At least the French have their priorities straight

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think there was a poll once that showed that France also had the highest proportion of people who rejected capitalism.

French political language has been well to the left of French political reality since at least the middle of the nineteenth century. Think of the those frock-coated 'Radicals' (later 'Radical Socialists') who presided over a long list of (by the standards of the rest of 'western' Europe) extremely conservative governments for more than half a century. Think also of the SFIO; one of the most right-wing social democratic parties of the post-war period (they made Gaitskell look like a Trot), yet one with rhetoric way to the left of most communist parties. Paradoxes like that are one of the things that makes French politics so eternally interesting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How much do you know about labour relations in France? Many French employers are about as right-wing on that issue as American employers or the British coal-owners c. 1926. There is effectively no unionisation outside the public sector and a lower percentage of employees are in unions than in the U.S. Which is actually the reason why things like this keep happening; labour has no clout inside the political process when the Right is in power. Militancy is often related to a lack of power; think of that other great bastion of the militant trade union: your country.

[opebo]

Yeah, their rights to 4 hour working days and 12 weeks off in summer...

4 hour working days and 12 weeks off is reasonable, plat.

If we worked 8 hours per day and got 2 weeks off in the 1930s, we should definitely work 4 hour days and get 12 weeks off in 2010, given the increase in productivity.

The French are right - Sarkozy and company are just trying to americanize them.  In other words turn them into desperates.

[Hash]

Even with Antonio's points, French citizens getting angry over this still seems rather silly...

C'est la France, and its moments like these that make me happy to be here in Canada even though this is hardly a great country.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Wow, it's always fun to see how people can assume and see things from the exterior, and it's moments like this that reminds me that one should always be cautious when seeing things from the exterior...

Where beginning...

Many French employers are about as right-wing on that issue as American employers or the British coal-owners c. 1926.

Many polls have shown that French support protests, and oppose the reform, and all where between 60% and 70%.

If you think that this forum's trustafarian community is at all typical of people who support an actual welfare state then... well... actually I don't know what to say.

Regardless what's going on in France at the moment is only a little related to the welfare state. I also happen to think that the Left have picked the wrong battle in this case, but these issues have a greater pull and power in France than in most places.

Not sure what 'trustafarian' would mean, but Antonio is perfectly representative of people who support a welfare state here.

And, the left has picked the good battle, it's unpopular, they only have to show they aren't big against-everything-knee-jerkers here, they use to be that way, and annoying, but, while, unless a big radicalization starts, it might finish in a negative outcome for the protest, the popular support is clearly here.

About the debate in Parliament, Left has been awful, as usual, but, and it might explain their attitude too, the big problem, which would also play in the fact that Street is important here, it is that parliamentary debate is more than ever weak in this country, given its institutions that became more than awful. The institutions makes that the most important chamber of the Parliament would always be run by a majority, and that since 2002, the majority in this chamber would always be the same as the majority in the presidential palace. Awful for the political dialog.

There is effectively no unionisation outside the public sector and a lower percentage of employees are in unions than in the U.S.

That is true for the most part yes, but some private sectors are strong bastions of unionism as well, that's why for one week almost the whole refineries of France have been blocked, and the gas stockers as well, and today about 4,000 gas stations haven't matter anymore. Other key sector, truck transportation, when they seriously block they can do whatever they want of the country (see 1995, and for a very concrete example, my parents who had a good-working restaurant feared to shut it after about 3 weeks of truckers strike).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unions being then very well represented in public services and key economical sectors, all what is the most important for a state to work, then it's not a surprise if they use it as the force it is as well.

All of this has to be added, that Sarkozy is a man who doesn't give a f**k about Dialog. Each time he tried to reform something it was almost on the tone of the insult (see universities, hospitals...) spreading some truths saying there is no other way. When you're slapped in the face before having said the slightest word, it doesn't encourage dialog...

