lengthening the "Probezeit" in Germany
John W.
http://morgenpost.berlin1.de/content/2006/03/29/politik/819839.html
Something I had not known about in the formation of the German
coalition government: they planned on lengthening the "trial period"
for new workers in Germany from 6 montsh to 2 years. One caveat was the
prevention of arbitrary firing within that two year period. The CDU
wants to change that now, so that it will easier for the company to
fire a worker within that initial two year period.
That is what is causing the massive strikes in France right now. Do
they think they can get away with this? (Luckily the left is putting
its foot down... but for how long?) Any ideas on a possible solution?
And why are they trying it anyway?
Roman Werpachowski
for young people to get any job *at all*. Currently, European welfare
systems are tailored to protect those who got the job already from
those who didn't. The French and German governments apparently try to
put an end to this absurdity.
Why the left parties protest, is understandable - usual populism. Why
the French students protest, is beyond my comprehension. Sheep inviting
the wolf to dinner.
Christian Gottschalk
> They doing this for the same reason the French do: do make it easier
> for young people to get any job *at all*. Currently, European welfare
> systems are tailored to protect those who got the job already from
> those who didn't. The French and German governments apparently try to
> put an end to this absurdity.
And even without the FDP. Who'd have thunk it.
> Why the left parties protest, is understandable - usual populism. Why
> the French students protest, is beyond my comprehension. Sheep inviting
> the wolf to dinner.
Maybe they are just way too overconfident they'll get a job, which makes
it Somebody Else's Problem. So they are basically protesting for the job
they will most certainly get. Each and everyone of them.
Ya right.
Ciao,
Christian
John W.
But isn't there a better way of improving the economy and lowering the
'Arbeitslosigkeit' without risking everyone's jobs? I read some
articles in France last summer when they were considering this... the
business owners were coming up with statements like "sometimes you just
do not 'get along with someone' and that hurts the work environment,
but you know you cannot fire them or change anything..." (this is a
COMPLETE paraphrase, BTW). Is that really a *good* reason to fire
someone? After all, this will not only make it easier to fire people,
but it will (could) also *significantly* drive down wages (the old idea
of the surplus population) and hurt the position of Unions even further
(if someone has only been working a year they will not join a strike).
I don't think this is a valid trade.
(I can't believe the SPD *ever* supported this, but I guess that comes
from that populist pressure...)
Thomas Koenig
[...]
> Why the left parties protest, is understandable - usual populism. Why
> the French students protest, is beyond my comprehension. Sheep inviting
> the wolf to dinner.
It's usually not students, who won't get a job, so their future
employment is not at stake, but the employment of their less
well-positioned peers.
But I doubt that the protests have much of a reasoning behind them
anyways. Just like with the EU "Non", everything that has been branded
neoliberal is protested against, no matter if it is neoliberal and no
matter, if neoliberalism once in a blue moon churns out some reasonable
policies.
As far as the /Kuendigungsschutz/ goes, I think it should be
differentiated according to the type of employer. Small entrepreneurs
should have more discretion than managers in large firms, where the
advisory board (the "Aufsichtsrat") should have a say in order to
restrain nepotism.
Rather than lengthening the "trial period", I would facilitate the
lay-off of everyone, but not that one can arbitrarily become dismissed
from a position in a medium or large-size enterprise.
Thomas Koenig
> Die weisen Worte von Roman Werpachowski waren wie folgt:
>> They doing this for the same reason the French do: do make it easier
>> for young people to get any job *at all*. Currently, European welfare
>> systems are tailored to protect those who got the job already from
>> those who didn't. The French and German governments apparently try to
>> put an end to this absurdity.
>
> And even without the FDP. Who'd have thunk it.
Why "even"? Richard Nixon had one of the best legacies in
environmentalist policies. Why? Also, because there was no-one on the
right of him, who could have seriously benefited from a
anti-environmentalist agenda.
Now, neither SPD nor CDU/CSU can lose votes to each other or one of the
two liberal parties. And the PDS is ostracized at the federal level. So,
no risk here, either.
John W.
Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> Why "even"? Richard Nixon had one of the best legacies in
> environmentalist policies. Why? Also, because there was no-one on the
> right of him, who could have seriously benefited from a
> anti-environmentalist agenda.
>
> Now, neither SPD nor CDU/CSU can lose votes to each other or one of the
> two liberal parties. And the PDS is ostracized at the federal level. So,
> no risk here, either.
Well, Nixon had a good environmental policy because of the public
movements in the sixties and seventies towards a 'better environment,'
especially things like the publication of _Silent Spring_ in 1962 and
the creation of the "Sierra Club Foundation" in 1960.
Anti-environmental policy comes from economic pressures and industrial
/ corporate interest groups and is not necessarily a 'party line'. Bush
calls himself interested in the environment, after all, and has a
bespeckled history at best on oil refinery regulation, chemical
dumping, carbon dioxide emissions, and so forth.
John W.
Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> As far as the /Kuendigungsschutz/ goes, I think it should be
> differentiated according to the type of employer. Small entrepreneurs
> should have more discretion than managers in large firms, where the
> advisory board (the "Aufsichtsrat") should have a say in order to
> restrain nepotism.
This is certainly reasonable. Why haven't the politicians figured it
out? I would suppose it is because the pressure for these changes is
not coming from the small business man but from the large corporations.
I wonder why 'streamlining' (in American English=making a company run
better...)always means firing workers?
Christian Gottschalk
> I wonder why 'streamlining' (in American English=making a company run
> better...)always means firing workers?
Probably because, over time, employees tend to work less efficiently.
This is no fault of their own, but merely the effect of jobs not being
decently assigned. When "streamlining", position are reassigned, so that
work is better distributed. Since the work can now be done by fewer
people, some have to be fired.
The other reason is of course, that technologie advances, making some
jobs unneccessary.
Ciao,
Christian
Roman Werpachowski
> Roman Werpachowski wrote:
> > They doing this for the same reason the French do: do make it easier
> > for young people to get any job *at all*. Currently, European welfare
> > systems are tailored to protect those who got the job already from
> > those who didn't. The French and German governments apparently try to
> > put an end to this absurdity.
> >
> > Why the left parties protest, is understandable - usual populism. Why
> > the French students protest, is beyond my comprehension. Sheep inviting
> > the wolf to dinner.
>
> But isn't there a better way of improving the economy and lowering the
> 'Arbeitslosigkeit' without risking everyone's jobs?
