Ah but did you ask him about unfair dismissal in the real world or in this fake world the rest of us apparently inhabit?

can't speak for the uk but my own personal case is this - that is to say,a true story

I was effectively sacked by my company last year - this was 6th april (I found another job in may fortunately) the local employment service deemed the dismissal as 'unfair' and I received 15 years worth of settlement for my time served which also opened the door to three years dole money because I am over 50 at 65% of the previous salary.In addition I immediately filed for 'unfair dismissal' with the Workers Tribunal (Les Prudhommes) through my union and the case which I am guaranteed to at least partly win cos' the previous empoyers solicitors have told me means that the company is not allowed by french law to employ someone to take my place until the 7th april 2012,ie twelve months after my dismissal.

[uSarko is a neo-liberal t**t, who is apparently too thick to see what has happened as a result of nei-liberal policies elsewhere or simply doesn't give one about the people he is supposed to represent.

Why is becoming self-employed supposed to be so good? And what are all the jobs that did not allow for self-employment but do now? I've been self-employed for a decade now – because I had pretty much no option. It's not some bed of roses and can be an absolute financial nightmare. Why promote something that will lead to less security for many? How is this beneficial to society?
[/u

i'm not saying self-employment is good or bad just pointing out that the legislation by that t**t Sarko has attempted to make it easier to allow people the opportunity if they wish

I know many of french as well as other european immigrants who have taken advantage of the law changes who have been successful in their enterprises,even taking on staff etc as well as others who haven't been able to survive.


it's easy for posters to make sily little spelling mistakes when typing isn't it ?

It is, but considering that you can add a spellchecker to your browser, it is more difficult to see just why so many people do post errors.

maybe people dont know how to add a spellchecker!!!!!!

I do have a Spellchecker but it's configured to french and it's too much hassle to change to english every five minutes
plus,a very feeble excuse is that some of my keys stick and sometimes don't register and again,I can't be bothered to check &

I suppose being a bit of a thicko doesn't exactly help..................

I'm slightly confused here. This seems to be a case of the situation (in France, at least) working. I assume you're not complaining that it was found that you'd been treated unfairly?

The current stuff in the UK is that it should be easier to sack people who have only been working for a company for (IIRC) under two years. And that this will encourage people to employ more people.

This is errant nonsense: either they need to employ staff or they don't. And there is plenty of perfectly legal scope to get rid of workers for all sorts of reasons.

Do you think that your employer should have been allowed to get rid of you – unfairly – without any ramifications and that to face ramifications for an unfair dismissal is bad because it therefore might stop the employer employer others?



Fair enough.

I've heard of cases over here, though, where employees are effectively forced into becoming 'self-employed' as a ruse to cut costs for the employer, even though they're patently not self-employed.

Must have been a figment of your imagination

I don't think I have ever defended the law on unfair dismissal - I think it is wrong to elongate the time frames. I have said on other threads 99.9% of all employers don't consider whether there might be a claim for unfair dismissal when deciding who to employ.

So, like you and your belief that carers get loads of expenses, eh?

I made a statement on that during a discussion with BG.

[url=http://viewtopic.php?p=16588005#p16588005Discussion from here onwards[/url arriving at a decision that there are cases both for and against, neither of which can really be proved.

That might also explain your inability to use the 'quote' feature correctly.

I think, looking back at that, it was pretty clear.

oh,probably - plus my mchine keeps refusing to allow me to use the 'quote' facility telling me that I "can only use one set of quotes in a text" - any help apreciated by more intelligent folk like yourself

In my case I was forced out because my face didn't fit with the new manager after 15 years with the company - the company is struggling and was/is facing closure so that gave them the right to offer contract modifications in order to save the company - in my case I was offered conditions which effectively made me 46% worse off with an offer of 8 months work at 27 hours per week which was the least they could legally offer me - it was basically Hobsons' Choice for me and because I refused the terms the company had to offer me redundancy - two other people were offered better terms so I claimed discrimination and technical unfair dismissal - basically they forced me out because my face didn't fit and my salary too high - at 57 years of age it was a gift for me as I received redundancy money and will win my case for discrimination and technical unfair dismissal especially as I am nearly 58.I have the right to three years of dole money if I don't find work which will take me up to french retirement age.

Re-unemployment levels - it would be interesting to know the % of french unemployed are of north african descent

I wasn't a big fan of the Spirit Level book because of its sketchy data and some of the evidence was based on a few outliers however I do think the general premise sounds logical that if you have a society with more equality (as long as it is equality of a reasonable standard of living) you will have fewer social problems.

I do agree that France has a good standard of state provided public services and is well known for its high standard of healthcare and public transport however their high unemployment throughout the 1990s and 2000s has contributed to serious problems. The fact that the Far Right have such a foothold in the country is a barometer IMO of serious social problems, bigger than the scale of the UK.

