One of the most notorious features of Britain’s socialist-inspired near-collapse of the 1970’s were the insanely militant trade unions who helped drive much of our remaining smokestack industries either out of the country or onto the scrapheap.
Industrial disputes were such a common feature fo everyday life that they became a cultural as well as a political phenomenon. I can remember in particular a popular joke about a trade union official who calls a meeting of his members to announce that, from now on, they would only have to work on Wednesdays.
A moment’s silence while this sinks in. Then one worker shouts from the back: “What, every bloody Wednesday”?
I wonder if a Gallic version of this joke has been doing the rounds in France:
The French government called yesterday for a renegotiation of the 35-hour working week introduced four years ago by the previous, Socialist-led government to create jobs and reduce unemployment.
It begs the questions of exactly what these people have rattling around in their heads that leads them to believe that forcing everyone to work less will create jobs? I suppose we should call it the ‘fixed quantity of time fallacy’.
Left-wing politicians countered that the government was starting a “witch-hunt” to disguise its bad economic and budgetary management. Even independent economists poured scorn on the government’s arguments and figures.
Well, I would love to know exactly who these ‘independent economists’ are. Unless they actually meant to say ‘economists from the Independent‘ in which case their opinions deserve about as much respect as those of French left-wing politicians.
But the Grand Union of Philosophy Professors (which probably counts most of the adult population among its members) is not going to lie down for this. In fact, they will vote with their feet. From the cafes and bookshops they will pour forth onto the streets of Paris in droves and legions, complete with banners, drums, whistles and George Bush rubber face-masks. Nobody is going to tell them to work for a living when they can agitate for a living instead. Street protest is their last growth industry.
Somewhere, Edmund Burke is rolling his eyes.
Now I don’t want to sound like an oppressive Metternich-sort, but if there’s any defense for conservatism, it’s the plain universal fact that once you offer a privilege or a benefit, you’ll have hell to pay when you realize you can’t make good on that privilege in the future, or if that benefit hamstrings a nation.
I’m sure the day will come when the States can no longer resist the temptation of universal healthcare, but when that drains funds from education, the military, already existing welfare and Social Security, well, someone’s golden calf has to go to the sacrificial altar of “budget constraints”.
You just can’t hand out “these things” willy nilly. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and eventually “the rights of the people” are at odds with the “good of society”. At some finite point, the two are mutually exclusive.
Which number Republic is France up to? Six?
I’d be willing to bet it may be whatever it now plus one in about 5 years. Based on what I’ve read France is in *deep* financial hot water. They have to make some very unpopular changes.
If they ever get leaders with enough guts to try and implement the necessary changes, I see a revolt. If the leaders don’t make the changes, I see a revolt anyway because of the state of the economy.
To be honest, I’d love to have a 35 hour work week. It sounds very healthy for the workers. Don’t the French also get 4 – 6 wks. vacation as well? When they reduced the work week maybe they should have reduced the vacation time.
My favourite 70s trade union joke was this:
Two trade unionists are walking through the municipal gardens on the first fine day of spring.
1st trade unionist: “The daffs are out.”
2nd trade unionist: “Official or unofficial?”
David Carr: bravo for the cruel, stylish rhetorics but bof for the analysis. I’m sure you’d complain anyway about the 135-hour week & the obligation to pay mine-working children ONE SHILLING PER WEEK (!!!) -ie: sheer racketing socialism & amoral incentive for the poor to be lazy, should your post be wonderfully quill-handwritten & fierily declaimed to a fascinated audience of cigar-smoking, top-hatted friends of the XIXth-century working-class.
Matt from Vegas: “I’m sure the day will come when the States can no longer resist the temptation of universal healthcare (…)”
It’s already existing, Matt !
In addition there’s this draft bill put forward by Christine Boutin, a MP who’s also a prolife, antigay, papist, hysteric rightard & who recently discovered that social care isn’t just an idea produced by lazy, parasite-spirited, filthy, leftist hippies. Boutin wants to instaure ***le dividende universel***: any French citizen is entitled to be granted a 300-euro monthly State benefit from their births to their deaths, provided they don’t already benefit from other allocations. This dividende universel might not be given to people having incomes exceeding a threshold that remains to be determined. Or perhaps the divuni is perceived to be granted to ALL citizens, irrespectice of their actual wealth. I don’t know. The dividende universel aims at ensuring social solidarity between generations, according to Boutin.
any French citizen is entitled to be granted a 300-euro monthly State benefit from their births to their deaths
No wonder none of them want to work.
> it’s the plain universal fact that once you offer a
> privilege or a benefit, you’ll have hell to pay
> when you realize you can’t make good on that
> privilege in the future, or if that benefit
> hamstrings a nation.