Let's say that keeping the current lifestyle for everyone costs X. That
means that the whole economy must produce more than X. If you make it
hard to fire people, you
a) make it more risky to hire people, thus the businesses won't hire
and overburden the current employers, lowering their efficiency and
thus making it harder to produce enough
b) remove the incentive for current workers to work efficiently,
because they can work sloppily and won't be fired.
All in all, you make producing >X harder, not easier. Europe is a
special case of wishful thinking: on one hand, people demand welfare
benefits unheard of anywhere else except for oil countries, on the
other: they want to work less and less (infamous French 35-hour work
week). As if they forgot where all this wealth comes from: work.
> I read some
> articles in France last summer when they were considering this... the
> business owners were coming up with statements like "sometimes you just
> do not 'get along with someone' and that hurts the work environment,
> but you know you cannot fire them or change anything..." (this is a
> COMPLETE paraphrase, BTW). Is that really a *good* reason to fire
> someone?
Sure. You have workers to get a job done. If the job doesn't get done
and the problem is with the worker, you fire him. Of course you have to
consider the long term effects: if you get the reputation of a
trigger-happy employer, you may have it more difficult to find good
workers in the future, because they'll prefer to have saner workplace
relations somewhere else.
> After all, this will not only make it easier to fire people,
> but it will (could) also *significantly* drive down wages (the old idea
> of the surplus population)
Wages have to be tied down to the work efficiency. If people want to
earn more, they have to work better.
> and hurt the position of Unions even further
> (if someone has only been working a year they will not join a strike).
> I don't think this is a valid trade.
I think weakening the unions is a benefit in itself.
John W.
Roman Werpachowski wrote:
>
> I think weakening the unions is a benefit in itself.
You don't see that as weakening the position of the worker in society?
After all one of the only reasons societies got out of the nineteenth
century is due in part in the ability for workers to unite and push an
agenda, right?
John W.
> Sure. You have workers to get a job done. If the job doesn't get done and the problem is with the worker, you fire him.
Well, surely if the worker is not doing the job, even in Europe, then
the company can fire him. Though, truthfully, I am not too sure how it
works...
Thomas Koenig
but in Germany over the last 30 years the Unions have often taken
dubious stances about employment policies, mainly to raise wages for the
80% who are employed and to not give much about the unemployed.
Having said that, the employers' associations are no saints, either.
Their effect is most likely worse.
Thomas Koenig
cost intensive than paying him for staying at home. In the public
sector, it might prove practically infeasible.
John W.
That is true, but I am not sure the weakening of the Kuendigungsschutz
is intended for the public sector nor that it will effect it very much.
After all, if it is intended for the purpose of strengthening the
economy (i.e. neoliberal) I am not sure adjusting the public sector
will have much of an effect.
Also, as to the unions: it is true that they fight for the rights of
the workers, but it is the workers who pay the union, thus they have an
interest in strengthening the position of the workers. I do not see why
all the blame seems to be placed on the workers rather than the corrupt
systems of unions / politicians / and lobbyists.
John W.
Thomas Koenig wrote:
> In some cases, due to legal fees, firing an employee might prove more
> cost intensive than paying him for staying at home. In the public
> sector, it might prove practically infeasible.
I know in France one of the issues is the fact that after six months
the company is responsible for the unemployment payments. That way the
worker can, supposedly, quit after six months and live another six
months on unemployment. This makes the unemployed sort of pariahs on
some level, because everyone assumes that they are working the system.
Roman Werpachowski
Yes, although it was mostly due to technological advancement and
cultural advancement, not the unions. For example, the 40 hour work
week was not introduced by socialists, but by capitalists who noticed
that it is about optimal for productivity.
The unions are of course needed, but they are too strong in Europe
right now.
John W.
version) on the radio. This debate has galvanized me on several points.
1) the debators (editor of Le Monde, a fellow at the brookings instute
and a reporter), spoke of changing the law (which will only effect
people up to 26 y.o.) as being dependent on the current economic
outlook of France and the high unemployment--how is there, however, a
seemingly absolute connection now between changing this law and
affecting the larger economy? If this will only affect a (very) minor
demographic I do not see how it will drastically affect the larger
problem of unemployment. Also, why is this now seen as *the* solution
for the economy? It should be seen as the beginning (and I think many
of the demonstrators must realize this too) as part of the slow erosion
of the welfare state and worker's rights with the advent of the EU.
2) Why is the participation of the people in their own internal policy
looked down upon? They are expressing their belief that this is
unacceptable to the people of France. Is this not the nature of a
lively, participatory representative democracy?
3) these students who are protesting (or who began the protest) will
most likely have jobs when they leave the University... however, this
is not absolutely the case. It really depends on what they are studying
and how that fits into the parameters of the global economy. But they
are also protesting about a law that affects the jobs that they are not
after (this based on the assumption that most will find employment in
industry). I think this law affects the service companies throughout
France (and Germany) like Walmart, Nike, McDonalds, Quick, Air France,
Airbus (but only the mechanicians...), Eurocar, Kamps, and the like...
It will also not affect the managerial class at all, but only the entry
level worker. It does not seem fair, on that level. (I am not at all
sure about the details of the German law)
Lastly, because of the general downward turn of the European markets,
these laws, if implemented and successful (even slightly) would then
set the precedent for Europe and erode workers' rights across the EU.
John W.
Roman Werpachowski wrote:
>
> The unions are of course needed, but they are too strong in Europe
> right now.
I agree with this, to be sure. They are also far too corrupt, and
because they, themselves, are a business they run accordingly, i.e. for
the sake of profit rather than the 'good of the workers'.
Roman Werpachowski
> 2) Why is the participation of the people in their own internal policy
> looked down upon? They are expressing their belief that this is
> unacceptable to the people of France. Is this not the nature of a
> lively, participatory representative democracy?
It's about the manner of their protest. Students at Sorbonne were
*burning library books*. This is unacceptable.
John W.
Agreed! However, that was a short event (and very limited) and other
students actually prevented the wholesale destruction of the library.
There are hooligans at every gathering. ;) And always those members of
protests who are simply interested in some adolescent fantasy idea of
anarchy.
