What is happening in France?
They riot for literally everything, don't mind them
Muslims are mad they haven't wiped out the french yet
This
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53T7AIgf5Ks
>>60011152
Which laws are Mr. Hollander trying to enact?
>>60011002
since it is sunny, our leftist whores go outside asking for more sex
>>60011002
French government being shit and incompetent as always.
>>60011438
A law against the rights of workers, but they are more striking against the government than just that law. They are striking since March.
>>60011002
What? Is this going on right now? Like literally now? What is it? Media here is not writing about anything in France right now.
>>60011152
The only thing I've seen about the situation in France was just to tell British tourists to fill up their fuel tanks before going over the channel to France, because fuel is scarce over there. that's it, kek.
>>60011460
What does it say?
>>60011002
autism and lefty cognitive dissonance. One union is mad because they will not repeal an law which anyway has already been emptied out by editing.
>be French
>be replaced by niggers and north africans
>do nothing
>be gunned down on a monthly basis in terrorist attacks
>do nothing
>state lowers taxes or whatever
>"sacrebleu le this cant le happen le riot time"
What a stupid people
>>60012965
>Media here is not writing about anything in France right now.
I doubt that desu
The strikes and fuel shortages are big news
>>60013045
>Night time is made for fucking, not working
>>60013149
Oh good lord, look at this flag and don't laugh
>>60013149
You DON'T want to get into this debate, Sven.
>>60011958
or niggers nigging? oh yeah, that's it
>>60011460
>>60013257
You are always on 4chan you.
>>60013279
>>60013299
What's the problem? In Sweden we don't demonstrate for anything because it's not part of our culture but you idiots could demonstrate for all the bad stuff but instead you demonstrate for this?
>>60013149
You don't get it. The CGT doing the blockade is radicalizing because right now they will most likely get BTFO in union election and lose all their sweet monies from the government.
In all they represent 3% of employees in France but they control strategic point like raffinery and transportation and have a large capacity of nuisance.
I just wanna know when the Exocets will start flying.
>>60011152
the music makes it extra spooky
>>60013217
Well, I went through the 5 biggest newspapers right now, and I didn't see anything about it. I even used ctrl+f just to be safe. As of right now, there is nothing...
>>60011002
hohols hoholing
>>60013494
shhh goj, everything is fine
>>60013408
So it's staged demonstrations that don't represent the people?
>>60013370
No Sven you don't protest against what is wrong, instead you accept it with open loving arms.. just like Somali cock. ;)
>>60013494
Norwegian newspapers don't write about France any more than they write about Argentina. Nobody cares about France here.
>>60013640
Sven still has a point. In France they could've protested about worse things than this, yet they don't.
>>60013856
Which is a damn shame. Our newspapers only write about irrelevant domestic shit instead of world news.
>>60013558
it's not staged. You don't much people to create a huge mess. Just ten guys blocking an highway is already enough to create a huge mess.
If you also block half the train from paris and stop 9 refinery (there's 13 in France) you are fucking with millions of people with just a couple of thousand strikers. They do it, because obviously it gives you a huge leverage.
Boris Le Lay a fait 2 vidéos sur cette série d'événements
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PebOHWTj7Sg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyG1W3Nfb1k
>>60013005
>fuel is scarce over there
It wouldn't even be scarce if people didn't empty the gas stations
They were told we were going to lack fuel, so they all pumped some, and it actually caused the shortage
>>60011002
Working law is trying to revert all progress we've done since almost a century
Somehow making people easier to fire will make businessmen employ them more, same thing with working hours
>>60011002
Just our usual way of debating and negotiating laws.
don't mind us.
>>60013879
I don't see how he has a point in calling us "stupid people" when his country never protest for anything, at all
Better to protest sometimes even if it doesn't imply immigrants rather than doing fuck all
>What is happening in France?
Socialists losing their last supports.
Far Left will probably get more votes than socialist party at the next election
>>60014208
>being this stupid.
Yes it didn't helped.
tons of people and transport businesses were totally empty (there was the story of a guy emptying his own grass mower so he could drive one more afternoon).