Also I'm not sure that France is a good example of a country that rejects neo-liberalism, since 2007 the President has been Sarkozy and from 1995 - 2007 it was Chirac, neither of those were exactly progressives!

Constructive dismissal, I think we'd call it.

Don't get me wrong – I wasn't for a moment doubting your experience. But it seems that the system worked properly for you. I assume that, as in the UK, French employers can legitimately get rid of employees with proper reasons and proper processes.

The issue over here seems to be that, under a certain amount of time in a job, the government is saying that you cannot be dismissed unfairly – or that if you are, you should have no recourse to justice. And this – this idea that somehow an inability to sack people on illegitimate grounds (including, as Mike mentioned in the thread he's linked to above, because the employer is incompetent) is causing unemployment.



Just had a quick Google, but difficult to see anything other than polemic from both sides of the question (one: 'We Muslims are suffering more than anyone else from unemployment as a result of discrimination' and the other: 'Muslims are threatening France' – you'll know the gist). I'm not quoting either here as a source of facts.

I read it for work, found it dry as the Gobi but, like you, ended up feeling the sheer amount of the data supports their thesis.



I doubt there are many problems without some element of a far right problem – regardless of the truth of their situation. We only need to think of the extreme events in Norway last summer.

On a more general point, though (which I've touched on elsewhere), I'd also add the quality-of-life issue, which goes beyond just income and consumer goods purchased per household. Indeed, personally I'd suggest that there is a problem in conflating the two – and that any tendency to do that (or subsume one beneath the other) is very much a symptom of three decades of pretty much rampant consumerism in this country.



Oh, I don't dispute that. But there is some evidence – relevant until the recent euro crisis, at least – of Sarko pulling back a little from pushing ahead down a more US/UK-style neo-liberal road as he saw what was happening elsewhere and as the French people seemed to become a little more aware of what was being planned for them.

Ok. I was a miner in 1984-5 and one of many arrested on jumped up charges later to be kicked out of court costing tax payers millions. What a lot of peaple dont know is a deal for all sides were about to shaken on but Thatchers aides advised her to reject it and totaly go for the kill with the miners and dockers who were next up for the chop. Our town of Doncaster and areas round here has never recovered really so back to Thatcher I would gladly pay a supplement to British Gas if the Iron Lady wished to be cremated on a Low Tarrif billing. Happy Christmas to everybody exeptTory Millionaire Ministers and everyone against British Workers.

so why didn't the next labour government do something to bring back the 'workable' mines ?

just wondering like ?

yours,

a floating voter

Quite simply mate Im not sure although New Labour with Blair were not that far from the previo
us Tory Gov, in that respect and have admitted since they ditched manufacturing for finance and service industries. In Doncaster we had, Coal Mining, International Harvesters,Rail Maintenance COs, just a small section that employed Thousands. Now I hear contractors in Donny are competing with agencies employing Eastern Europeans on minimum wage

Most of the mines were floating too.

It may have escaped your notice but water tends to flow down, rather than up and also finds its own level. Maintenance was abandoned in deep mines, they flooded, they collapsed. The lake at Trantham Gardens drained overnight when a fissure emptied into Hem Health colliery.

As has already been stated, most of the pit closures had buggerall to do with economics, if they had, how come [url=http://www.minersadvice.co.uk/tower.htmTower Colliery[/url in South Wales managed to continue producing viable coal for 13 years after its closure?

I think I answered further back on the thread, or maybe it was a different one, but my bro-in-law's pit at Bates colliery in Blyth was abandoned just a few weeks into the strike when maintenance work which was supposed to be overseen by management using union sanctioned volunteer maintenance crews was not initiated - you can speculate all you like about who made the decision to turn off the pumps in a deep under-sea mine that had just had in excess of £1million spent on its state of the art hydraulic roof jacks, but the truth is that within weeks it was not only flooded but collapsed along with all of the underground equipment.

Thats something that a lot of people tend to ignore, its wasn't just a loss of jobs and communities but a complete write off of millions (possibly billions) of pounds of equipment that was left underground in abandoned pits.

Absolute disgrace.

Why? Capital is destroyed all the time. Industries like the car industry have never made money overall, but destroyed capital. However, within that certain companies have been very, very successful and made their owners fortunes. Same with UK mines - they were rationalised.

How on earth do you figure that one out? Especially when you factor in ALL of the industries that feed off amd into the automotive industry. Or is it similar to insurance companies not making money from motor insurance for fiteen years?



Total anihilation is nothing like rationalisation

So, when her turn comes, will it be like for Kim Jong Il, then? I mean, they were both Korea politicians . . .

Dosn't work anything like as good in written form