I read somewhere this new French president thinks 35 hour work weeks is absurd...

[Deja Q]

Does that mean he's going to aim for 30 hour work weeks?

[Mass]

1. No, he wants people to work more.

[Rydz777]

19. Off topic, but I agree: Set a Deadline n/t

[mainegreen]

2. Ermm. No. I doubt it.

His statement:
'I will rehabilitate work, authority, morality, respect, merit!'

He's going to raise the length of the work week and remove protections for workers IMHO.

[Mass]

3. Yes - He wants to get rid of payroll taxes for overtime. This way,

bosses will ask their workers to work more (on a pure voluntary basis, of course!!!), rather than creating new jobs.

[uppityperson]

65. From a French family member about it.

What Sarkozy announced is a help for the employees and especially small businesses with less tax and more take-home pay, when working more than 35 hours per week. Right now, businesses are taxed to the extreme if someone works more than 35 hours. And the person working actually takes home less per hour than the first 35 hours. It is rather confusing, but Sarko wants more money to go into the economy, to surge it. Reminds me of the US, but in this case it might just work.

Family member voted for Royal.

[Deja Q]

6. With 10% of their populace out of work, I bet that's where he got a lot of votes from...

Question is, is the dude talking about being fair to workers? Or grossly exploitative? Exploit may be inevitable, but we all know American President Abraham Lincoln had to say on exploitation ("Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.).

[Mass]

9. In which case, these people are total idiots. Sarkozy does not want more people to work,

he wants people to work more.

[supernova]

4. No he wants French work weeks to look

more like UK and American work weeks. More hours, IOW.

[Deja Q]

7. Nothing wrong with 40 hours/week, I'll agree...

I wonder if the new guy will offshore jobs as well... there's an irony.

[Exiled in America]

20. There's nothing wrong with 35 hours / week either.

[politicat]

26. Actually, there may be...

This is anecdotal, but I recall reading a study on productivity as a ratio to work hours, that said the same thing, so...

My husband's company has a branch office in France, and their workers are on the 35 hour, 4 week vacation plan. (DH is on the 4 week plan, but he's at the office 40-50 hours a week and brings some home.) In terms of project completion the French team and the American team are spot on -- they're banging out revs once every 6 weeks or so. BUT... there are 18 Americans and 12 French. And the projects are about the same in terms of difficulty and challenge. The two divisions are technically separate companies, but management in the US is looking at the productivity of the French office and seriously thinking of implementing the same schedule as the French office for a quarter to see if it works for us. (The US theory is to actually take a long lunch - from 11:30 to 1:30, so that employees can recharge or do something else as a break at midday.)

The theory, IIRC, is that as time on the job increases, concentration decreases, making the hours spent less effective and thus more rework is required.

Fortunately, the US branch is not saying "cut employees! Work 'em harder!" because they have learned the hard way that that doesn't work.

[cobalt1999]

62. I wish our French organization was productive.

We've had to split our European organization into two halves. Northern/Southern. The Northern group contains Germany and the Nordic countries, the Southern Group, France & Italy due to France/Italy dragging the remainder down. Each group now has to be self-reliant & productive. We did it just so France would be forced to make changes and produce at the levels of the US/Northern European groups.

It sucks because any reorg costs lots of money, but they really left us with no choice.

[Iris]

39. I'd say our own culture shows there's A LOT wrong with it.

[GoneOffShore]

5. More like going back to 40.

The "trente-cinq" has made a huge impact on small family run businesses, esp in the hospitality sector and bakeries. The social costs of hiring people and then not being able to get rid of them if they are duds are very high.

The balancing act between the social safety net and business needs is very tough.

[BlooInBloo]

8. Link please?

[Deja Q]

15. Check out the poll

http://www.foxnews.com/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270398,00.html

[BlooInBloo]

21. Thanks!

[northzax]

10. he;s not really going to do much at all

good luck fighting the French unions.

[Mass]

He is not going to change the law. He is going to encourage overtime,

by taking off payroll taxes on them and by changing the limits.

[northzax]

49. Wouldn't that require him to change the law?

Or does the President of France arbitrarily set tax regulations by decree? Is this Paris or Caracas?

[valerief]

11. Diebold. Diebold. Diebold. nt

[Exiled in America]

Oh puh-leeze.

:eyes:

[politicat]

27. The French don't use voting machines.

They use pieces of paper. There's only one issue on their ballots, and they put their ballot in the proper candidate's box. Precincts are small, and all vote talliers have to be able to do is count and add.