So what ? You're going to ask all those guys who have no fuel at all to wait a couple more days before refilling ? Of course they'll all refill all at once, and that's what making the shortage bigger.
Not the fear of lacking fuel in short future, at least, that's not, like you're trying to imply it, the biggest reason.
>>60014208
Yeah the news said people were panic buying and filling up fuel cans as 'reserves'. Pretty wild desu.
>>60014404
>Somehow making people easier to fire will make businessmen employ them more
dude, it's time for you to read the law, that's over.... It ain't in the law anymore.
>>60014187
Il avait pas été condamné à de la prison ?
>>60014561
>"stupid people"
No, I didn't particularly mean that. I just mean that I see the potential to a revolt about the islamifisation when I see this, yet people aren't willing to do so. It's a damn shame, because here we aren't as fortunate to have a people who are willing to revolt about *anything*, so it seems so wasted for you.
Everyone's tired of kikes and their lefty hordes ruling over them with an iron rod.
as usual.
we will see more and more of this in yurope
>>60011002
Não vai ter golpe?
>>60014404
>Somehow making people easier to fire will make businessmen employ them more
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't it?
I mean, it would be much easier to replace shitty employees.
>>60014858
Nah it's not even about that.
That anon, is completely ignorant.
It wasn't even making people easier to fire...
The thing in the law was to put some clear reasons when firing somebody for economical reasons is illegal, and when it isn't.
The funniest is that those rules of what's legal, and what's not wouldn't even been written in law, it would just be a guideline for the judges, which can still judge as it pleases them.
Also, they planned on limiting the amount of money you would have to pay if you fired somebody illegally. That limit was fixed waaaay above the average of today.
I don't know if it's clear. But basically we have les prud'homme, which is part of our judiciary system, and if you feel like you got fired for no legit reason, you can sue your boss there. There's then a normal trial with a judge and all, and if you win, your boss has to pay you for compensation, etc. The problem was, when you fire someone for economical reasons ( you're business isn't doing well ), you have no way to know if it's rightful or not, since nothing's written about it in the law.
But, again, anon's completely ignorant, since that has already been discarded from the law's project.
>>60014858
>I mean, it would be much easier to replace shitty employees.
That's the official language. The real idea is to lower the pay and supress some jurisdictions. Just because "boohoo I pay too much, muh lazy employee".
>>60015317
Fucking bullshit.
The law never talked about lazy employees. It never mentioned anything about it.
It was about firing people depending on the ECONOMICAL SITUATION of the business. Which is already legal ! It only gave a strict guideline with conditions, that judges would follow, so that entrepreneurs would know if they can legally fire someone or not, without having to pay an army of advocates and jurists !
And even so, The judge can still decide whatever he wants !
>lower the pay
You clearly have no idea about what you're talking.
>>60011460
But...prostiution is also working,technically
>>60011460
>someone thought that was clever
>>60015577
prostitution is illegal in France.
If you're caught paying a whore you're fined with 1500€ or something.
>>60015511
>You clearly have no idea about what you're talking.
Listen son we've seen your salary and considered that the Incorporation had to make some cut in the budget. Sorry that's that or beiing fired. Your move.
>The judge can still decide whatever he wants !
The jury is also composed by Boss and managers. A judge is tied by alread existing judgements, if ever there is an appeal then this judgement will be prefered. Isn't that great?
> without having to pay an army of advocates and jurists
Oh because that's right : your assisted worker can hire the best lawyers, meanwhile the poor business boss cannot.
>>60015511
I don't know shit about labor laws in France, but what you're saying is that if a business is having a rough year (say in a recession or something) that it might go bankrupt, it CAN'T fire employees to alleviate its financial difficulties?
>>60015755
wtf i hate france now
No, but seriously I though you were very liberal regarding sexual matters. You know like letting 12yo see borderline porn movies in theaters and stuff.
How did this happen ?
>>60015896
Of course you can, but the easiest way is to claim a tutoring by the state before you fire employees. You have to clarify your situation before firing.