Nicolas Krebs
news:1143654110.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
dans news:europa.union
Lire ou écouter l'article de Bernard Guetta, « D'une idéologie à
l'autre », chronique Géopolitique du 2003-03-30 vers 07 h 20, dans
l'émission Le 7/9, France Inter, 2003-03-30, Paris, France,
http://www.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-inter01/information/chroniques/geopolitique/fiche.php?did=42438
http://www.radiofrance.fr/services/rfmobiles/podcast/index.php?chaine=1&g=2
http://www.radiofrance.fr/services/rfmobiles/podcast/popup_rss.php?cid=93
http://www.radiofrance-podcast.net/podcast/10009-30.03.2006-ITEMA_20023531-0.mp3
Voir aussi
- Peter Auer, Janine Berg et Ibrahim Coulibaly, « Une main-d'œuvre stable
est-elle bonne pour la productivité? », Revue internationale du travail,
volume 144, numéro 3, Organisation internationale du travail,
http://www.ilo.org/public/french/support/publ/revue/sommaire/144-3.htm
(version anglaise « Is a stable workforce good for productivity? »,
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/support/publ/revue/sommaire/144-3.htm ),
cité par l'article de Denis Clerc, « Emploi : la sécurité favorise la
productivité », Aternatives économiques, mars 2006,
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/sommaires/s_245.html ;
- Denis Clerc, « Faut-il brûler le modèle social français ? », Aternatives
économiques, avril 2006, http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/lectures/L246/NL246_001.html ;
- Serge Halimi, Le grand bond en arrière, Fayard, 2006, ISBN 2-213-62768-1
(réédittion).
> Sheep inviting
> the wolf to dinner.
??
Nicolas Krebs
> Students at Sorbonne were
> *burning library books*.
fr Intox.
en Hoax.
John W.
Nicolas Krebs wrote:
>
> Lire ou écouter l'article de Bernard Guetta, « D'une idéologie à
> l'autre », chronique Géopolitique du 2003-03-30 vers 07 h 20, dans
> l'émission Le 7/9, France Inter, 2003-03-30, Paris, France,
> http://www.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-inter01/information/chroniques/geopolitique/fiche.php?did=42438
This is a very interesting article and supports what I already thought
about the whole situation. It does not argue that one way is more right
than the other, but that 1) the economy has changed along with
(hand-in-hand with the world political landscape); and 2) that the new
movement is not necessarily better than the old movement.
> http://www.radiofrance.fr/services/rfmobiles/podcast/index.php?chaine=1&g=2
> http://www.radiofrance.fr/services/rfmobiles/podcast/popup_rss.php?cid=93
> http://www.radiofrance-podcast.net/podcast/10009-30.03.2006-ITEMA_20023531-0.mp3
>
> Voir aussi
> - Peter Auer, Janine Berg et Ibrahim Coulibaly, « Une main-d'œuvre stable
> est-elle bonne pour la productivité? », Revue internationale du travail,
> volume 144, numéro 3, Organisation internationale du travail,
> http://www.ilo.org/public/french/support/publ/revue/sommaire/144-3.htm
> (version anglaise « Is a stable workforce good for productivity? »,
>
Though I haven't read the book, I have seen similar data (based on
Norwegien companies, if I remember correctly) that indicates a similar
conclusion: i.e. security can help productivity.
John W.
Nicolas Krebs wrote:
>
> - Denis Clerc, « Faut-il brûler le modèle social français ? », Aternatives
> économiques, avril 2006, http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/lectures/L246/NL246_001.html ;
> - Serge Halimi, Le grand bond en arrière, Fayard, 2006, ISBN 2-213-62768-1
> (réédittion).
>
Again, this is a logical system (and one that seems to work for
Danemark). This is certainly not what is happening in France--but maybe
that is supposed to be the next step (?) (That is forcing companiess to
recognize their duty to support the unemployed... at least that is the
way I understand it...)
I know the Dutch have been pursuing restrictive policies against EU
workers recently (
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2005/07/feature/nl0507103f.html ), is
this happening in these seemingly Utopian states Clerc mentions?
Je sais que les Nederlandais veulent changer les regles contre les
travailleurs des autres pays de l'Union qui veulent aller la bas pour
travailler. Il est bien possible que ce soit pareil en Danemark. Alors,
est-ce qu'il y a peut-etre une connection entre ce maniere de
protectionisme et la stabilite de l'economie?
loisillon
says...
>
>
>Nicolas Krebs wrote:
>>
>> Lire ou =E9couter l'article de Bernard Guetta, =AB D'une id=E9ologie =E0
>> l'autre =BB, chronique G=E9opolitique du 2003-03-30 vers 07 h 20, dans
>> l'=E9mission Le 7/9, France Inter, 2003-03-30, Paris, France,
>> http://www.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-inter01/information/chroniques/g=
>eopolitique/fiche.php?did=3D42438
>
>This is a very interesting article and supports what I already thought
>about the whole situation. It does not argue that one way is more right
>than the other, but that 1) the economy has changed along with
>(hand-in-hand with the world political landscape); and 2) that the new
>movement is not necessarily better than the old movement.
>
>&g=3D2
>> http://www.radiofrance.fr/services/rfmobiles/podcast/popup_rss.php?cid=3D=
>93
>> http://www.radiofrance-podcast.net/podcast/10009-30.03.2006-ITEMA_2002353=
>1-0.mp3
>>
>> Voir aussi
>> - Peter Auer, Janine Berg et Ibrahim Coulibaly, =AB Une main-d'=9Cuvre st=
>able
>> est-elle bonne pour la productivit=E9? =BB, Revue internationale du trava=
>il,
>> volume 144, num=E9ro 3, Organisation internationale du travail,
>> http://www.ilo.org/public/french/support/publ/revue/sommaire/144-3.htm
>> (version anglaise =AB Is a stable workforce good for productivity? =BB,
>>
>
>Though I haven't read the book, I have seen similar data (based on
>Norwegien companies, if I remember correctly) that indicates a similar
>conclusion: i.e. security can help productivity.
I think it is not a question of productivity. Financial staff and "liberal"
governments of Europe plan to get less and less bargaining power for workers.
Keeping a high level of unemployement is part of this plan. Rate of benefits
return on stocks is the one objective of european policy at any level. Nothing
else.
>
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Stegozor
>> Roman Werpachowski wrote:
>>> I think weakening the unions is a benefit in itself.
>> You don't see that as weakening the position of the worker in society?
>> After all one of the only reasons societies got out of the nineteenth
>> century is due in part in the ability for workers to unite and push an
>> agenda, right?
>
> Yes, although it was mostly due to technological advancement and
> cultural advancement, not the unions. For example, the 40 hour work
> week was not introduced by socialists, but by capitalists who noticed
> that it is about optimal for productivity.
We don't agree. Although I lack historical knowledge to hold a true
conversation on this topic, AFAIK many advancements of living standards
are due to the struggle of workers and to the fear of the bourgeoisie of
the communist alternative. In 1936, and just after WWII, French
government accepted many demands, including paid holidays, social
security and so on. It was, AFAIK, nearly the same in Germany: Bismarck
reformed and provided the base of the social security system in order to
cut leftists' ground. In France, there was a time when workers
demanded the 40 hours work week, the army opened fire on the crowd.