Diebold may be responsible for many evils, but not this one.

[Mike Daniels]

57. So anytime your preferred candidate loses it's going to be due to Diebold?

The very fact that the other candidate was practically inviting people to riot if she lost shows just how desperate she became.

I wonder how many people would have rioted if she hadn't put it out there to begin with?

[Kelly Rupert]

76. This is just hilarious.

[sg_]

12. The way I understand it...

is that the 35 hour week will stay, but any hours people work over the standard 35 hours will not be taxed or anything.

IMO, fully scrapping the 35 hour week will not go down very well, so there will likely have to be some sort of work around.

[woo me with science]

13. The bigger problem in France is not being able to fire bad workers.

It'll be interesting to see what he tries to do first.

[Mass]

17. Actually totally false. I had a company in France for 15 years and I was

able to fire any bad worker I wanted to fire as long as I was doing it properly.

What the law prevents is to fire people without cause.

But of course, the RW propaganda works very well and a lot of people fall for this one.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. Then how do you explain...

...the relucance of French businesspeople to hire new workers?

[Mass]

31. And in the US? How do you explain it?

Same reasons. Try to get as much as possible from the same people.

Actually, employment was better under the socialist government before 2002, then took a dive in 2002, partly because of economical conditions, partly because employers were able to ask their workers to work even more. Many people also take interns that they pay very little, rather than hiring people.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

51. Sorry, but I don't see the same problem in the US at all.

We don't have chronic unemployment on the same scale as France. Certainly we have our highs and lows in job creation, but nothing like what France has dealt with over more than a decade. It simply isn't comparable.

[no_hypocrisy]

14. And French workers voted this guy in ??????

The election should've gone the other way and shouldn't have been close.

[Deja Q]

16. I know nothing of French politics, nor the ambient mood of the French people.

Must've been a good reason; and with the high UI, any politician's claims of adding more jobs would make people feel hopeful. (now if only somebody would dig up that 1994 "Contract with America" thingie, which talks about jobs for Americans... :D )

[Mass]

18. In which case they were not listening as Sarkozy was not promising more jobs.

He was promising that people could work overtime. And, if he was able to do that, why did he not do it during the 5 years his party had uncontrolled power?

I do not have any clue why people voted for him. It is actually frightening to see how France is divided in two parts: the South West is definitively red (socialist) and the East is definitively blue (UMP).

My guess is that people reacted to the xenophobic propaganda that he had, sadly. When people are worried, they always fall for it, in this country or in Europe. The foreigner is guilty.

[DBoon]

24. It's the Republican "southern strategy" all over

How to get white blue collar workers to vote against their economic self interest - appeal to racism and xenophobia.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

30. Unfortunately...

...Royal was advocating a public spending policy that everyone knew was completely unachievable, in order to satisfy one particlar faction of the Socialist party. The resulting brouhaha was not good for the party. Her own economics advisor left to join the Sarkozy campaign.

Also, has it ever occured to you that certain workers would like the ability to change jobs? Inflexibility is rampant in the French economic system. I don't think Sarkozy will fix it, but then I doubt Royal would fix it either, because she doesn't appear to think it's a problem.

[ck4829]

22. I wonder how long his work week will be

Will it resemble Bush's?

[DBoon]

23. I think the 50-60 hour work week is absurd

If his supporters don't like French labor law, they should come to the USA and see what it is like to be a salaried employee with no overtime pay (and subject to at-whim termination).

[Ilsa]

32. My dh is working 60-70 a week, travelling, and still gets a

3% raise, which isn't much these days. He tells me to be glad he's still working. We hardly know each other any more because he's at work all the time. The kids are starting to get used to him being gone alot too. It's too much. It's hard on the family when parents have to work long hours.

[uppityperson]

67. Business get taxed massively if work >35hr/wk, take home pay is smaller

"What Sarkozy announced is a help for the employees and especially small businesses with less tax and more take-home pay, when working more than 35 hours per week. Right now, businesses are taxed to the extreme if someone works more than 35 hours. And the person working actually takes home less per hour than the first 35 hours. " per uppityperson's sibling in france.

[wakeme2008]

25. He is trying to get more people unemployeed

If a business can get workers to work more than the 35 hour weeks, a lot will need less people Or did I miss something in math...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

28. Yes.

You missed the fact that France's unemployed population costs the state a massive amount of money.