If not, the the judge will try to snake his/her nose tho see if that's because your business has difficulties.
>>60015838
Your whole argument is based on the fact that the prud'homme and the whole justice is the problem.
Then you clearly have no reason to be against that part of the law.
Until now, it was 100% up to the judge, which you judge as corrupt and on the side of the boss.
With that article, it's written black on white, and thus, most judges will follow the guideline, leaving less room for the judge's opinion/mood/political ideology, and thus less influence from the boss and the corrupt...
I repeat,
>You clearly have no idea about what you're talking.
I believe there are some arguments against that, but yours... It should open that law with open arms.
>>60016071
>How did this happen ?
The official reason is to erase proxenets
>>60015896
You can, but you have no guidelines. You gotta spend time letting the justice putting its nose in your business, etc.
Most of the time, the bosses fired with a good reason, and never had to pay the employees some extra, that is, after the business was already in bad state, and for the small/middle businesses.
The law will never change the situation about the big corporations, who have their army of advocates, etc. And are ready to pay extra so they can fire a couple thousands of people...
The problem is, lots of bosses of small/middle businesses, just don't fire anyone when their business is having a rough time. They won't be in their right, that they'll have to deal with a shitstorm of legal procedures, and in the end they'll lose and pay some extra for the poor employee who got fired and would like to go on holiday for the next 2 months before taking back work.
>>60016115
>Until now, it was 100% up to the judge, which you judge as corrupt and on the side of the boss.
No that wasn't what I implied.
Magistrates in a case of appeal shall refer to what happened "in some similar situations".
Don't you see? The first instance could say whatever they wanted, in an appeal the result would be "apply this ... apply that..."
This is a negation of the act of judging.
>>60015755
Over here they just legalised it because they anyway couldn't cope with the proxenets and the whores that wouldn't pay the fines no matter what
>>60016324
>Most of the time, the bosses fired with a good reason
*Kof kof ... Michelin ... *kof kof ... Total ... *kof kof ... Mittal
>Bad business situation my ass
>>60016468
>reading comprehension F-
I said that didn't applied with big corporations.
>>60016447
well, over here it's
>dissuade the consumer, and without consumers the whole thing will die out.
Though, they still don't realise internet exists...
>>60016526
Cool.
Now tell me : where in this law is there a differenciation between huge megacorps and small business.
>Reading comprehension much?
>>60016648
The law doesn't change anything in the game for the megacorps.
It doesn't make it easier or harder for them to fire whoever they want...
They already have all there team in cases like this.
They don't fucking care about having more or less visibility on the law, they pay dozens of people for that.
>>60016810
>They already have all there team in cases like this. They don't fucking care about having more or less visibility on the law, they pay dozens of people for that.
True that.
>>60016364
>This is a negation of the act of judging.
No clearly I don't see.
There's no negation. It's indicative. The judge still chooses to apply whatever he wants, he just has a better sight of what is and what isn't a good reason to fire.
It would be like creating a strict law with the conditions written down, a judge is still needed in that case, because well situations are complex and a couple rules aren't enough for all the possible situations. Here it isn't even written down in the constitution or the code du travail or whatever the fuck you want. It's just guideline, you can refer to if you have doubt or don't know what to think.
As a boss you can still lose the case, even if all the criteria are filled. You can still appeal if you don't agree with the judgement.
>>60017226
Gudelines are a trend to an habit which is a violation of the process. It's like incitate the judges to give pre-rendered verdict.
I worked as a celric for a judge of the civil circle : they already have "their" own grid of decisions, but it's illegal to mention it as an usual appreciation (C.Cass Civ 1ère 10 juin 1994 Monteret [from memory])
It's the 5th article of the code civil that says so
>>60017632
Well again, what's the problem ?
They already have their own grid, which are different depending on the place you are.
What the govt proposes is a grid common to the whole country. I don't know if they can mention it or not, I believe probably not.
Which in the end gives more visibility to the business, which can go on with his life without being scared whether his lucky with his the judge in charge of it trial...