On the other side, sure, without technological advancement, it's hard to
get better living standards. The main question is that nowadays, even
with these technological and cultural advancements living standards are
worsening, especially for those who enter the job market, partly because
of the competition with countries where the living standards are not...
say the same. As long as we continue to open markets without taking into
consideration associated social conditions, I'm unsure whether things
will get better. I think the EU is (or was?) a good alternative: OK to
opening markets, but with associate subsidies, free travel rights,
common regulatory principles. It worked quite well with Ireland, Spain,
Greece... Also, just try to recall how many times you hear about the WTO
and the ILO and compare the scores.
> The unions are of course needed, but they are too strong in Europe
> right now.
Again, we don't agree. Right now, in France, trade-unions do have the
power to overthrow the government: a simple call to a general strike,
and the result would be hardly different from 1995, when the PM had had
to resign. Instead, they're doing anything they can to control the
protestations, they appeal to separated days of action, they complain
because the government doesn't call them to negotiate, while their base
_is calling_ for more radical actions.
Roman Werpachowski
power to overthrow the government: a simple call to a general strike,
and the result would be hardly different from 1995, when the PM had had
to resign. "
That's what I considered being a too strong trade union. The unions
were not meant to be a political players.
Stegozor
Well, I wanted to say that the trade unions were and are protecting the
government right now, they are acting as a sort of shock absorber
spring. Without them, there would inevitably be spontaneous
organizations, with far more radical positions. The problem in itself is
not the strength of the unions (in France, less than 10% of the working
population belongs to a union AFAIK, while in Scandinavia the score is
around two third or three quarter of the working population) but the
political system here, IMHO. The parliament clearly lacks influence
while the government and the president have a overwhelming power. Add to
that the fact that a new trade union has to be approved by previous big
players (designated by law) before being considered as representative
(i.e.: your competitors have to allow you in the market (!)), protesting
in the streets becomes one of the only means left to make yourself heard.
According to different opinion polls, nearly 80% of the population
wanted the government to cancel the project. But the government acted as
it was blind and deaf. Not the ideal way to deal with compromise in a
democracy, isn't it?
As for the remaining part of my previous post, well, as you don't answer
it, I hesitate between two options: First, it seemed so meaningless and
dumb that you didn't bother to discuss it, second, it was so perfect
that you have nothing to add and you fully agree with it. Said like
that, I think I'll choose the second option :)
Roman Werpachowski
> Well, I wanted to say that the trade unions were and are protecting the
> government right now, they are acting as a sort of shock absorber
> spring. Without them, there would inevitably be spontaneous
> organizations, with far more radical positions. The problem in itself is
> not the strength of the unions (in France, less than 10% of the working
> population belongs to a union AFAIK, while in Scandinavia the score is
> around two third or three quarter of the working population) but the
> political system here, IMHO. The parliament clearly lacks influence
> while the government and the president have a overwhelming power. Add to
> that the fact that a new trade union has to be approved by previous big
> players (designated by law) before being considered as representative
> (i.e.: your competitors have to allow you in the market (!)), protesting
> in the streets becomes one of the only means left to make yourself heard.
Looks like the French social model is pretty screwed up.
>
> According to different opinion polls, nearly 80% of the population
> wanted the government to cancel the project. But the government acted as
> it was blind and deaf. Not the ideal way to deal with compromise in a
> democracy, isn't it?
But the project is *good*. And according to opinion polls, people don't
want to pay taxes.
If people object, they don't have to vote for the parties which push
for it in the next elections. Simple as that. It's not as if the
government wanted to abolish freedom of speech (I suspect that such
proposition would meet with *less* resistance).
>
> As for the remaining part of my previous post, well, as you don't answer
> it, I hesitate between two options: First, it seemed so meaningless and
> dumb that you didn't bother to discuss it, second, it was so perfect
> that you have nothing to add and you fully agree with it. Said like
> that, I think I'll choose the second option :)
No. I was at work and didn't have time to write more ;-)
Roman Werpachowski
> Roman Werpachowski wrote:
>
> >> Roman Werpachowski wrote:
> >>> I think weakening the unions is a benefit in itself.
> >> You don't see that as weakening the position of the worker in society?
> >> After all one of the only reasons societies got out of the nineteenth
> >> century is due in part in the ability for workers to unite and push an
> >> agenda, right?
> >
> > Yes, although it was mostly due to technological advancement and
> > cultural advancement, not the unions. For example, the 40 hour work
> > week was not introduced by socialists, but by capitalists who noticed
> > that it is about optimal for productivity.
>
> We don't agree. Although I lack historical knowledge to hold a true
> conversation on this topic, AFAIK many advancements of living standards
> are due to the struggle of workers and to the fear of the bourgeoisie of
> the communist alternative. In 1936, and just after WWII, French
> government accepted many demands, including paid holidays, social
> security and so on. It was, AFAIK, nearly the same in Germany: Bismarck
> reformed and provided the base of the social security system in order to
> cut leftists' ground. In France, there was a time when workers
> demanded the 40 hours work week, the army opened fire on the crowd.
And in America, it was Henry Ford who introduced the 40 hour work week.
http://www.igda.org/articles/erobinson_crunch.php
Without the industrial revolution and modern capitalism we would have
*zero* welfare. Note that in various communist countries the actual
welfare system was often very limited. In Poland, until the seventies
farmers had no access to public health care.
>
> On the other side, sure, without technological advancement, it's hard to
> get better living standards. The main question is that nowadays, even
> with these technological and cultural advancements living standards are
> worsening, especially for those who enter the job market, partly because
> of the competition with countries where the living standards are not...
> say the same. As long as we continue to open markets without taking into
> consideration associated social conditions, I'm unsure whether things
> will get better.
Yes, we will. The other countries will get richer and closer to our
living standards. Everybody wants to own a car and a house.
Christian Gottschalk
> If people object, they don't have to vote for the parties which push
> for it in the next elections. Simple as that. It's not as if the
> government wanted to abolish freedom of speech (I suspect that such
> proposition would meet with *less* resistance).
Yes, I've always believed that people would rather protest on the
streets for their right to sit at home doing nothing than for their
right to protest on the streets.
Humans are so weird, sometimes ...
Ciao,
Christian
John W.
Roman Werpachowski wrote:
>
> Looks like the French social model is pretty screwed up.
