For many people who aren't familiar with France and the politics of French social welfare, this entire scene sounds highly implausible, and it offers yet another opportunity to pile on and point out how ridiculous the French are. And this situation is surely ridiculous, but not for the reasons that many might speculate.

The French social model is different from the present Anglo-American model in that the state generally takes the responsibility for guaranteeing the welfare of its citizens, often at the expense of corporations.

This is a gross oversimplification, but as it relates to employment, companies generally can offer a 3-6 month probationary period when hiring, after which period it becomes extremely difficult to dismiss employees for any reason; you need to be able to clearly demonstrate cause to dismiss that borders on the criminal. Any other reason, including layoffs or mild incompetence, and it's going to be hard to fire your employee.

Beyond this, the cost of an employee to his/her employer generally amounts to double the salary, because the company is required to pay old-age, medical, and unemployment benefits that would be considered ridiculously high to most. But this money, paid by the companies, is what forms the basis of the French social safety net.

So, if you're a company, you're basically going to have to think twice, and then think again, before you (a) create a new job, and (b) hire somebody for it. Creating the job is a massive expense, and if you hire somebody for it they're going to cost you money whether or not they're earning their pay.

Crazy? It would certainly seem so to anybody who's familiar with the at-will hiring policies of most American companies.

But this system, while ripe for abuse by lazy or incompetent employees, is merely the inverse of a system that's ripe for abuse by ruthless corporations. The potential for abuse is there in either case, but the French have decided over the years they'd rather make sure the people are covered and the corporations absorb the risk, and that they're willing to pay higher taxes to preserve the safety net.

Perhaps it's not the decision you'd have made, but whether or not you agree with it, there is a logic to the system. The French buy into the system almost universally, and are very proud and protective of it.

Now, for the current crisis and why I think it's patently absurd.

The government's introduction of the CPE was largely considered to be a response to the rioting that took place last Autumn, during which a predominantly North-African immigrant underclass took to the streets, burning cars, in protest of police abuse. The undercurrent to those riots, however, was the extremely high (I don't have an exact number, but much higher than 25%) unemployment among these North-African immigrant communities. This disproportionate unemployment among immigrants inflates the national average, so while again I don't have exact numbers, unemployment among the non-immigrant youth community is significantly lower than 25%.

This situation needs addressing, and I'm pretty sure the CPE was not the way to address it, but the government saw an opportunity to create jobs at the low end of the pay scale that they figured had a good chance of going to the disaffected, unemployed immigrant youth. Another approach might have been to try and combat the systemic racism that openly prevents many immigrants from getting hired to jobs they're qualified for, but such an approach did not come to pass. Make no mistake: the CPE was designed for the immigrant community.

Fast-forward to this January, and all of a sudden university students -- who are disproportionately non-immigrant and generally under 26 -- realise that the CPE might affect them as well, because the new contract is available to all employers. Trade unions -- representing employees who are disproportionally non-immigrant, and whose long-term future rests on the shoulders of those who are under 26 -- find common cause with the university students. Students take to the streets, protesting to maintain the status quo. The trade unions, sensing the government's vulnerability in next year's elections, and finding at long last an issue the political left can rally around, joins them.

So what you have is a relatively privileged youth class joining up with a relatively privileged worker class shutting down the country to stop a piece of government legislation that probably would not have helped the immigrants it was purportedly designed to help. Then, predictably, the government pulls the legislation -- because the ruling party's political base looks a lot more like university students and trade union members than it does like immigrants.

In the end, nobody really won. And in the process of nobody winning, everybody -- left, right, students, government, unions -- sold out the immigrants. So in a controversy that started as an attempt to (at best) help or (at worst) placate the disaffected, unemployed immigrants, you'll find they are the group that has the most reason to be angry at the debacle.

So how long, do you think, before the next round of riots breaks out?

Posted by ElectricOrange at 7:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)