinary workers ownership in the enterprises that employ them, and how would you fairly grant an enterprise the power to reward good workers while jettisoning bad ones? Does complete job security assure continuing happiness to the employee at the expense of legitimate employer concerns regarding productivity? Is firing workers a capitalist evil you are not prepared to countenance?
I don’t like it when a company’s stock goes up when the bad managers lay off thousands of workers, but there is a middle ground between letting capitalists do whatever they want, and letting labor get away with murder on the job.
Posted by chatman at May 31, 2007 02:34 AM
I find many of Eric’s points contradictory to others he has made in the past. One point he made just a few months ago is that French workers are more productive than workers in the USA. This must be taking into account the “ungodly” vacations, lunch hours, and supposedly endless strikes.
If your government isn’t dedicated to ripping off the wealth of the masses to give to the pissant fascists and enslaving the world, it’s amazing what it can do for the general health of its people. One of the biggest problems in the USA is the demise of unions thus eliminating a balancing force to a government that has run amok.
France over the past 30 years has not only caught up with the USA but surpassed it technologically. It is the USA that needs to revamp itself and become more like France. The USA has no problem finding money to kill and enslave the world but can’t find the money to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, provide adequate health care for its citizens, follow up on the monies pledged to help the Tsunammi victims, etc.
There are many people around the world who populate the lower economic classes and work harder than those who are rich. In fact, most rich people would probably kill themselves if all they had to look forward to was a life at that level…working 2-3 jobs, living in squalor, being paid minimum wage, unable to find or afford viable education and job alternatives. And, yes, some would succeed but I doubt the percentage would be above 25%.
Posted by Toumbak at May 31, 2007 11:51 AM
Output is the issue, not hours spent in the worrkplace.
And the surprisng fact is how much the French, the “lazy ones” of europe, do when they work.
The OECD GDP productivity statistics for 2000 showed France to be only to be less than 0.07 below that of Canada in the same year, and only 0.09 less than the US in the same year.
So the differential that concerns the Right is less than 1% each working hour.
what would you be willing to forgo for five weeks holiday, security and simply time to exist as a human being?
What might happen if the rest of the industrialized world were more French, not less?
keebster
Posted by keebster at May 31, 2007 12:31 PM
That’s true - I work in the public service in Canada - We have to be here, firmly in our seats for 7.5 hours a day, but we can also browse web pages and do whatever.
Perhaps France is just not kidding themselves about actual workload versus imagined workload like we do here.
I worked at Elections Canada for awhile, they really bust their asses during an electoral event, and then spend the down-time coming up with make-work assignments to keep the staff busy. The projects themselves aren’t mandatory for the running of the country, but it’s important that the employees not waste their time. (Even though half the time, you have to just pretend you’re working)
Posted by Tovy at May 31, 2007 01:10 PM
Chatman, DCanuck:
Is it Plato or Aristotle who defines a slave as someone who has no leisure?
My understanding is that all the great philosophers, at least from Locke to Marx, agree with DCanuck that wealth/owmership is a property of labor. But the capitalist is by definition someone who makes his living by profiting from the labor of others. So then, philosophically at least, the capitalist is less entitled to “his” wealth than the laborer, never mind the gross disparity.
Chatman: I’m sure you can see that the quote you took from me refers not specifically to India but rather to the neo-liberal, Anglo-American media (as agents/servants of their ruling class) in their constant manufacturing of crises.
By your own figures, post-reform India is still grotesquely unjust in its distribution of wealth, at least by my (First World) standards. It is not a model to by followed by us, but rather a warning.
An article in the most recent New York Review of Books about Sarkozy and the French election agrees with Toumbak and keebster that France’s “stagnation” is not at all economic. It is rather political, a result of the compact between Mitterand and Chirac (and their cronies).
Posted by hyperbolus at May 31, 2007 01:11 PM
hyperbolus,
I’m guessing Aristotle. Plate didn’t concern himself too much with leisure or the lower castes.
Mike Daly,
You sure are reading a lot into Eric’s column. Desctruction of the family??! Who seriously wants to destroy families? You made some good points, but went too far in your other assumptions.
It’s not a matter of competing with China. It’s matter of NOT EVEN TRYING to compete with China. That means getting out of manufacture and into the higher end of the economy. That requires change and sacrifice which is political suicide. Factory workers making widgets in Europe or North America can not compete against China unless they subsidize their industry… Robbing Peter to pay Paul. There’s no future in that.
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at May 31, 2007 05:51 PM
Make that Plat*o*
Posted by D. Canuck at May 31, 2007 05:52 PM