Only in relation to some. It is hard to believe that the idea that the
state should take care of all of its citizens equally is becoming more
and more alien to western societies. After all, let's take a close look
at who benefits from these changes and who is affected: all college
students and anyone their age are affected. The bulk of these changes
affect service industries such as McDonalds and Walmart, not French
industry per se. It also affects the labor industry (construction and
so forth). With a 22% unemployment in people under 25, I am not sure
that allowing businesses to fire them willy-nilly will do anything
other than help business, especially due to the massive surplus. The
strong labor laws have never been a carte-blanc for the worker to
simply not perform at his task, thus the French rank above a powerhouse
auch as the US in worker productivity per hour worked. Also I want to
dispell the belief that college students in France have a definite
advantage when it comes to finding employment. According to the INSEE
students with the BAC+2 years of further education had a 14% chance of
being unemployed in the years between 2002 and 2004. The level was
higher for the total group of under 25 (25%). But even this statistic
implies that loosening these laws will simply make it easier for
industry to hire-and-fire at will, depending on micro-fluctuations in
the market.
> >
> > According to different opinion polls, nearly 80% of the population
> > wanted the government to cancel the project. But the government acted as
> > it was blind and deaf. Not the ideal way to deal with compromise in a
> > democracy, isn't it?
>
> But the project is *good*. And according to opinion polls, people don't
> want to pay taxes.
The objective *good* of the project is still in question. The *good* is
to be found in lowering unemployment. Why is this seen as the only
possibility? Because it only affects a disenfranchised portion of the
French public.
>
> If people object, they don't have to vote for the parties which push
> for it in the next elections. Simple as that. It's not as if the
> government wanted to abolish freedom of speech (I suspect that such
> proposition would meet with *less* resistance).
I am not sure you really know the French that well! ;) They love to
strike at the drop of a hat! However, voting for someone else next time
will *not* change the law. It takes a lot of political will to make
such systemic changes and there is nothign in this law (that I know of)
such as a sunset clause that will make it obsolete in a few years.
John W.
Roman Werpachowski wrote:
>
> And in America, it was Henry Ford who introduced the 40 hour work week.
But it was not Henry Ford who put it into law. Henry Ford saw that the
40 hour work week made his workers more efficient. He was also very
proactive when it came to benefits, understanding that taking care of
the workers made sense (and curbing unionization for as long as
possible made sense for his business!) Besides, Henry Ford was a
*devout* anti-semite and racist. The good with the bad...
Now we skip forward to the contemporary car market. GM is going under.
They are blaming the unions (of course) while not recognizing that the
companies with whom they are competing (Honda, Nissan, Toyota) have
massive subsidies offered through the *state* for their workers, and
thus they do not have to cover insurance costs and retirement plans.
This is what makes them so competetive. If the states would introduce
universal health care, then industries such as this one would explode
in productivity.
>
> Yes, we will. The other countries will get richer and closer to our
> living standards. Everybody wants to own a car and a house.
Well, it is not quite working in India. Yes, there is a rise in the
middle classes, but this has only increased the gap between the rich
and the poor and helped the poor not one whit.
Stegozor
> Looks like the French social model is pretty screwed up.
It has its upsides and downsides, it's not perfect and in some areas it
clearly needs reform. More direct democracy, more power to the
parliament would be a nice start IMHO. But in some regards, it's pretty
fine, especially the welfare state. The health system is one of the best
in the world according to the WHO AFAIK.
>> According to different opinion polls, nearly 80% of the population
>> wanted the government to cancel the project. But the government acted as
>> it was blind and deaf. Not the ideal way to deal with compromise in a
>> democracy, isn't it?
>
> But the project is *good*. And according to opinion polls, people don't
Is the project good ? If workers are pushed to give away all the
benefits they earned (often by struggles and strikes) will they find
it's really good? Why do we need reform? Because, amongst other reasons,
it is necessary to compete with other countries where labour costs are
cheaper. So, where these regressions (for the workers' rights, it's
obviously a recession) will stop? Until now, the UK's economy is doing
well, but everyone knows that in economy there are cycles, and one day,
unfortunately, they will have unemployment again. How will they deal
with it? More reforms, more lowering of labour costs? That's a never
ending story.
A concrete example : A friend of mine, a freelancer photographer who's
not 30 yet, and married to a teacher could buy a home and plans to have
children, because the job of his wife is guaranteed by the state. I
mean, he couldn't do so if his wife was working for a private company.
How one can ask for a mortgage to his bank if he can be fired anytime ?
I don't have the answer, but I can't say easily that this project is good.
Anyway, I particularly like the following phrase from Winston Churchill:
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;
the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
> want to pay taxes.
Yes, but they do pay taxes, and don't approve all government's tax cut
projects, simply because they know where it leads.
> If people object, they don't have to vote for the parties which push
> for it in the next elections. Simple as that. It's not as if the
Mmmh, I wouldn't say that it's simple as that. To me, it shows that we
need more direct democracy, more negotiations. People are asking to be
heard, to be involved, and it sounds good to me.
> government wanted to abolish freedom of speech (I suspect that such
> proposition would meet with *less* resistance).
Well, these protestations are not just against this new contract. There
were several reforms before this one concerning the health system,
retirement benefits, another similar job contract for example. Each
time, officials told these reforms were necessary, but no one sees any
change in the right direction in the job market.
The only answer? Well, these reforms were not enough, so we should do
even more. Ordinary dudes are just fed up.
> No. I was at work and didn't have time to write more ;-)
Wrong answer. Try again: "Stegozor the almighty, your answer was shiny" :P
John W.
Stegozor wrote:
>
> Is the project good ? If workers are pushed to give away all the
> benefits they earned (often by struggles and strikes) will they find
> it's really good? Why do we need reform? Because, amongst other reasons,
> it is necessary to compete with other countries where labour costs are
> cheaper. So, where these regressions (for the workers' rights, it's
> obviously a recession) will stop? Until now, the UK's economy is doing
> well, but everyone knows that in economy there are cycles, and one day,
> unfortunately, they will have unemployment again. How will they deal
> with it? More reforms, more lowering of labour costs? That's a never
> ending story.
>
I definitely agree. However, it must be realized that much of the
'desire' to reform comes from international trade agreements within the
Union and without. The case in the states with NAFTA is much the same.
Countries cannot subsidize industry they would have in the past because
the States want to compete in that industry. The European subsidization
of the Film industry is an excellent example here. How hard did the US
try to prevent this? Very hard, even though Hollywood has never really
'shared' the market. If the EU wanted to institute a law stating the
theaters had to show 50% European films, Hollywood and the States would
flip out. Distribution throughout Europe is ruled by Hollywood
distributers. Thanks to the neo-liberalization of world markets, the
state has less and less power to directly affect unemployment and is
forced to stear the market through liberalizing their labor laws.