[Prophet 451]

34. Which means

The more people who can be shuffled onto the unemployment rolls via this measure, the higher the unemployment bill will go and the easier it will be to argue that unemployment benefits should be slashed or time limited. If you take the long view, something like this is exactly the right approach for someone who hates the welfare bill.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

36. No, that's tinfoil gibberish.

Not even worthy of discussion. And it wouldn't even be possible. The French will not stand for their safety net being dismantled. Salvaging it is the fucking Holy Grail of French politics.

[LeftishBrit]

38. I hope you're right...

As you know, I usually agree with you about overhyped tinfoil theories; but I do worry here. Perhaps I'm still suffering from Post-Thatcher Stress Disorder. She damaged so many of the best things in British society, though she could not destroy the welfare state altogether (thank God!)

I admit, however, that there is a difference between British and French reactions to government policies that they dislike. British people have a traditional culture of Not Grumbling (especially about things that are happening to everyone - we grumble a bit sooner when we feel that we are being discriminated against personally as individuals); and of being patient until we suddenly stop being patient - which may or may not be too late. The French do grumble, and are rarely very patient with their governments when they do things that they dislike - which may well be their salvation.

[Prophet 451]

41. Ah yes, the tinfoil crack

Y'know, the tinfoil hat remark is a hardy perineal of the "poisoning the well" approach to discussion. Instead of having to deal with your disputant's arguement or rebut his ideas, you can just shout "tinfoil hat" and dismiss it out of hand.

The "starve the beast" philosophy is exactly the same one which Thatcher used, it is exactly the same one which Bush has tried to use (kudos to the Yanks who were smarter than us and caught him at it). If the French electorate are so attached to their social safety net (and have you visited France by the way?) then reframing the debate by esculating costs is a very good way of undermining it. In fact, one could argue that it is the only way to convince the French to even open discussion on the social security system.

As for not being possible, if you'd asked me a decade ago, I would have said the same about a third of the American populace and the majority of their elected officials giving approval to torture. Times change.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

43. I don't think it's worth arguing against your position...

...because your position is prima facie nonsense.

The "starve the beast" philosophy is exactly the same one which Thatcher used

And if there were some kind of logical comparison between late 70s Britain and early 21st century France I might agree with you. But there aren't. The only similarity is unemployment. None of the other economic factors in play (inflation, etc) point towards any success for that kind of policy.

[Prophet 451]

47. While you dispense with every other point I made

You focus on one point to try and create the impression that there is a comparison rather than pointing out that this philosophy is hardly new.

Further, the refusal to engage your disputant because you consider his arguement "nonsense" is a very good way of avoiding having to argue a proposition you cannot refute, a face-saving excercise which allows the speaker to pretend the arguement is beneath them and try to exit with some dignity (it rarely works because the tactic is obvious to anyone watching).

[Zodiak]

72. yes, it is obvious...I like your style, Prophet

logical fallacy and rhetorical rabbit punches are all too common and rarely addressed as such.

[LeftishBrit]

35. True...

but that didn't stop Thatcher from pushing policies that increased unemployment. The idea, whether stated explicitly or not, is that increased fear of unemployment makes people more 'competitive' and (I've heard it so many times here) prevents a 'culture of mediocrity'. In fact, my experience is that a culture of mediocrity is exactly what it causes. There is little doubt that a fear-culture *does* usually deter or get rid of the weakest links, but it also tends to discourage the sort of risk-taking that can lead to true innovation and outstanding achievement.

At least judging from Thatcherism, when increased unemployment does reach a point of dramatically increasing state expenditure on benefits, the government reacts by (a) cutting benefits directly; (b) cutting benefits - and cutting politically damaging statistics - indirectly by re-classifying who is counted as 'unemployed'.

Of course, this may not be the purpose of getting rid of the 35-hour week (or rather, the need to pay overtime to people who work over 35 hours a week) - it may simply be to cut business costs, which arguably might actually reduce unemployment, though I'll believe that when I see it. And, as I don't live in France, I find it difficult to tell whether the ultimate net effect of this policy in isolation is going to be beneficial or unfavourable. I am much more concerned about the threatened cuts in benefits, tax-cuts (we know what effects those had under Thatcher, Reagan and Bush); and anti-immigrant policies.

