For a moment, it was like old times. I was in Paris recently when hundreds of students occupied the Sorbonne and the riot police were called out in excessive numbers to turf them out. There have been sit-ins and strikes at many other French universities, a succession of angry street demonstrations and lots of eye-balling and scuffling between students and police. True, I smelled no tear gas on Saturday — I was asleep on the other side of the river when it was used, just before dawn. But when I heard and saw the news about the Sorbonne disturbances, I shut my eyes real tight and briefly managed to evoke the image and spirit of May 1968.
It was, of course, a ludicrous, facile and untenable comparison, in every possible way, not least in regard to the reasons behind the unrest. The students of 2006, it appears, are manifesting their displeasure at a government scheme aimed at giving them, and other young people, jobs.
At stake is a law, passed earlier this month, creating a contract known as the CPE (contrat première embauche — contract of first employment). The CPE would allow under-26-year-olds to be in a job, but subject to a catch — the contract can be ended by the employer within two years without having to give any reasons. Those last six words have provoked the lively reactions being experienced in the streets and universities of France.
Under French law, it is far more difficult (and expensive) for an employer to get rid of a worker — even a bad worker — than it is under the English system. This has had consequences. French employees stay in their jobs for longer, creating fewer vacancies for the next generation. An incompetent, unproductive worker can remain employed, thus preventing someone better (and younger) from taking over. The result is a sluggish job market, a sluggish economy and an unemployment rate of more than 20% among the young, rising to more than 50% in deprived areas.
The government has promised, and largely failed, to reduce unemployment. Hence the idea of the CPE. Employers would be more likely to take on staff if they were freed from the shackles of the law. The young have been complaining that they can’t get jobs. The CPE will improve their chances of being employed. True, they won’t necessarily have job security, though if they’re any good the employer will want them to stay on, at which stage their employment will acquire legal protection. But, to pose the fundamental question: Is it not better to have a job than no job at all? In France, the curious answer is no.
It is easy to see why the trade unions don’t like the CPE. It diminishes their powers and takes away rights from employees. It is not as obvious why the young are so opposed to a scheme which, whatever the political motives of its creators will allow more of them to take up employment that they would not otherwise have had and that has a chance of becoming permanent.
The main objection seems to be based on psychological grounds: CPE introduces feelings of great insecurity, lasting two years. You are unable to plan your life if you may be fired at any moment. You will not be able to get a mortgage or a bank loan, or decent credit facilities, because the lender will know of the precariousness of your financial future. So it is less stressful to be unemployed, because you know where you are, than to be gainfully employed but subject to the sack.
France is under strain, there is an election around the corner and the government is looking for ways to win it. It didn’t expect quite the reaction its CPE has provoked and now it has to decide whether to yield or struggle on. But 1968 it ain’t. —