Roman Werpachowski
> Now we skip forward to the contemporary car market. GM is going under.
> They are blaming the unions (of course) while not recognizing that the
> companies with whom they are competing (Honda, Nissan, Toyota) have
> massive subsidies offered through the *state* for their workers, and
> thus they do not have to cover insurance costs and retirement plans.
> This is what makes them so competetive. If the states would introduce
> universal health care, then industries such as this one would explode
> in productivity.
John, and who do you think finances state subsidies for Japanese car
companies? The rest of the Japanese economy. I've long lost faith in
the good effects of state subsidies for business, since I've seen how
the Polish coal industry, which is heavily subsidized, performs: the
answer to business problems is not "be more efficient" but "demand more
money from the taxpayer".
> >
> > Yes, we will. The other countries will get richer and closer to our
> > living standards. Everybody wants to own a car and a house.
>
> Well, it is not quite working in India. Yes, there is a rise in the
> middle classes, but this has only increased the gap between the rich
> and the poor and helped the poor not one whit.
I don't care about the gap. The goal is to make poor people earn more,
not to make everybody earn the same.
Besides, AFAIR there is still lots of socialism in India. One state is
run by people who hang portraits of *Stalin* over their desks.
Roman Werpachowski
> Is the project good ? If workers are pushed to give away all the
> benefits they earned (often by struggles and strikes) will they find
> it's really good? Why do we need reform? Because, amongst other reasons,
> it is necessary to compete with other countries where labour costs are
> cheaper. So, where these regressions (for the workers' rights, it's
> obviously a recession) will stop? Until now, the UK's economy is doing
> well, but everyone knows that in economy there are cycles, and one day,
> unfortunately, they will have unemployment again. How will they deal
> with it? More reforms, more lowering of labour costs? That's a never
> ending story.
Tell me, for how long has the UK unemployment level been significantly
below French? I think they went through a few business cycles at the
same time.
>
> A concrete example : A friend of mine, a freelancer photographer who's
> not 30 yet, and married to a teacher could buy a home and plans to have
> children, because the job of his wife is guaranteed by the state. I
> mean, he couldn't do so if his wife was working for a private company.
If she was working in a private school, she'd probably earn more.
> How one can ask for a mortgage to his bank if he can be fired anytime ?
Lots of people do, still.
> I don't have the answer, but I can't say easily that this project is good.
>
> Anyway, I particularly like the following phrase from Winston Churchill:
> The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;
> the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
>
> > want to pay taxes.
>
> Yes, but they do pay taxes, and don't approve all government's tax cut
> projects, simply because they know where it leads.
And because they think it will mostly benefit the filthy rich.
>
> > If people object, they don't have to vote for the parties which push
> > for it in the next elections. Simple as that. It's not as if the
>
> Mmmh, I wouldn't say that it's simple as that. To me, it shows that we
> need more direct democracy, more negotiations. People are asking to be
> heard, to be involved, and it sounds good to me.
Why not use the system? Vote in elections, perhaps?
>
> > government wanted to abolish freedom of speech (I suspect that such
> > proposition would meet with *less* resistance).
>
> Well, these protestations are not just against this new contract. There
> were several reforms before this one concerning the health system,
> retirement benefits, another similar job contract for example. Each
> time, officials told these reforms were necessary, but no one sees any
> change in the right direction in the job market.
> The only answer? Well, these reforms were not enough, so we should do
> even more. Ordinary dudes are just fed up.ch
Maybe they are not enough.
John W.
Roman Werpachowski wrote:
>
> John, and who do you think finances state subsidies for Japanese car
> companies? The rest of the Japanese economy. I've long lost faith in
> the good effects of state subsidies for business, since I've seen how
> the Polish coal industry, which is heavily subsidized, performs: the
> answer to business problems is not "be more efficient" but "demand more
> money from the taxpayer".
>
Just a clarification: the state subsidizes health care, thus meaning
that the car companies do not have to spend on insurance plans for
their workers. The Japanese economy has been one of the worse
performing economies in the past decade, and yet massive systemic
changes in the health care system did not change. Japanese car
companies have been stimulated indirectly by the massive expenses
American companies pay to insurance and retirement plans. This makes
the Japanese cars more affordable and more reliable. I am not sure the
subsidies are effecting the rest of the economy, or to what extent they
are, but there has been a recent upturn in Japan that was not effected
by a change to these subsidies. One reason for the 1998 economic
downturn in Japan, in fact, was the reduction of investment on the part
of the government, and the way out was through greater government
spending and investment. I do not think there is any evidence that this
downturn can be attributed to the social security system. But, I can
not be sure about that.
> > >
> > > Yes, we will. The other countries will get richer and closer to our
> > > living standards. Everybody wants to own a car and a house.
> >
> > Well, it is not quite working in India. Yes, there is a rise in the
> > middle classes, but this has only increased the gap between the rich
> > and the poor and helped the poor not one whit.
>
> I don't care about the gap. The goal is to make poor people earn more,
> not to make everybody earn the same.
But this gap is what we all should care about. Without social security
system, guaranteed by someone other than industry, we will return to
the nineteenth century, slave labor institutions that caused the German
Weaver revolt. The reality of slave labor is already such, that we need
greater movements towards ethical consumption to cut the need for such
labor. Of course everyone cannot earn the same. But the neo-liberal
dream of a place where everyone earns what he or she needs is destroyed
by realities of inflation. As everyone makes more, everything becomes
more expensive. Without the slave labor driving prices down world wide,
we would already see signs of inflation.
Roman Werpachowski
more expensive.". When the economy produces more, everyone can earn
more without inflation. It is precisely the socialist approach to
economy -- giving people money they did not earn -- which drives
inflation.
John W.
I beg to differ. If we have object 'a' which takes $1 of raw material
to produce and $1 of labor to produce, then we sell it for $2+ in order
to cover costs and then cover investments and so forth... If all of the
workers are making enough to pay for this $2+ then it is fine. If this
$1 does not make a minimum wage (let's say) and this cost goes up, then
the cost of the item goes up. This is a massive oversimplification, but
if *all* workers around the world have the same income then all prices
will rise to cover the costs of that income. The logic for underpaying
workers in 'third world' countries is based on the living wages of that
country, but as neo-liberal policies come into play and the living
expenses go up, then the living wage will have to follow. Assuming this
will happen, of course, which has not yet happened in India. Thus the
human rights violations. The balancing act in neo-liberalism is always
keeping a vast portion of the workers just barely within the bare
living wage, thus offering little room for improvement and virtually no
job security.