Still, as stated earlier, I am not sure that Sarkozy will be able to put through everything that he has planned.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. I don't think this analogy is particularly useful...

...because I doubt Sarkozy counts Thatcher amongst his heroes. Nor should he, as the situation in France at this point bears little resemblance to Britain in the late 70s.

I don't know what the hell Sarkozy has planned for France, and I've read as extensively as I can about him.

As for discouraging risk-taking leading to further innovation, I would argue that that is the situation in France now. Working in the tech industry, I see a lot of innovation coming from the Netherlands, Belgium, the Czech Republic, hell, even Spain... and very, very little coming from France. Which is disturbing, considering the level of education of their populace and their standard of living.

[LeftishBrit]

44. Again, I hope you're right...

Nothing would make me happier than to see myself proved utterly wrong on this issue!

I realize that just as Britain should not be seen as another America, with everything viewed in terms of Bush, neither should France be seen as another Britain, with everything viewed in terms of Thatcher. No doubt, I have been to some extent influenced by right-wing British journalists salivating at the thought of France introducing a "Thatcherite revolution". Of course, right-wing British journalists are not necessarily the best authorities on what is going to happen in another country; and I certainly hope that they prove to be totally off here.

[Prophet 451]

48. Here's hoping n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

55. I understand where you're coming from.

And Sarkozy as the second coming of Thatcher would certainly be an unmitigated disaster. The only silver lining in this cloud that I can see is that Sarkozy has effectively neutered the whackjob right-wing (Le Pen's crowd) in France.

[Prophet 451]

64. Be grateful for small mercies n/t

[Prophet 451]

42. Cutting business costs doesn't increase employment

I'm not sure where the idea that it does got started but businesses employ as few people as they can for the work that needs doing at the lowest wages they can get away with. If expenses are decreased, they will simply pocket the difference.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. That's a juvenile reading of business practices.

Depending on the situation and the type of business, a decrease in cost may be pocketed, applied to infrastructure or other improvements, or used to expand capacity, which may or may not create more jobs. As in all things business, the trick is the balance - costs not too high, but not too low.

[Prophet 451]

52. Ah, we're into the insults now

Having expended lots of energy arguing your decision not to argue my "tinfoil nonsense", we're now going after my intellectual capacity.

Obviously, the generally accepted assumption of "all other things being equal" is something you're never heard of. Businesses are in business for the financial benefit of the proprieter and/or stockholders. The easiest way to maximise that financial benefit is to raise selling prices and the second easiest is to lower the wage bill. Expanding capacity risks saturating the market, thus bringing the selling cost down and reducing profits. That's hardly juvenile, that's Business Admin 101.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

53. Well, I gues I can shove my business administration experience up my ass, then.

That's it, right there, all laid out. One post on an internet discussion forum, that's all you need to know about business management.

Expanding capacity risks saturating the market

How can you offer that up as a blanket, unqualified statement? That is something that depends on any number of factors. It is not a universal truth.

[Prophet 451]

61. I said "risks"

"Risks" is not a blanket, unqualified statement, it is an indication of something which may or may not happen, dependant on a great many things. I'm sure you're very good at business admin but you're not bothering to use that to rebut my arguements, you're relying on the most generalised straw-men and simplistic reasoning. If you wish to draw on your experiance to rebut my arguements (on edit: as you have below), please do, I'll be interested to read it.

[Prophet 451]

33. Remember the rules

Modern businesses most basic rule: "Make goods as cheaply as possible, sell as high as possible, employ as few workers as you can and pay them the lowest wages you can get away with".

By eliminating tax on overtime, companies can actually get away with paying lower wages. How does that work? Old system: You earn ten dollars in overtime. The government takes two dollars in tax, probably before you even see your wages. You are left with eight dollars. New system: You earn ten dollars overtime. Government no longer takes two dollars but because you're used to being left with eight dollars, the company can drop your overtime rate to the eight dollars you're used to (or nine dollars, or nine-fifty, the point is the pattern) and pocket the difference. Result: You're not actually getting paid any more, you may well be getting paid less but the company is making higher profits. It's actually in the companies interest to pay you the nine dollars because then you think you're making more and the company can demand higher productivity from you. You're already working like a slave compared to your parents and grandparents (the productivity of the average American worker has gone up by around 30% since WWII (higher in some sectors) while average wages, in constant dollars, have dropped by about 14%) and they can then trick you into working even harder and being grateful for doing so. Because you're working even harder, other workers can be let go, raising profits even higher.