I think honest social liberals and libertarians have fewer problems with that, than do phony “sunshine conservatives” such as Reagan and Bush. The latter think you can have it both ways, i.e. spend madly on government programs while at the same time cutting taxes! And it seems ordinary U.S. consumers are spending more money than they really have as well [ http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/02/markets/consumerbubble/ ]
—
Nobody thinks a top-class from cradle to grave social security system is possible without high taxes. And it would be difficult to argue that high taxes do not have a negative impact on business. The question is whether the benefits outweight the drawbacks. Reasonable people can disagree about that, just as true libertarians should admit not everybody would benefit from low-tax, small-public sector policies with a bare minimum of rules and regulations.
MARCU$
The problem with your argument Marcus concerning “sunshine conservatives” is that it has been shown, at least historically in the US, that cutting taxes actually raises revenues. It is the of the oxymoron of free markets and capitalism. Kennedy’s tax cuts in the early sixties led to tremendous growth and a balanced budget by the end of the decade, and Reagan’s tax cuts in the eighties led to the largest economic expansion in US history during the 1990s. The trouble GWB is having is that you don’t write budgets with wars in mind during peacetime. So the government must make budget adjustments until the situation is resolved. And in reality the US already has a form of universal health care, poor people and people without insurance still get treatment in the US. The cost of this is spread among patients who can afford treatment and insurance. Kind of a free market social safety net, or if you prefer, income re-distribution, market style. Most gripes by Americans is not that they don’t get treament, but that they don’t get the quality or quantity of treatment they feel they’re entitled to.
The trade unions in Britain also pretty much wiped out the British film industry. It still has not quite recovered.
Kodiak, this FORMER homeless, destitute, clinically depressed and abused woman doesn’t need your advocacy. I’m just going to confine myself to pointing out that you can only exploit those who are willing to be exploited.
“Nobody thinks a top-class from cradle to grave social security system is possible without high taxes.”
Many of us don’t think “a top-class from cradle to grave social security system” is desirable, regardless of the tax burden, for a variety of social, economic, and moral reasons.
R. C. dean: why? Can you enumerate the variety of social, economic, and moral reasons please?
Why should he, Kodiak? You never do, You just state your unsubstantiated opinions as if they were self-evident axioms. For example you argue for multilateralism (by which you actually mean involving France in the affairs of the US and UK) and you make no moral arguments at all, just political ones and the unsupported assertion that it is ‘better’. Strangely you do not call of the involvement of the USA or UK or even the lousy UN in France’s numberous African military adventures…
The 35-hour week idea was predicated on the bogus notion that labour is fungible i.e. 8 workers working for 35 hours per week will be as productive as 7 workers working for 40 hours a week. This is nonsense on stilts (even if labour input was substitutable in this way, it still ignores the increased fixed costs of hiring more workers than required for the job). The problem is that Continental European social democrats are wedded to the idea that economics is just another factor and is subservient to their goals whereas in reality it is the other way round. In the immortal words of Margaret Thatcher – if you try to buck the market, the market will buck you. If their stupidity din’t affect the rest of the world I couldn’t care less if they all went to hell in a handbasket, but that’s not the case.
…so the “laws of the market” dictate that we must all be wage slaves working long hours as we are @ the moment, because if we’re not, then someone else’ll do it instead & fuck us over economically. I understand the logic, but I don’t get the passionate embracing of it, unless a) you’re endowed with much more of a work ethic than me, or b) you really enjoy your job. Either way, ain’t you the lucky one!
Bulldog Breed: Well he shouldn’t. I just asked. BTW: since when is the destiny of the State of Iraq, a UN-member I remind you, even vaguely related to the affairs of the US and UK? The USA has been almost universally acknowledged to be a defeated rogue State & the UK a pathetic, unsignificant poodle. Get over it.
David Gillies: you speak like a communist raving about the latest quinquennial plan estimates for his sovkhoze. So if dropping the 39-h week for the 35-h one is stupid, how could it be that (even in the USA) they’ve dropped the 90-h week for the 70-h or the 50-h one, notwithstanding labour infungibility?
Our South Korean client expects their staff to be in the office around 18-20 hours a day 6 or 7 days a week. They often bring bedding to work.
Does this make them more productive? Not really. It’s just a pain and it costs them money. We have to send twice as many consultants to cover the shifts than if they worked relatively normal hours.
I’m afraid I don’t see ultra long hours as anything other than a bug caused by the current economic paradigm.
Dave,
I actually sympathise about the potentially negative impact of working consistently long hours. I think people only function at optimum for a certain period and after that their performance is likely to worsen rather than improve (although this may vary from individual to individual)
However I am opposed to state-mandated restrictions which, by their very nature, quash flexibility.