John W.
And I forgot to mention that as the economy produces more there has to
be consumption of all that is produced. Since the workers make up the
bulk of consumers, they determine through their wages what can be
consumed. They have to consume what is made in order for the wages to
be maintained. So if they stop consuming, they stop being paid.
However, thanks to the investment system, they are not the only
determinant for pricing, because the company has to cover investment in
its pricing as well. Thus, what happens when the investors demand a
higher return? The wages drop or the prices go up... either way the
worker is forced out of the loop. It is the great irony in America that
the workers who produce material in the US, barely making a living
wage, must consume materials produced in China and 'third world'
markets in order to survive: i.e. they are forced to support their own
competitors and undercut their economic security.
Stegozor
> Tell me, for how long has the UK unemployment level been significantly
> below French? I think they went through a few business cycles at the
> same time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, AFAIK the UK is doing fine since 10 or 12
years. I mean, they have fair GDP growth, unemployment is low and so on.
That's pretty good, but not enough to say that it could resist several
business cycles. Europe's already gone through the "glorious thirties"
after WWII, and this taught us that growth is not a quite and monotonous
road.
>> A concrete example : A friend of mine, a freelancer photographer who's
>> not 30 yet, and married to a teacher could buy a home and plans to have
>> children, because the job of his wife is guaranteed by the state. I
>> mean, he couldn't do so if his wife was working for a private company.
>
> If she was working in a private school, she'd probably earn more.
I mentioned this example because this dude is the first friend of mine
who was able to buy a home. As for other friends who are working in
private companies, such a thing didn't happen yet.
>> How one can ask for a mortgage to his bank if he can be fired anytime ?
>
> Lots of people do, still.
Yes, but it is more difficult for them if they have similar salaries.
>>> want to pay taxes.
>> Yes, but they do pay taxes, and don't approve all government's tax cut
>> projects, simply because they know where it leads.
>
> And because they think it will mostly benefit the filthy rich.
For sure, but I think they realize it means above all that social
benefits will drop. It happened, it's happening right now, and it seems
it will happen in the future.
>>> If people object, they don't have to vote for the parties which push
>>> for it in the next elections. Simple as that. It's not as if the
>> Mmmh, I wouldn't say that it's simple as that. To me, it shows that we
>> need more direct democracy, more negotiations. People are asking to be
>> heard, to be involved, and it sounds good to me.
>
> Why not use the system? Vote in elections, perhaps?
In my view, representative democracy is just a so-so solution, because
direct democracy isn't here yet. It could be more legitimate with some
reforms (a right to ask for a referendum as in Switzerland for example).
Each time ordinary dudes express themselves directly, this should be
taken into account, and right now, there is absolutely no doubt about
the will of the people concerning this law. I know we discussed this
during the referendum concerning the constitutional treaty, and I know
we don't fully agree. That's my opinion, though.
Also note that the current government clearly lost every single election
(regional, municipal, not to mention the referendum) or so since it came
into power in 2002. So, its legitimacy is not so strong.
>> The only answer? Well, these reforms were not enough, so we should do
>> even more. Ordinary dudes are just fed up.
>
> Maybe they are not enough.
Quite possible. But that should not prevent us from seeking other
solutions. We still didn't find a system able to create wealth, share it
fairly while preserving natural resources. Seems that there's still a
lot to do.
Nicolas Krebs
news:442c23ad$0$169$a3f2...@nnrp1.numericable.fr
> Lire ou écouter l'article de Bernard Guetta, « D'une idéologie à
> l'autre », chronique Géopolitique du 2003-03-30 vers 07 h 20, dans
> l'émission Le 7/9, France Inter, 2003-03-30, Paris, France,
> http://www.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-inter01/information/chroniques/geopolitique/fiche.php?did=42438
>
> http://www.radiofrance.fr/services/rfmobiles/podcast/index.php?chaine=1&g=2
> http://www.radiofrance.fr/services/rfmobiles/podcast/popup_rss.php?cid=93
> http://www.radiofrance-podcast.net/podcast/10009-30.03.2006-ITEMA_20023531-0.mp3
>
> Voir aussi
> - Peter Auer, Janine Berg et Ibrahim Coulibaly, « Une main-d'œuvre stable
> est-elle bonne pour la productivité? », Revue internationale du travail,
> volume 144, numéro 3, Organisation internationale du travail,
> http://www.ilo.org/public/french/support/publ/revue/sommaire/144-3.htm
> (version anglaise « Is a stable workforce good for productivity? »,
> http://www.ilo.org/public/english/support/publ/revue/sommaire/144-3.htm ),
> cité par l'article de Denis Clerc, « Emploi : la sécurité favorise la
> productivité », Aternatives économiques, mars 2006,
> http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/sommaires/s_245.html ;
> - Denis Clerc, « Faut-il brûler le modèle social français ? », Aternatives
> économiques, avril 2006, http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/lectures/L246/NL246_001.html ;
> - Serge Halimi, Le grand bond en arrière, Fayard, 2006, ISBN 2-213-62768-1
> (réédittion).
Ainsi que
- Christopher Redman, « The French Paradox », Fortune, décembre 2001
(2001-12), cité dans Guillaume Duval, « La France vue d'Amérique »,
Alternatives économiques, janvier 2002, p. 13;
- « Lorsque j'entends les adeptes de la pensée unique, j'ai l'impression
que la flexibilité des travailleurs et la compression des salaires sont
les deux seuls moyens d'adapter nos économies aux défis qui les
assaillent. [...] Ce discours m'énerve et je ne le supporte plus. »
(Jacques Delors, cité dans Alternatives économiques, mars 2004 (2004-03),
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/sommaires/s_223.html );
- William Pfaff, « Capitalism under fire », 2006-03-30, International
Herald Tribune, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/29/news/edpfaff.php
- « US Media to French Youth: Fight for your right to be fired », Fairness
& Accuracy In Reporting, 2006-04-04, http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2855 ,
traduction française de Renaud Lambert, « Message des médias américains à
la jeunesse française : battez-vous pour votre droit à... être licenciés »,
Acrimed, 2006-04-05, http://www.acrimed.org/article2327.html .
John W.