This, in a global ambiance where Sarkozy is highly disliked, just one year after very big demonstrations of people to say that they were globally unhappy of what's was going on and moreover after they saw that guys who screwed the world economy had been given money for that. Yeah, it might sound weird, but Morality can still be something important...

Add to this that yeah, France has a culture of confrontation of which it is proud, the Révolution is still a great event here and we still see ourselves as the sons of this (if you think what I say is too much then, come), something that has been regularly updated throughout our history and of which the 2 very big last shots, Front Populaire 1936 and Mai 68, are still living in minds, especially the latter. Not to speak of 2 lesser shots, 1995 and 2006, in which each time the Street won and government stepped back.

Also, what you have to get here, it is that more of all these elements, this thing, retirement at 60, it's a symbol. It's a strong psychological symbol of the political concretisation of the leftist spirit born in Mai 68, a spirit seen as I wrote above as the continuation the revolutionary history of France that gives more Rights to the people, and a better life (a quite important notion here). This political concretization has been the election of Mitterand in 1981, people believed in Changer la vie, we were going to make concrete the aspirations of this last leftist spirit. But, an economical crisis quickly came in the beginning of the 1980s, then a lot of leftist reforms couldn't stand, but, at leas, there was, this: la retraite à 60 ans, and this to enjoy the life the most possible after work.

So, that guy, who doesn't give a f**k about dialog, not to say about respect, decided to say to this country who like political confrontation and which is fond of social progress: f**k you all, I've the solution, we can't do other things, I don't care of protest. Bye.

Ahem, the slightest we can say is that it is not a very smart political move.

All of this in a heavy political context, which makes that in protest, people don't only protest against this symbolically important reform that they're thrown in the face, but they protest against all what can be annoying with Sarkozy, and there is some matter, and it's something you hear in the media and from people who participated to these strikes/protestations.

Maybe people should be more cautious in a support to this small guy...



About that reform in particular, Antonio well pointed out how the govt tried to screw the debate, retirement here is not '60 for everybody and full pension hoorray!!'. Beyond the fact that the most important figure would be 65 to 67, France already has for a while the longest time of necessary cotisation to have a full retirement: 41,5 years (35 years in Germany for example).

So, it's not as if we would be in a socialist paradise already, and while a reform is certainly needed given that 10% of pensions are already paid by debt, maybe engaging an actual dialog with opposition and unions would have been useful, because while Left can be annoying here, and some of their propositions were not very credible, some were notably some with more social justice, that would certainly have been more smart than: f**k you.

Ah, about that:

Yeah, their rights to 4 hour working days and 12 weeks off in summer...

Well, trolling doesn't help much actually. Studies showed that French had the most full hours of work in OECD, the most productive ones, and maybe the most pressured ones. Not to speak about the fact that 35h is the weekly hours for one job. It can go till 48h, officially (means that in practice it can go beyond). And I don't speak of the fact that more and more people have a job through temporary work companies, in which labor rights are officially screwed.

Yeah, France isn't that lazy paradise, sorry. But people still think we should always have a better life, and well, people like to protest too, then when some political reforms have to be done, smartness, respect, and a mind opened to a bit more of moral justice too should maybe be welcomed...

I use to be annoyed by these things that can sometimes be knee-jerking protests here, here I don't mind them. Go away annoying little man.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Many polls have shown that French support protests, and oppose the reform, and all where between 60% and 70%.

Employers not employees. I suspect that this is a translation issue? Bosses, not workers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tactically yes, strategically no. Of course issues of working time have a bigger pull in France than almost anywhere else, so I'll admit that I might be wrong. Yes, you address that point later on. It is symbolic, though if anything you underplay it's importance in that regard. But I'm not convinced it's the right long-term strategy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, a couple of small well-paid industries in the private sector are unionised as well. But that's basically it, unless there's been an impressive unionisation drive since I last looked at the statistics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then how do you explain the tendency for militancy to have such a close relationship with unionisation statistics? The two large countries in 'the West' with the weakest unions in combined terms of membership and political influence are France and the United States. Both of which also have unusually militant unions. It is a very well documented phenomenon and can also be applied within specific industries and countries. The root cause is usually the attitude of bosses and often goes back a long way; the initial response to unions in both France and the U.S was extremely violent. The long-term impact has been for a relatively small labour movement, but a very militant one.