The French unions, who might see this trick for what it is, may well face a member's revolt over this since the average person will only see more money in their pocket and not think any deeper than that.

Finally, there is no particular evidence that a 40-hour week makes production more efficient. With respect to the lady who shared her anecdotal evidence earlier on this thread, what she is pointing out is not less productivity from the French but the well-known POeter Principle ("work expands to fill the time allowed for it's completition" or to put it another way "if you have a week, the work will take a week, regardless of the number of workers because if you get it done quicker, management will find you something else to do").

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

40. Aha! But not so.

"Make goods as cheaply as possible

Depends on the good. Quality workmanship can be a selling point in and of itself.

sell as high as possible

No, sell at the point that maximizes profit. This likely isn't "as high as possible" for a particular good, especially in light of competition.

employ as few workers as you can and pay them the lowest wages you can get away with".

Except that any savvy businessperson will see a competitor's underpaid, highly-qualified workers as potential recruits, provided that you improve their benefits over their current position.

It is not all so clear cut.

[Prophet 451]

45. Ah but to rebut

"Quality workmanship can be a selling point in and of itself."

Granted but there you're speaking of a niche market of the discerning. You're talking about Ferrari, not Ford.

"No, sell at the point that maximizes profit."

Conceded, that was poor phrasing on my part.

"Except that any savvy businessperson will see a competitor's underpaid, highly-qualified workers as potential recruits, provided that you improve their benefits over their current position."

Firstly, that only applies to skilled positions, not to bottom-rung drudge work. While I'm open to being corrected, I'd imagine unskilled or minimally skilled labour accounts for a far larger protion of the labour force than skilled. Secondly, and more importantly, it assumes a competition for human resources. This is often not the case. Often (and in some sectors, always), there are far more workers than positions for them to occupy. Finally, how much does it cost to train someone in-house and then slightly raise their wages over the average as opposed to bringing in someone from outside at a much higher wage than the average?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

58. "you're talking about Ferrari, not Ford."

No, actually I was thinking along the lines of Toyota. The fact that a good is mass market does not necessarily imply that it is crap, or that the workmanship is poor.

Firstly, that only applies to skilled positions, not to bottom-rung drudge work.

This is true, but France has a highly skilled, underutilized workforce.

Secondly, and more importantly, it assumes a competition for human resources. This is often not the case. Often (and in some sectors, always), there are far more workers than positions for them to occupy.

Indeed - as a result of economic expansion and contraction on the large scale and the relative success of a particular industry or business on the small scale. The problem I see in France is the relative inability (well, relative to the UK, the Netherlands, etc) to support a flexible, entrepreneurial economy which will create more jobs, and to adapt to large-scale changes in the economy. If France were a purely industrial nation, there might be some justification for continuing the current policy. However, I tend to see France as having huge economic potential that is stymied by a culture that doesn't value entrepreneurship and flexibility.

Finally, how much does it cost to train someone in-house and then slightly raise their wages over the average as opposed to bringing in someone from outside at a much higher wage than the average?

It's impossible to give a blanket answer to that question. I don't even think it's a particularly valid premise, as the only time you'd bring in people at a wage "much higher" than average is in the context of a position with an extremely specific and unusual skill set, or in the face of fierce competition.

[Prophet 451]

63. Bloody servers!

I just wrote a very long post, only to have it swallowed by the servers because it was unable to verify a ruddy cookie! My irritation will probably subside in a few minutes when I'll try it again.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

68. I hate that, too.

Just when you're getting into your rant groove, the server returns an error and you can't get your text back!

[Prophet 451]

69. Right, try again

"The fact that a good is mass market does not necessarily imply that it is crap, or that the workmanship is poor."

Not what I meant. I didn't mean to imply that mass market necessarily meant crap but simply that mass market goods don't (usually) rely on a reputation for quality to sell their goods.

"This is true, but France has a highly skilled, underutilized workforce."

You think so? I'm not disputing "highly skilled" but I think we'd need to define "underutilized".

"However, I tend to see France as having huge economic potential that is stymied by a culture that doesn't value entrepreneurship and flexibility."