“I’m afraid I don’t see ultra long hours as anything other than a bug caused by the current economic paradigm.”
Well, I could argue (and in fact I will argue) that our ‘long hours culture’ is due to the burden of having to maintain a decent standard of living and fund a lavish and expansive state. Time to choose?
R. C. dean: why? Can you enumerate the variety of social, economic, and moral reasons please?
The economic reasons are the most obvious. The diversion of resources from the private sector to government always results in inefficiencies and waste, as the government is not in the business of being efficient, innovative, etc. The money diverted from the voluntary economy by the government for purposes of redistribution represents an opportunity cost, almost by definition, and a drag on the economy.
The moral reasoning rests on the premise that a voluntary system is more moral than a compulsory system. A state social security system is based on the coerced taking of money from one person to give it to another. Spare me your cant about the social contract and the implied consent contained in democratic legislation – that is all either attenuated or theoretical and abstract, and does not amount to “strong” consent, such as consent to contract.
For social reasoning, try this: Whenever you provide something for someone without their having to earn it, you create dependency. Dependent people are resentful and irresponsible, creating social dynamics that are destructive. For a prime example of this, look at the dysfunctional inner city cultures facilitated by the Great Society wlefare programs in the US.
One could also look at the relatively low quality of state-provided services (Social Security in the US has a rate of return ranging from negative to 1%, depending on your demographic niche), and the “moral hazard” of shielding people from the risks and consequences of their actions (such as failing to plan for their futures).
I get paid to do a 37.5 hour week in France. For working the 2.5 hours extra (rather than 35 hours) my employer gives me 10 more days holiday, 5 of which I can choose to take when I want, the other 5 are decided by the employer.
Take for example May of this year. The 1st is a National Holiday. It fell on a Thursday. The Friday was a pont (bridge) meaning you were ‘encouraged’ to take a day off. The 8th was a National Holiday and also fell on a Thursday. Pont again and encouraged to take the day off. The 29th was also a National Holiday and we were FORCED to take the 30th (a Friday) off.
After two years of working here I have 45 days holiday. 5 of which are chosen for me. I have never worked 37.5 hours in one week. 11 hour days are my norm. I cannot get work done (for a project) on a Sunday because one has to ask permission from the local prefecture. Last year it was denied twice. I am 31, my pay is less than £30K and I have 6 years experience. I manage a team of four. This year my performance was ‘exceptional’. I got a 2.69% pay rise.
27% of my salary is taken out for social costs. These are not counted as taxes. We (me and wife) paid 10% of our combined incomes in income tax.
The unions where I work have asked for a 13th months salary. They get one Friday in 5 off.
While there are numerous examples of what one should not do when running a country, it must also be stated that I am far happier here than I was in London, earning far more money.
There wasn’t really a point in posting this, but I just thought that some may be interested.
Kodiak: The USA has been almost universally acknowledged to be a defeated rogue State & the UK a pathetic, unsignificant poodle. Get over it.
This is without doubt the funniest thing Kodiak has ever written, and that is saying something! For better or worse, the USA stands astride the world like a military and economic colossus and Kodiak describes this vastly powerful nation as ‘defeated’!!! I wonder what all the dead Ba’athists and Taliban who yanked on the eagle’s tail feathers thing of that? And Britain, with it ability towhy what you are claiming is true… like who exactly has defeated the USA for example. I must have missed that. Weeeeeeeeeeird.
> I actually sympathise about the potentially
> negative impact of working consistently long
> hours. I think people only function at optimum
> for a certain period and after that their
> performance is likely to worsen rather than
> improve (although this may vary from individual
> to individual)
> However I am opposed to state-mandated
> restrictions which, by their very nature, quash
> flexibility.
Doesn’t American “flexibility” mean the vast majority of employees will *have* to work “consistently long hours” regardless of whether they like it or not, simply because they have no other choice…?
—
THE WEEKLY STANDARD recently published a predictably biased piece about “European slackers”. I was pleasantly surprised by the fact so many Americans wrote back to complain about it [ http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/178irgpq.asp ]
MARCU$
Perry: seems I touched the chauvinistic nerve of a no-State libertarian guru who surely views the British army as an unbearable manifestation of statist coercion.