That isn't a criticism of France as such, so please don't read it that way

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's just the default setting of a contemporary Western conservative politician...

[Hash]

On the topic of polls, while I think it's correct more people oppose this reform than support it, polls on this issue and other social issues similar are extremely screwy and I would never trust any of them. Questions can be manipulated very easily, even unintentionally, to create vastly different answers. "Do you support pension reform" would get different results than "do you support the government's pension reform". I've seen polls on this issue where a majority support the reform, another with a supermajority opposing it, another showing an even split and so forth. It's screwy, it's totally inaccurate and polls on this issue should never be trusted. But of course, given the quality of French journalism, it's no wonder that they keep commissioning these polls (often from sub-standard pollsters like LH2, CSA, even OpinionWay) and use them to create flawed editorials and leads.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Even with Antonio's points, French citizens getting angry over this still seems rather silly...

Sillier than threatening violent revolution over tax increases in the >$250k bracket?

That said raising the retirement age to 67 is perfectly reasonable in today's society (remember that the 65 age was set back when most jobs were manual labor), and I don't have much doubt that'll happen before I hit 67 (well assuming I even make it there, of which I am skeptical.)

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Many polls have shown that French support protests, and oppose the reform, and all where between 60% and 70%.

Employers not employees. I suspect that this is a translation issue? Bosses, not workers.

Yup, my bad.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tactically yes, strategically no. Of course issues of working time have a bigger pull in France than almost anywhere else, so I'll admit that I might be wrong. Yes, you address that point later on. It is symbolic, though if anything you underplay it's importance in that regard. But I'm not convinced it's the right long-term strategy.

As long as they (the mainstream opposition, PS) manage not to appear as extremists, it' ok imo, as I said Sarkozy and this reform remain very unpopular, and the protest, except radicalization and blocking of the economy, quite popular. And the Left understood the symbol that Sarkozy didn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, a couple of small well-paid industries in the private sector are unionised as well. But that's basically it, unless there's been an impressive unionisation drive since I last looked at the statistics.

Not especially as far as I know as well, I just wanted to point out that it wasn't 'no unionisation outside of public sector', and that the private sectors in which there was some were strategically important.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then how do you explain the tendency for militancy to have such a close relationship with unionisation statistics? The two large countries in 'the West' with the weakest unions in combined terms of membership and political influence are France and the United States. Both of which also have unusually militant unions. It is a very well documented phenomenon and can also be applied within specific industries and countries. The root cause is usually the attitude of bosses and often goes back a long way; the initial response to unions in both France and the U.S was extremely violent. The long-term impact has been for a relatively small labour movement, but a very militant one.

Yeah, yeah, and this makes full sense and I didn't want to contradict this, but I also wanted to add that the kinds of things they only control are key sectors of the state, in public (transports and education for the main part) and private (oil industry and trucks for the main part), which also explains that when they do movements they almost have to use a force of blocking. Because, yes, being almost all what they have, but also because what they have can be such a big force that it is not surprised if it used and can only have big consequences if it is used.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's just the default setting of a contemporary Western conservative politician...

I don't want to act like a spoiled child, but, here, we got one... And besides Berlusconi I couldn't think of a more annoying one in that kind of realm, I don't follow UK politics closely but even Camy seems cool compared to ours, and especially psychologically, which, as with symbols, in politics, and especially today's politics, is something quite important...