Nicolas Krebs
news:44357754$1$169$a3f2...@nnrp1.numericable.fr
> Nicolas Krebs �crivit dans l'article
> news:442c23ad$0$169$a3f2...@nnrp1.numericable.fr
>
> > Lire ou �couter l'article de Bernard Guetta, � D'une id�ologie �
> > l'autre �, chronique G�opolitique du 2003-03-30 vers 07 h 20, dans
> > l'�mission Le 7/9, France Inter, 2003-03-30, Paris, France,
> > http://www.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-inter01/information/chroniques/geopolitique/fiche.php?did=42438
> >
> > http://www.radiofrance.fr/services/rfmobiles/podcast/index.php?chaine=1&g=2
> > http://www.radiofrance.fr/services/rfmobiles/podcast/popup_rss.php?cid=93
> > http://www.radiofrance-podcast.net/podcast/10009-30.03.2006-ITEMA_20023531-0.mp3
http://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/chro/geopolitique/?id=42438
http://sites.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/chro/geopolitique/?id=42438
> > Voir aussi
> > - Peter Auer, Janine Berg et Ibrahim Coulibaly, � Une main-d'?uvre stable
> > est-elle bonne pour la productivit�? �, Revue internationale du travail,
> > volume 144, num�ro 3, Organisation internationale du travail,
> > http://www.ilo.org/public/french/support/publ/revue/sommaire/144-3.htm
http://www.ilo.org/public/french/revue/sommaire/144-3.htm
> > (version anglaise � Is a stable workforce good for productivity? �,
> > http://www.ilo.org/public/english/support/publ/revue/sommaire/144-3.htm ),
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/revue/sommaire/144-3.htm
Voir aussi un entretien avec Peter Auer dat� du 2006-01-20
fran�ais http://www.ilo.org/global/About_the_ILO/Media_and_public_information/Press_releases/lang--en/WCMS_067238/index.htm
anglais http://www.ilo.org/global/About_the_ILO/Media_and_public_information/Press_releases/lang--fr/WCMS_067239/index.htm
> > cit� par l'article de Denis Clerc, � Emploi : la s�curit� favorise la
> > productivit� �, Aternatives �conomiques, mars 2006,
> > http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/sommaires/s_245.html ;
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/emploi---la-securite-favorise-la-productivite_fr_art_198_22984.html
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/_fr_art_198_22984.html
> > - Denis Clerc, � Faut-il br�ler le mod�le social fran�ais ? �, Aternatives
> > �conomiques, avril 2006, http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/lectures/L246/NL246_001.html ;
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/faut-il-bruler-le-modele-social-francais-par-alain-lefebvre-et-dominique-meda_fr_art_199_23167.html
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/_fr_art_199_23167.html
> > - Serge Halimi, Le grand bond en arri�re, Fayard, 2006, ISBN 2-213-62768-1
> > (r��dittion).
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/livre/grandbond/
>
> Ainsi que
> - Christopher Redman, � The French Paradox �, Fortune, d�cembre 2001
> (2001-12), cit� dans Guillaume Duval, � La France vue d'Am�rique �,
> Alternatives �conomiques, janvier 2002, p. 13;
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/politique-economique---la-france-vue-d-amerique_fr_art_154_16310.html
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/_fr_art_154_16310.html
> - � Lorsque j'entends les adeptes de la pens�e unique, j'ai l'impression
> que la flexibilit� des travailleurs et la compression des salaires sont
> les deux seuls moyens d'adapter nos �conomies aux d�fis qui les
> assaillent. [...] Ce discours m'�nerve et je ne le supporte plus. �
> (Jacques Delors, cit� dans Alternatives �conomiques, mars 2004 (2004-03),
> http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/sommaires/s_223.html );
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/jacques-delors-----je-suis-tellement-irrite-par-la-pensee-unique-que-j-en-deviens-tres-critique--_fr_art_178_19625.html
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/jacques-delors_fr_art_178_19625.html
> - William Pfaff, � Capitalism under fire �, 2006-03-30, International
> Herald Tribune, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/29/news/edpfaff.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/news/29iht-edpfaff.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/news/29iht-edpfaff.html?pagewanted=print
> - � US Media to French Youth: Fight for your right to be fired �, Fairness
> & Accuracy In Reporting, 2006-04-04, http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2855 ,
> traduction fran�aise de Renaud Lambert, � Message des m�dias am�ricains �
> la jeunesse fran�aise : battez-vous pour votre droit �... �tre licenci�s �,
> Acrimed, 2006-04-05, http://www.acrimed.org/article2327.html .
Adresses inchang�es.
Concernant le prix d'�conomie 2009 � en m�moire d'Alfred Nobel � de
la Banque centrale de Su�de, voir
- ��The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred
Nobel 2009��, http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2009/
- ��Laur�ats du prix "Nobel" d'�conomie 2009 : Elinor Ostrom et Olivier
Williamson, 2009-10-12,
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/laureats-du-prix---nobel---d-economie-2009---elinor-ostrom-et-olivier-williamson_fr_art_633_44273.html
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/_fr_art_633_44273.html
- ��Williamson et la nouvelle �conomie institutionnelle��, Alternatives �conomiques, n�122, d�cembre 1994,
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/williamson-et-la-nouvelle-economie-institutionnelle_fr_art_77_7535.html
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/_fr_art_77_7535.html
- Denis Clerc, ��La firme face au march頻, Alternatives �conomiques,
n�122, d�cembre 1994,
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/la-firme-face-au-marche_fr_art_77_7536.html
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/_fr_art_77_7536.html
- ��Les n�o-institutionnalistes��, Alternatives �conomiques Pratique, n�31 novembre 2007,
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/les-neo-institutionnalismes_fr_art_668_34666.html
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/_fr_art_668_34666.html
- Herv� Le Crosnier, ��Le prix "Nobel" � Elinor Ostrom : une bonne nouvelle
pour la th�orie des biens communs��, 2009-10-12,
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/le-prix--nobel--a-elinor-ostrom---une-bonne-nouvelle-pour-la-theorie-des-biens-communs_fr_art_633_44275.html
http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/_fr_art_633_44275.html
http://www.mediapart.fr/club/blog/hervelecrosnier/131009/une-bonne-nouvelle-pour-la-theorie-des-biens-communs
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom
- http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2000/06/KAUL/13929
- http://survie.org/bpem/
- http://www.sdnp.undp.org/gpgn/
--
� Selon Jerry Mander, [Robert] McNamara a tu� plus d'�tres humains � la
t�te de la Banque mondiale que lorsqu'il �tait, en tant que ministre de
la d�fense des Etats-Unis, pr�pos� aux massacres du Vietnam. �
��Les int�grismes �conomiques�� (Henri Bourguinat)