The USA an economic colossus? Well, if you drop military spending (still to be refinanced by increasingly hypothetical Iraqi oil), the US growth is close to Swaziland’s, not to mention the collapse in jobs available. As for the US army, do you know La vie en rose? Seems you contemplate the Iraqi quagmire with pink-glassed spectacles. Everything’s fine, the US soldiers are flooded by flowers sent from all over Iraq, the Arabomuslim world is overwhelmed with joy & peace, the French, Germans, Russians, Canadians, Mexicans, Chinese, South Africans, Indians, South Koreans are all rushing to Washington to implore Bush’s forgiveness, the people of the UK, Spain, Italy & Poland are sending tonnes of letters to the White House to apologise for their foolishness, the WMD were analysed & destroyed, drinkable water is springing everywhere in Iraq, the magic of electricity is illuminating Mesopotamia even in moonless nights, Iraq has resumed oil exports to upgrade –if needed- its world-class hospitals, all the countries are sending fresh troops in Iraq to support Bush’s disinterested Middle East policy, the spectre of islamofascist-saddamite collusion has been removed, young Iraqi girls are dancing half-naked in the streets of Bagdad every night, murder rates are no longer calculated because murder has disappeared, Rumsfeld calls 10.000 US soldiers back home almost every week since they are absolutely useless there. Last & not least, Syria & Iran are awaiting their Iraqisation with undissimulated joy.
Just a couple of words about British military achievements. I know no country which could put up with an occupation that lasted half a millenary.
Marcus,
My experience working in Silicon Valley (and visits to our Dallas HQ) is that while US workers are in the office long hours, the actual productivity was a lot lower than when I worked in our London office. More store seemed to be placed on being in work for 12 hours, compared to actually getting anything done.
On the whole my experience is working in London is much much tougher than working in most of the US in terms of not just hours but also expectation during those hours. I understand that Manhattan is similar to London in that respect.
R. C. Dean,
Economic reasons
I disagree. Government or collective bodies may certainly be very efficient & innovative when dealing with business involving Welfare. See Swedish high-quality medical provision for instance. What you didn’t mention is that they are not compelled to make short-term profits or driven to be profit-oriented. Their aim is ensuring all citizens are delivered health-related service. It doesn’t mean they may mismanage public money or ignore cost budgeting & analytic accountancy.
I don’t think improving citizens’ health is a drag on the economy as those citizens are also output-contributing workers. If a bricklayer can’t afford urgent 100.000-euro elbow surgery, then his non-employability is going to penalise his boss in return. Plus the bricklayer’s household’s purchasing power would decrease dramatically, thus reducing demand for consumption goods or sparing capacity. The State only has the ability to engage million-worth sums for millions of potential patients AND to manage this activity on the long-term. No private business compares.
Moral reasons
I’ll do my best to refrain from raving about the social contract (a democratic reality though) & just point out that the coerced taking of money is just a deposit, or succession of retainers, that are hugely microscopic when compared to State reliability in terms of public money guaranteed to meet your medical needs upon simple request (unlike the UK, you don’t have to wait 5 years to get surgery in France & you can freely chose your physician & decide not to resort to a communistly appointed, incompetent Medikov comrade).
Social reasons
But you do earn Social Security, R. C. Dean! You spend X % of your daily working time to pay for medical service. It doesn’t fall from the skies… You are not dependent from Social Security: Social Security is depending on you, on your will to maintain it & on the money you’re injecting in the system. Sorry: I don’t know the Great Society Welfare Programme, so I don’t see what you mean exactly.
Then you conclude & say: the relatively low quality of state-provided services (Social Security in the US has a rate of return ranging from negative to 1%, depending on your demographic niche).
Again the rate of return is an irrelevant parameter to assess health care delivery: it is a relevant indicator to evaluate business performance. And the niche concept is invalid as far as universal coverage is concerned.
Final bit: “moral hazard” of shielding people from the risks and consequences of their actions.
Does this kind of reasoning apply to a very old granny who’s been ran over by a criminal, reckless roadhog?
Oh and Perry, just a table about impact of US military budget on GDP (& hence GDP growth)compared to other countries.
I hope the table works. Sorry if it doesn’t.
The 9 nine countries listed have military annual budgets over 15 billion dollars:
*military spending in 2001
Well, Kodiak I have no idea where you got your table but if you go here:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_per_of_gdp&int=-1
you will see US military expenditures as only 3.2% of GDP. Not all that much higher than France’s 2.57%
Actually, cutting the workweek would be expected to increase employment in the fashion the Left expects — not perfectly, since there are extra training costs involved in dividing duties among additional employees — if the costs of having employees were solely their hourly wages, and there were no barriers to laying off employees when business turns down. The problem is that, in the real world of French employment law, more employees also means more health benefits, more pensions, and more people who can’t be fired. Thus, the problem isn’t that the proponents of the 35-hour workweek don’t understanding the economics of hourly labor – although they’re short on that stick as well – but that they completely ignore the interaction of this policy with all the other rules in place that create fixed costs of employment above and beyond hourly wages.
ACTUAL VOLUME OF HOURS WORKED ANNUALLY (in billion hours) – source: British Governement
Contrary to rightards’ mythology, the Trente-cinq heures -enforced in 1998- have never reduced French labour force contribution to economical output.