March 28, 2006
-
Topic: Protests in France
There’s about 300,000 people protesting in the streets of France today, in response to a new law passed by their parliament. Before I talk about what that law is, I’d like to discuss the idea of people, especially students, finding cause to protest in such large numbers.
Many people, including myself, feel inspired when people protest. It’s a sign that people are fighting for a better world. It’s a sign of anger spilling over into action. There’s the excitement of protest, the desire to shut down society in the face of all that is wrong with it.
More than anything, I believe protests are a way to combat boredom. I think that’s the largest enemy people face in life. It’s why people, like myself, take up causes. Causes give life purpose, and protests are simply a massive amount of people saying, “We’re so bored and tired of talking, what else can we do?”
I believe laws are an important part of our society, as they encourage peace and order, but I think there’s a part of me that believes people should take the helm, rather than be bullied by law. And, as usual, I’m speaking in massive generalities without giving specific examples because I really don’t know what the hell I’m talking about
I need to stop falling into the trap of making universal claims, rather than focussing on individual circumstances. But…isn’t that a universal claim? No, it’s a particular claim that applies to me. OK, onwards.
What I was getting at in discussing laws, which I don’t know much about, is that ultimately it’s the way individual people behave and act that matters. For example, Congress is working on addressing immigration law, since the current laws on the issue are ineffective in preventing people like farmers from hiring illegals off the books. The law change is actually intended to help illegals by giving them a pathway to become legal, rather than what was proposed which was to view them as felons, a violation of criminal rather than civil law, that would make citizenship impossible. Either way, it will be a long time before the law has any true effect.
Laws such as No Child Left Behind require schools to meet certain testing requirements, or face losing federal money. Clearly, this law has an effect on the mentality of education, and has in many schools resulted in the elimination of history and science to focus on math and reading tests. However, there are schools that despite the law have been educating their students in a wide range of subjects, and without even practicing for the test, they have exceeded results in nearby schools (here I am referring to a particular Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound school I visited in Denver, Co.) So, the law in this case, it seems, cuts both ways. Effecting education in both a negative and neutral way.
Back to the issue in France. The recent law is to allow employers to fire employees under the age of 26 who have worked less than 2 years, without providing them a reason. This has workers groups and students groups protesting the loss of security that they believe the law will bring. The government, and employers, believe this law will actually be good for employees, because with greater flexibility, employers are more likely to hire more. Currently, many French employers are hesitant to hire new employees because if it turns out the person is not needed, it is very difficult to let that person go. There is an unemployment rate of about 20% for those 18-25 (a figure that I’m not sure means too much to me, as I don’t know if that includes those in school, and I often think about unemployment in the US and the fact that there are always jobs available, the problem of course people not particularly feeling excited about those jobs).
So, if the protesters are victorious, and the law remains the same, nothing will change. Perhaps, if the law stays, not much will change. The law seems to be symbolic of the society as much as something that effects society.
Comments (1)
The French you say? What did they do this time? Chain-smoke and look down their noses?
No, seriously, you’re probably referring to the riots unfolding in Paris. I won’t lie. Until you mentioned it, I was blissfully picking my nose and ignorant of the entire situation. A bit of poking around online outlined the situation as follows (so you know where I am coming from): Young French citizens are steamed because some new legislation proposes that employers can fire anyone under the age of twenty-six within two years of their hire date. The contract has been drafted and proposed to try and make France more competitive in European markets. Apparently another rationalization is that some French employers are reluctant to hire rookie young workers, because some labor law made it damn near impossible to fire them. Also at issue is the lack of desirable, “white collar” jobs available to them. The jobs the can score would almost be worse than not working.
…
Well, perhaps they should have considered all the ramifications before they joined the EU (how’s that for looking down my nose?). Now, to stay competitive, they must learn to cope without the safety nets to which they have grown accustomed. My response: get used to it. This is but the slightest problem in the foreseeable future for the countries of the EU. There is no dominant language for the EU. At present any city, county, state, or country within the EU could favorably affect production costs within said governmental body by altering its tax structure (or tariffs, or one of a thousand other factors). When England starts making Swiss Army Knives cheaper and better than Switzerland, the Swiss will get pissed. When Spain perfects a full-bodied lager, Germany will likely go berserk. Italian hash bars might put Amsterdam out of business. …If you can’t see where I’m going with this, then I need to “talk dumber”.
The EU is in a quandary. As it tries to unify the economies of many nations, it must still leave them with governmental autonomy. Each nation has to “play nice” with the others, and not stab the others in the back while still trying to cut the best deal possible for themselves. As time passes, each nation will be forced to make a choice between what is right for the Union, and what is right for the nation. For some, those choices will be incredibly difficult.
I’ll address the (un)availability of “good” or desirable jobs at a later date. Or maybe I won’t. Perhaps I’ll just go back to picking my nose. Especially now that it is so high in the air.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=qw114356988439B216&set_id=
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/28/opinion/edpepper.php