Half and half again. Flexibility is, admittedly, not an especially observable French trait (remembering always the caveat about generalisations) but if we define "entrepreneurship" as a willingness to go into business for oneself (which is an admittedly imperfect definition but I can't come up with a better one off the top of my head) then we have to remember that much of France, especially in the South, is fairly rural and that tends toward small businesses. Illustrative example: There is virtually no such thing as mass produced bread in France. The average Frenchman wouldn't dream of buying Mother's Pride or Kingsmill (I don't know US brands) but will usually buy from the town or village baker. Rural economies tend toward a pattern of many small businesses serving the local community. So I'm not so much sure that France lacks entrepreneurship so much as they simply approach the subject on a smaller, more local level.

Also, and we're both guilty of this, we're tending to the assumption that the US/UK model (large-scale corporations employing many) is inherantly superior to the French model (small businesses employing few).

"I don't even think it's a particularly valid premise, as the only time you'd bring in people at a wage "much higher" than average is in the context of a position with an extremely specific and unusual skill set, or in the face of fierce competition."

It's a deliberately unfair premise. There was a study done here a couple of years back that demonstrated that a university degree adds 10K to the average starting wage (I have no idea if this is true in the US) so the employer is faced with the choice of bringing in John Doe, fresh from university for 10K above the starting wage of a worker ant or training Jim Jones up from a worker ant to be equal to John Doe in the narrow skill set he's needed for and only raising his wages by perhaps 5K because, despite being equal on that task, he is still lesser skilled overall (plus, he might well feel indebted to the company). That approach has caught on to a worrying degree here to the extent where a great many recent graduates are either unemployed or being forced to take worker ant positions.

[mmonk]

46. So does our president. Too much work.

[kestrel91316]

54. I doubt it. He's a RWer. He probably wants to bring back slavery and

indentured servitude.

I really don't understand how or why he got elected.

[slackmaster]

56. Walt Disney said we'd have a 30-hour work week by 1980

And the Metric System.

:argh:

[Freddie Stubbs]

73. It is 30 metric hours

;)

[DBoon]

74. I'm sure he didn't have his own employees in mind

when he said that

[slackmaster]

75. Certainly not - Artists used to refer to Disney studios as "Mauschwitz"

Back in the days of cell animation, it was a true sweat shop.

[DBoon]

77. They still do

or at least the post-production people still call it "Mauschwitz"

[slackmaster]

78. My favorite Mauschwitz horror story courtesy of "CC" the artist

It was a typical miserable day at work. The production supervisor, who hated everyone and everything, was pacing up and down the aisle of the dark old converted aircraft hangar, grumbling about an order of printed material that was overdue to be delivered to the dismal studio.

"I need my prints!" he sneered as he looked at each artist one by one, hoping to make eye contact and pick a fight. "Where the hell are my prints?" The tension of his evil, shifting gaze made work all the more unbearable for the artists.

From the darkest corner in the back of a room came a fine tenor voice singing "Some day my prints will come..."

Everybody except the supervisor broke out laughing. He just growled.

[camero]

59. Try 70

If this guy has his way, probably. He thinks people are too lazy.

[sadiesworld]

60. The whole business seems eerily familiar.

Two candidates no one really likes. Both beholden to the elite but trying to carve out pretend differences. As a voter you choose between two unpalatable platforms, while the true will of the people is ignored. Same shit, different country.

[WI_DEM]

66. No he's a conservative and believes people should work harder for less.

[conspirator]

70. With all the current technology man should only be working 20 hours per week

A lot of jobs are useless, a lot of food is wasted, a lot of fossil fuel is wasted in traffic jams during rush hour, a lot of money is spent to fight obesity, cancer and stress that are caused without any doubt by the modern "busy" lifestyle, a lot of trees are cut to maintain this "buy a lot use once and throw away" society.
Long working hours is a cabal to keep people under control and without any energy left to question the autorithy of the elite.

www.whywork.org

[Odin2005]

71. Getting rid of the 35hr week is the exact WRONG thing to do!

Increasing the work week to, say, 40 hours will allow companies to squeeze more labor out of an induvudual, leading to unemployment. Developed countries should be making the work week smaller and increase the minimum wage over time to prevent technological unemployment. Sarkozy is going backwards. :banghead:

The real problem in France is that the economic regulatory system has become to ossified and beholden to special interest groups. It's almost impossible to fire a crap worker over there, and the red tape is lethal to new businesses (and made that way intentionally because old economic players don't want competition from young upstarts).

The French Socialist Party really isn't Socialist, but State Cartel-ist. Them calling themselves "socialist" is an insult to socialism (in the opinion of this Market Socialist).