The French have their problems

[j07950]

Then why are they planning to have another event on % Feb as they state in the article?

Thats for everything to be in order, in writen form, but it has never really been applied, and companies just give people more vacation instead of making peoplework 35 hours/week.

 

[CSM]

Thats for everything to be in order, in writen form, but it has never really been applied, and companies just give people more vacation instead of making peoplework 35 hours/week.

So essentially what you are telling me that it is the law that no one employed in the privarte sector in France is supposed to work more than 35 hours per week. Those that do are breaking the law? The fact that the law is not enforced is beside the point. I am not trying to be sarcastic or trap you. I truly am trying to understand how the 35 hour work week applies LEGALLY to the private sector in the French workplace.

 

[Said1]

So essentially what you are telling me that it is the law that no one employed in the privarte sector in France is supposed to work more than 35 hours per week. Those that do are breaking the law? The fact that the law is not enforced is beside the point. I am not trying to be sarcastic or trap you. I truly am trying to understand how the 35 hour work week applies LEGALLY to the private sector in the French workplace.

I think he means companies bank your hours in order to have more paid holidays instead of paying over time.

 

[CSM]

I think he means companies bank your hours in order to have more paid holidays instead of paying over time.

Is that like compensation time? I mean if you work over 35 hours in a wekk you can take that surplus work time off the following week?

 

[Said1]

Is that like compensation time? I mean if you work over 35 hours in a wekk you can take that surplus work time off the following week?

If you can take it off the following week, then yes. It's handy around holiday season and during the summer months.

 

[CSM]

If you can take it off the following week, then yes. It's handy around holiday season and during the summer months.

Doesn't sound like too bad a deal to me, but why would a government make a law like this? I mean what is the intent of such a law?

 

[Said1]

Doesn't sound like too bad a deal to me, but why would a government make a law like this? I mean what is the intent of such a law?

It cost less than paying over time, plus they can still control when the time is taken off. Public servants have nice cushy overtime stipulations in their collective agreements, a law would do away with that I suppose. Standardized labor practices rings a bell.

 

[j07950]

Is that like compensation time? I mean if you work over 35 hours in a wekk you can take that surplus work time off the following week?

Yeah basically you get more vacation, but you can't just take time off the next week onless you take these days as vacation. These extra vacation days are called "RTT". My dad gets about 10-15 extra vacation days a year. But he's not paid on an hourly base anyway, he works for EXXON as a project manager and IT engeneer. So it doesn't really matter how many hours he works, he probably does more than normal for the extra vacation he gets.

 

[j07950]

Doesn't sound like too bad a deal to me, but why would a government make a law like this? I mean what is the intent of such a law?

Actually in the beginning it was suppose to creat more jobs, but it never really worked out, as small buisnesses didn't have the ressources to employ more people. This is why the law is being revised, people haven't been able to apply it, costs too much.

 

[CSM]

Actually in the beginning it was suppose to creat more jobs, but it never really worked out, as small buisnesses didn't have the ressources to employ more people. This is why the law is being revised, people haven't been able to apply it, costs too much.

So if it isn't working out and more people are not being employed anyway, why are the unions trying to keep the law in place? It seems counter to the Unions' interests to keep such a law in place.

 

[j07950]

So if it isn't working out and more people are not being employed anyway, why are the unions trying to keep the law in place? It seems counter to the Unions' interests to keep such a law in place.

Unions work mostly for peoples interests, people don't necessarily want to work more than 35 hours a week for the same pay. It won't make people do that though, can't retract from initial contract. It will let companies have people work more than 35hrs a week but with RTT. The thing is that now the government wants to cut some of the jobs that were created or in the case of the ones going into retirement and not being repalced, this just hurts the rest of workers. They'll have to do the same job with less manpower, this will lead to accidents.

 

[Said1]

Unions work mostly for peoples interests, people don't necessarily want to work more than 35 hours a week for the same pay. It won't make people do that. It will let companies to have people work more than 35hrs a week but with RTT.

Do they get paid time and a half or their normal rates for over time? You're answer was not that easy to comprehend.

The thing is that now the government wants to cut some of the jobs that were created or in the case of the ones going into retirement and not being repalces this just hurts the rest of workers. They'll have to do the same job with less manpower, this will lead to accidents.

Maybe the jobs were redundant. Who needs an inflated public sector that costs tax payers more and more to employ?

 

[CSM]

Unions work mostly for peoples interests, people don't necessarily want to work more than 35 hours a week for the same pay. It won't make people do that. It will let companies to have people work more than 35hrs a week but with RTT. The thing is that now the government wants to cut some of the jobs that were created or in the case of the ones going into retirement and not being repalces this just hurts the rest of workers. They'll have to do the same job with less manpower, this will lead to accidents.

So the jobs that were created by the law were government jobs. The people (through the Unions, I suppose) want those jobs retained (in the name of safety, of course). I think I get it now.

 

[freeandfun1]

My business always spikes during the summer months because all the Euros are on vacation and can't deliver product on time. I would therefore suggest that their long summer holidays actually cost them quite a bit of business. At least in my industry anyway.

 

[no1tovote4]

To tell you the truth I like my overtime pay and wouldn't give it up for something like this voluntarily.

 

[j07950]

So the jobs that were created by the law were government jobs. The people (through the Unions, I suppose) want those jobs retained (in the name of safety, of course). I think I get it now.

Some were government jobs but it doesn't total a great number of jobs. The government has probably cut more jobs over the past 5 years than it has created. It is basically cutting more jobs now, jobs that are essential for safety and basic public services.
As for extra time, the people working for the government don't work extra hours as far as I know. THe ones that do are in the private sector, and they don't get paid more, just get more vacation. THey still have the same pay as when they worked more than 35 hours. I think they used to work 38 hours or something.

 

[j07950]

Oh I forgot to add that some companies offer overtime pay if it can't afford to give more vacation, or if it can't work out scheduals to include extra vacation. Because say a working year (or vacation year) goes from february to february (example) and late january you do more hours than normally, well if it can't give you those vacations before the end of january it'll pay them to you.

 

[Said1]

It is basically cutting more jobs now, jobs that are essential for safety and basic public services.

Like what, positions that are only in exsistance due to union protection?

 

[j07950]

Like what, positions that are only in exsistance due to union protection?

No, like railway workers insuring that everything works properly, that railways are clean, that trains aren't just going to derail like it's happened in the UK (because of bad maintenance). A lot of things like that. Other examples: teachers, school supervisor, nurses, doctors etc...

 

[Said1]

No, like railway workers insuring that everything works properly, that railways are clean, that trains aren't just going to derail like it's happened in the UK (because of bad maintenance).

The article states some retirees are not being replaced. Job protection usually comes from job senority, you don't their positions have become obsolete at all? Not even in one or two instances. No is your final answer?