Politics of the Day

[greybeta]

You would think that as an opinion editor for a campus newspaper that I would have a lot of opinions on the politics of a day. I do, but a little thing called "senior project" gets in the way. While I have already presented, there's the matter of the final product where I have to dot all my i's and cross all my t's. I do have some quick thoughts about the politics of the day...

Domestic

• Immigrant situation seems to be yet another application of realistic vs. idealistic thinking. Realism says we have to deal with the over ten million "undocumented workers" living within our borders. Idealistic thinking says we can pass laws to solve the problem. The thing is that each party wants to control who these illegal immigrants will vote for down the road (if they aren't already voting).


• The Bush leaks have caused some consternation among certain members of Congress. The only thing is that this isn't anything new...just more public thanks to advent of the Internet. I wonder if the Bush administration will increase the time for released gov't documents (currently 30 years) in an effort to improve national security.


• Sixty-two percent of students who identified themselves as Republicans said religion was losing its influence on American society, while 54 percent of Democrats said it was increasing its influence. Most agreed, however, that a candidate's religion wouldn't affect how they voted.

Foreign

• Iran wants to play ball with the big boys. The big boys are going to play ball back. Gotta love the "we came here first" mentality. Even if Iran is discouraged from continuing its nuclear program, it will win many favorable concessions as a result of doing so. Why wouldn't Iran stay on its current path? America is too outstretched to invade and nobody else is going to want to invade Iran.


• Prodi wins Italian elections. The boon of coalition politics is that it gives you a lot of choices. The downside is that it's difficult to create a stable and coherent direction. It's a razor thin coalition though, so I don't expect this setup to last more than two years.


• France back downs on youth law. One Fox News commentator said that the French just want cushy jobs where they can't be canned and that doesn't work under capitalism. I don't know just how true that is, but something tells me that's what a lot of Americans think. No, don't give me all that high end theoretical economic theory, I'm talking about your average American here who watches Fox News. You know there are a lot of them because otherwise we wouldn't have elected our current president otherwise.

Comments

[fub.livejournal.com]

The decision by President Jacques Chirac to cave in to the demands of street protesters will set back market reform for a decade, not just in France, but in Europe generally.
Even if we agree that things are not well, this law is certainly not going to fix it. In fact, it will make things worse, as I laid out in a post on my journal.

[kmg-365.livejournal.com]

I don't think that Steven was arguing that this specific law would fix what ails France's economy. No one law is going to do that.

While I cannot speak for him, I think his point is that reform is necessary, and the status quo will only further drag down France's position in the global economy and create a vicious cycle where the citizens become more and more dependent on social programs (and have fewer workers to support the programs). What Chirac and Vellipan did was embrace the status quo out of fear of making a politically unpopular move. That's what happens when politicians are mainly interested in the next election cycle.

With regards to your linked post, I agree that the law was unfair as structured, relegating it to younger people. I would doubt they could pass such a law in the US because it would violate EEO. I do have to disagree with this statement, though:

But once they hit 26 or after two years (whichever comes first) they will fire these people, just before the benefits clause kicks in...If you don't think that this would happen, then you are stupid.

I have been an at-will employee who has worked for at-will employers for twenty years. Each of these employers had their own "vesting" schedule, where benefits would only kick in after a specific service period. I have never seen the scenario you describe happen, either at companies for whom I have worked or companies for whom my friends and family have worked.

While on the surface it may make sense for a company to behave as you predict, from a practical standpoint few companies would entertain the idea. Why? A few reasons:

1. Businesses invest time and money in developing new employees. It is in their best interest to retain good employees who have acquired their specific business knowledge. (I am, of course, assuming we are not talking about unskilled labor here.)
2. Employers who follow this practice would have a difficult time finding good employees who will work for them.

So what do the employers do? They hire people on a temporary contract. They extend that contract twice. And then they fire you.

The contractor vs employee issue goes on here as well. As does outsourcing/offshoring. However, companies here do not terminate contracts because they are forced into a temp-to-hire situation. Contracts are signed for specific projects, and terminate themselves upon completion of the SOW. There are many people who opt for the "excitement" of contract work. I am not one of those people.

Companies need to weigh the benefit of reduced total compensation amounts with the brain drain that occurs when the contractors leave. We have found that, in many cases, the brain drain isn't worth the saved expense, so we try to do most work in-house.

The problem you describe with contractors, it would seem, is in the government's strong-arming of companies - forcing them to commit to long-term contracts. The reason they are contracting the work is because they either don't want to increase FTE headcount, or don't need to. Forcing their hand will understandably cause them to behave as you have described. I wouldn't fault the companies for that - I would fault the government for passing a law mandating that behavior.

[fub.livejournal.com]

What Chirac and Vellipan did was embrace the status quo out of fear of making a politically unpopular move.
Yes. But the law wouldn't have fixed the issues, so it's kind of a moot point.

1. Businesses invest time and money in developing new employees. It is in their best interest to retain good employees who have acquired their specific business knowledge. (I am, of course, assuming we are not talking about unskilled labor here.)
Young people, fresh from college, just aren't that valuable to a business. They may know how the work is done theoretically, but it takes quite a bit of training and time before they are up to speed.
Yes, college will learn you some skills, but those skills are cheap, because everyone who finished college has those skills. Until you have acquired the skills they don't teach at college that are needed for the company, you can be replaced almost immediately and without any problems by someone who comes fresh out of college.
Yes, as a business you need to train a new generation of managers -- but the rest of the employees is certainly expendable.
At the complete underside of the market, unskilled labor, you are completely out of luck, because these issues count doubly there.

2. Employers who follow this practice would have a difficult time finding good employees who will work for them.
Unless you are the only game in town.

The problem you describe with contractors, it would seem, is in the government's strong-arming of companies - forcing them to commit to long-term contracts.
That is true. And deregulating would fix (most) of that -- but if you only deregulate a part of the market, you're not fixing anything but rather making things worse.

[kmg-365.livejournal.com]

Yes. But the law wouldn't have fixed the issues, so it's kind of a moot point.

And if students, young people, and unions are opposed to any and all reform, then it's an even mooter point. If that's even possible (being a mooter point). [g]

Young people, fresh from college, just aren't that valuable to a business. They may know how the work is done theoretically, but it takes quite a bit of training and time before they are up to speed.
Yes, college will learn you some skills, but those skills are cheap, because everyone who finished college has those skills. Until you have acquired the skills they don't teach at college that are needed for the company, you can be replaced almost immediately and without any problems by someone who comes fresh out of college.


If a new-hire was unable to ramp up their business knowledge in two years, I would want to fire them. As an employer, I wouldn't have the time to train someone at such a glacial pace.

Yes, as a business you need to train a new generation of managers -- but the rest of the employees is certainly expendable.


I'm not a manager, and I'm far from expendable. ;-)

At my company, it is usually middle management that gets the axe because they don't contribute as much as other employees.