The French unemployment rate is 10%. Youth unemployment is 21%.
http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,2340,en_33873108_33873376_34992056_1_1_1_1,00.html
The British unemploment rate is 4.8%. Youth unemployment is 11.8%.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk/Labor
Do you think that Margaret Thatcher and unions account for some of the difference?
CBL
http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,2340,en_33873108_33873376_34992056_1_1_1_1,00.html
The British unemploment rate is 4.8%. Youth unemployment is 11.8%.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk/Labor
Do you think that Margaret Thatcher and unions account for some of the difference?
CBL
Jon_in_london
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2002
- Messages
- 4,989
I'm not one for going on strike- in fact I think that many unions do more harm than good these days but I do believe there is a legitimate need for unions and laws to protect employees from things like bullying and summary dismissal.
I think the UK model is just about right in this respect- although there are a few unions that need a good thumping.
I think the UK model is just about right in this respect- although there are a few unions that need a good thumping.
what is the problem with summary dismissal?
Jon_in_london
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2002
- Messages
- 4,989
I dont think summary dismissal is right. I think there should be reasons given and that those reasons must be fair.
Beady
Philosopher
Nothing, so long as you're the boss. I imagine it's very handy to be able to fire anyone for any reason that strikes your fancy. It must be absolute heaven to be in charge of a workforce that has virtually no recourse to anything you do.
I don't think I'd want to work for anyone who had that much power, though.
why?
Beady
Philosopher
What good is it when it interferes with productivity and the health of the business? People are free to leave and in my experience ******* bosses/companies tend to have to pay a premium to keep people. It evens out.
You didn't give an answer, you simply said it would be (and presumably is in places where it's the standard) a good thing for employer. Which it is. It's also a good thing for an employee to be able to quit for any reason which strikes his fancy, with the employer having no recourse. And yet employers hire people under those conditions all the time. Like, virtually, all the time.
No. had to go out.
Manny summed up my feelings on the matter. At will employment means just that, on the part of the employer and the employee. Companies that cannot manage people go bust. You don't need outside agents, in fact haveing government interfere in human relationships seems pretty dumb to me in the first place.
Suppose you own a company, why should you not have absolute control over who you pay? Control in the sense of hiring and firing I mean.
All the companies I work for have given severance to laid off people once who had been there for a while e.g. 6 months. Most gave 2 - 4 weeks of pay. I think this is appropriate.
I probably would not advocate this as law because I would bet it would quickly go from 2 weeks to 2 months and perhaps to 2 years.
CBL
I probably would not advocate this as law because I would bet it would quickly go from 2 weeks to 2 months and perhaps to 2 years.
CBL
To think about this as law presupposes that the idiots in government know more about managing your business than you do. Actually, I suspect that precious few have ever managed anything that turned a profit.
Jon_in_london
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2002
- Messages
- 4,989
Over here you have a contract that has a notice period- its my understanding that you if your contract says you have to give a months notice then thats what you have to do..... works the other way too......
I agree. People should be able to unionize. I also think that right now almost all unions in industrialized nation do more harm than good. 100 years ago I think unions were absolutely necessary.
Unions are good for bad and mediocre union members. They are bad for good workers and they tend to be bad for non-union workers who are frequently unemployed rather than being hired for positions with union protect.
Overly strong unions are also very harmful for economies as a whole. They prevent need changes in business. In the US, failing companies can shrink to become viable again and new companies can grow quickly because they are free to fire people.
CBL
Seriously? I have no objection if it's a voluntary contract which has evolved to a de-facto standard, but I'm surprised by that. So if a currency trader jumps from bank A to bank B he's required to give a month's notice? I thank you for the information and I'd like to learn more.
Edited to make it clear to whom I was repsonding. Sorry about that.
It probably varies by industry but in mine generally 2 weeks is standard though notice or quiting might occur and the employer might opt not to have the person on premises during that time. At a VP level the standard is a month, pretty much above that it is contractual.
I know of companies that have treated employees shabbily and have taken lumps. No stinkin' government or union, though.
A small company needs to be as flexible as possible, and that means having the ability to flex with the economy. A boss doesn't hire and fire as it "strikes your fancy". If he did, he wouldn't last long in the business world. Hiring and firing (laying off) are for the survival of the company. Better to lay a few worker off than sink the whole ship and have everyone out of a job.
The boss knows who is a producer and who isn't and who has the skills necessary to steer the company through the storm, and those things aren't always based on seniority.
The right to hire and the right to fire are examples of one of our most fundamental rights, the right to free association. If the government declares that you can't fire someone, they're essentially forcing you to enter into a business relationship with someone you don't want to. The thought of a government with that kind of power makes me very nervous.
As for anti-discrimination laws, I think those are justifiable because they protect an even more important right, the right to equality of opportunity. This right may not be spelled out in the U.S. Constitution (dunno about other countries), but I believe it is vital to any capitalist economy.
Jeremy
As for anti-discrimination laws, I think those are justifiable because they protect an even more important right, the right to equality of opportunity. This right may not be spelled out in the U.S. Constitution (dunno about other countries), but I believe it is vital to any capitalist economy.
Jeremy