On the topic of polls, while I think it's correct more people oppose this reform than support it, polls on this issue and other social issues similar are extremely screwy and I would never trust any of them. Questions can be manipulated very easily, even unintentionally, to create vastly different answers. "Do you support pension reform" would get different results than "do you support the government's pension reform". I've seen polls on this issue where a majority support the reform, another with a supermajority opposing it, another showing an even split and so forth. It's screwy, it's totally inaccurate and polls on this issue should never be trusted. But of course, given the quality of French journalism, it's no wonder that they keep commissioning these polls (often from sub-standard pollsters like LH2, CSA, even OpinionWay) and use them to create flawed editorials and leads.

Well, yeah, we can play with nuances, but polls have been numerous, and for a long time (ftr this movement of protest began in the beginning of September), but beyond some nuances, the questions asked aren't that tortured and globally, on this long term all would show that an average of at least 60% oppose the reform and supports the protest.

It's not a random if Elysée began to be happy when polls about the blocking of oil industry appeared, they feel it's their main argument here, to play on the fact that blocking gas cripples a lot of people, and that this is irresponsible, etc. Those appeared today morning and would show that about 55% oppose the blocking of it.

That's on what the govt tries to play now, irresponsabilizing unions by pointing out some of their radical manifestations, especially the blocking of gas. Plus, they can still play on high-schoolers, who makes the most of disorder and who can be painted as unconscious. But overall some young guys only interested in breaking everything take advantage of young movements to do that. The fires and breaking of shops you can see on TV screens abroad are caused by these guys, not by unioners or young protesters, most of the time that are guys coming from rough districts who don't give a f**k of the protest and are only here to mess around, to easily steal all these young high-schoolers, and to break and steal some shops. Young movements try to better organize themselves in order they can't be used as something for these guys to hide themselves, but well, as long as there will be some mess, I guess those guys will enjoy. 

This plus the fact that the legislative process is almost ending makes that we could be at a turn right now. Tomorrow, unions will gather themselves to decide what they will do. In any case, no matter the movements continues or not, radicalization would appear, especially given the fact that since today govt decided to unblock gas stocking by force sending hundreds of guys against tens of unioners, doesn't help to appease the things...

Basically, either it will slowly calm itself and it will be over (the fact that unions stay united or not will be important for this), or...ça va péter!!

I would inclined to think the former would be the most likely, with some radicalization on the end, but, well, you never know, and a small incident can still restart fire in this powder gun ambiance...

40% of gas stations are out of order today.

[John Dibble]

Just to add something to the topic of discussion since I'm finding this interesting:

French industry 'losing at least £100 million a day'

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

French industry 'losing at least £100 million a day'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, indeed bosses can twist informations. The strike in Marseille-Fos is about one month old now, and is about some local reasons, while the national strike in oil industry is about one week and a half old, both just matched together in the end. And it's been the blocking of all oil tankers coming in Marseille and then of the trade port as a whole there, not only the blocking of refineries and depots. Then most part of the 'lost money' can't be put on the national movement in refineries and oil depots so far.

Yeah, it has costs, but well, sometimes some things can have a cost, here people have been slapped in the face without being able to say a word to be imposed a truth which would moreover miss of fairness, then protestations might also be legitimate. While I would support the protests, I'm not sure how I would be toward the strategy of blocking personally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This, which is also the claim of unions shows that this isn't pointless protestation and reinforce its legitimacy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah baby Hortefeux, continue to assimilate protesters to destroyers, what a fair and good idea...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marseille!

damn it, even my US English spelling corrector puts an 's' to it.

[big bad fab]

  2. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, he reform doesn't raise the retirement age from 60 to 62, but from 65 to 67, because if you retire at 62 you only get a share of the (already small) pension you are entitled to. This is a lie the government has managed to impose.

Ah I see, well I admit my mistake here then. So most people actually continue to work until 65, and not 60, then you're right, I have misunderstood it. Still a raise from 65 to 67 is not all that controversial, and as I said, the same raise from 65 to 67 has been mentioned in Sweden as a potential future reform. 

Nope, the current average retirement age in France is around 59,5...

And with Sarkozy's reform, you will be able to retire at 62 with a full pension if you've worked 41,5 years.

[opebo]

By the way, calling this a 'reform' is somewhat comical, considering it is merely turning the clock back to the days of greater misery and subjugation.

[Antonio the Sixth]

  2. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, he reform doesn't raise the retirement age from 60 to 62, but from 65 to 67, because if you retire at 62 you only get a share of the (already small) pension you are entitled to. This is a lie the government has managed to impose.

Ah I see, well I admit my mistake here then. So most people actually continue to work until 65, and not 60, then you're right, I have misunderstood it. Still a raise from 65 to 67 is not all that controversial, and as I said, the same raise from 65 to 67 has been mentioned in Sweden as a potential future reform. 

Nope, the current average retirement age in France is around 59,5...

And with Sarkozy's reform, you will be able to retire at 62 with a full pension if you've worked 41,5 years.

59.5 is the average year when you cease to work, not when your retire : ie it counts uneployeds, which is silly.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

  2. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, he reform doesn't raise the retirement age from 60 to 62, but from 65 to 67, because if you retire at 62 you only get a share of the (already small) pension you are entitled to. This is a lie the government has managed to impose.

Ah I see, well I admit my mistake here then. So most people actually continue to work until 65, and not 60, then you're right, I have misunderstood it. Still a raise from 65 to 67 is not all that controversial, and as I said, the same raise from 65 to 67 has been mentioned in Sweden as a potential future reform. 

Nope, the current average retirement age in France is around 59,5...

And with Sarkozy's reform, you will be able to retire at 62 with a full pension if you've worked 41,5 years.

Which is an important point. 60 is only a cheap possibility to retire and really not available for a lot of persons. Trying to f**k this symbol, and this possibility (why shouldn't it be one to have a cheap retirement as long as you have fulfilled the 41.5 years anyhow?).

It's a dumb and pointless political move, basically it would like to be mainly here to impose a personal rightist mark on the history of the country by trying to f**k an old symbol who came from the left.

And this is one more time without speaking of the miss of social justice of this bill that we can consider when we look at the economical system as a whole.

[Marokai Backbeat]

By the way, calling this a 'reform' is somewhat comical, considering it is merely turning the clock back to the days of greater misery and subjugation.

It reminds me of the way a game company will announce "adjustments" to classes in one online game or another. "Adjustment" is always a code word for "weaken." Same way that "reform" almost typically means the further lurch to the right and some gutting of a program of their choice.

[tpfkaw]

If I were Sarkozy I would fire the lot of them.  Obviously their jobs are unnecessary, since France continues to exist, without mass starvation or societal collapse.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If I were Sarkozy I would fire the lot of them.  Obviously their jobs are unnecessary, since France continues to exist, without mass starvation or societal collapse.

Yeah indeed, firing people for strinking is all right !

[Хahar 🤔]

I think there was a poll once that showed that France also had the highest proportion of people who rejected capitalism.

French political language has been well to the left of French political reality since at least the middle of the nineteenth century. Think of the those frock-coated 'Radicals' (later 'Radical Socialists') who presided over a long list of (by the standards of the rest of 'western' Europe) extremely conservative governments for more than half a century. Think also of the SFIO; one of the most right-wing social democratic parties of the post-war period (they made Gaitskell look like a Trot), yet one with rhetoric way to the left of most communist parties. Paradoxes like that are one of the things that makes French politics so eternally interesting.

Where do De Gaulle and Gaullism fit into this? De Gaulle was the first public figure unambiguously on the right in a long time, perhaps since Boulanger (although his right was very different), and I would imagine that that has served to alter the public discourse.

[Franzl]

If I were Sarkozy I would fire the lot of them.  Obviously their jobs are unnecessary, since France continues to exist, without mass starvation or societal collapse.

Yeah indeed, firing people for strinking is all right !

Actually, I don't see why that shouldn't be alright, to be quite honest. If the striking people are worth what they claim they are, they won't be getting fired.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

If I were Sarkozy I would fire the lot of them.  Obviously their jobs are unnecessary, since France continues to exist, without mass starvation or societal collapse.

Yeah indeed, firing people for strinking is all right !

Actually, I don't see why that shouldn't be alright, to be quite honest. If the striking people are worth what they claim they are, they won't be getting fired.

Hmm, Striking Right?

[Franzl]

If I were Sarkozy I would fire the lot of them.  Obviously their jobs are unnecessary, since France continues to exist, without mass starvation or societal collapse.

Yeah indeed, firing people for strinking is all right !

Actually, I don't see why that shouldn't be alright, to be quite honest. If the striking people are worth what they claim they are, they won't be getting fired.

Hmm, Striking Right?

Aren't we debating the merits of that? It can't be considered an argument per se.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

If I were Sarkozy I would fire the lot of them.  Obviously their jobs are unnecessary, since France continues to exist, without mass starvation or societal collapse.

Yeah indeed, firing people for strinking is all right !

Actually, I don't see why that shouldn't be alright, to be quite honest. If the striking people are worth what they claim they are, they won't be getting fired.

Hmm, Striking Right?

Aren't we debating the merits of that? It can't be considered an argument per se.

Ah ok, then I consider it should be a Right (aka not a possible motivation to be fired). And your argument isn't much relevant here, 1st they don't really claim to be something, they protest about something, in other cases strike can be used to ask for something, and 2nd I hope you get all the consequences that the logic to fire those who strike could have on labor. Chinese workers, amongst others in the world, could explain you the problem maybe...

But, be comfortable (maybe), in most of the French private system, it is quite badly seen to be unionized by directions, and still more to make strike, and if it's allowed in term of right, you better be sure your boss is a nice person, otherwise be sure you could have some problems in the company if you have the 'bad idea' to use this right, not to speak about all those (who are a lot and more and more) who are in temporary contracts and for whom striking is almost a 'no way', since they could be immediately fired from their temporary job, and wouldn't be proposed other short contracts in the temporary work agency in which they are if they have that same 'bad idea'. All the more to make the exploitation of workers more easy...

Here we are with corporations who earned big rights and who are highly unionized, then they have more force, but, as it has been said in this thread, outside of public function and a few key sectors, it is far to be the majority in France...

[Antonio the Sixth]

If I were Sarkozy I would fire the lot of them.  Obviously their jobs are unnecessary, since France continues to exist, without mass starvation or societal collapse.

Yeah indeed, firing people for strinking is all right !

Actually, I don't see why that shouldn't be alright, to be quite honest. If the striking people are worth what they claim they are, they won't be getting fired.

Hmm, Striking Right?

Aren't we debating the merits of that? It can't be considered an argument per se.

I guess this has already been debated... in the XIXth century. I thought conservatives (at least European ones) could eventually get over it and fight for some more "respectable" cause.

[Vepres]

If I were Sarkozy I would fire the lot of them.  Obviously their jobs are unnecessary, since France continues to exist, without mass starvation or societal collapse.

Yeah indeed, firing people for strinking is all right !

Actually, I don't see why that shouldn't be alright, to be quite honest. If the striking people are worth what they claim they are, they won't be getting fired.

Hmm, Striking Right?

Aren't we debating the merits of that? It can't be considered an argument per se.

I guess this has already been debated... in the XIXth century. I thought conservatives (at least European ones) could eventually get over it and fight for some more "respectable" cause.

Fallacious. Just because a nation's political culture "settled" the policy a political issue in the past, doesn't mean it is the right policy or the most "progressive".

[opebo]

...If the striking people are worth what they claim they are, they won't be getting fired.

'Worth' is only a measure of the power of your opponent, Franzl.  To accept a valuation upon how useful you may be to your oppressor is the height of ignominy.  One should try to kill him, or die in the struggle, and not listen to his judgements of one's worth (after all, if one accepts the enslavement, one is 'worthless' in the most meaningful sense).