EU Parliament OKs 48-hour maximum work week

[jrun]

Slightly more than France's policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_employment_rules



In a heated debate preceding the vote, right-wing deputies said the possibility of an opt-out should be preserved, warning that a maximum cap of 48 hours would hurt small businesses in particular.

[UpstateRunner]

For those worried about "moral decline" in America, this is the answer, not re-electing George W or other big business allies who suck the life out of this country

[Jwaksman]

For those worried about "moral decline" in America, this is the answer, not re-electing George W or other big business allies who suck the life out of this country



Huh? You mean policies that decrease efficiency, employment, output & wages, while not letting poor people work more to make more money?? Yeah, that's definitely "progress"...


Even Jacques Chirac has acknowledged that the limited workweeks are a mistake. He has tried to raise the number of hours that Frenchmen are allowed to work for week, but the socialist party and the unions threw huge protests. They'd rather have the country go into the tank than to admit that their economic ideals are contradictory...

[Dyenimator]

Jwaks, do you have a job? Working 40 a week leaves little time for leisure as it is, try working overtime!

[Jwaksman]

Then don't work more than 40 hours. No one is forcing you to.... Again it's not about forcing people to work more than 40 hours or less than 40 hours - the most just society would allow people the freedom to choose. What about poor people who want to work those extra hours to try to supplement their income? Are you going to deny them the right to work?

The industry that loses out the most from these laws is the medical industry, because doctors generally work much more than 40 hours per week. This is one of the many causes of the great shortage of doctors & medical staff in France and much of the rest of Europe.

[XCrnr9]

The low work weeks keep people happy, no matter what the economic situation is (which is not bad anyway). I'm sure its just to help build trust in the EU in order for them to become a more powerful alliance, by creating a closer relationship with countries and maybe eventually become a single country like the US.

[Jwaksman]

If low work weeks keep people happy then they can work less hours. I'm always flummoxed by the way things are taught these days - allowing people to work more than 40 hours doesn't force them to work more than 40 hours. Most people don't work 40 hours. Even the average American works under 40 hours per week.


But in a free country you should have the right to work if you want to work longer. I think people would be a lot more unhappy if they are struggling to feed their family or pay their mortgage and the government actually tells them that they can't work anymore - they've already used up their allotted hours for the week!

[Dyenimator]

I better start taking some Reading/English classes again...

Sorry for wasting your time.

[UpstateRunner]

If low work weeks keep people happy then they can work less hours. I'm always flummoxed by the way things are taught these days - allowing people to work more than 40 hours doesn't force them to work more than 40 hours. Most people don't work 40 hours. Even the average American works under 40 hours per week.


But in a free country you should have the right to work if you want to work longer. I think people would be a lot more unhappy if they are struggling to feed their family or pay their mortgage and the government actually tells them that they can't work anymore - they've already used up their allotted hours for the week!

You underestimate the power of the employer. In todays anti-union world if an employer tells you that you need to work more hours you don't really don't have much recourse. If you can't make a decent living on 48 hrs/week of work then wages are too low. More union power/membership would probably be a better solution than legislation, but since unions are rather worthless at the moment there aren't many alternatives.

[Jwaksman]

In today's anti-union world?? There has never been a time in history where unions had more power. The AFL-CIO is the biggest lobbying group in Washington, and they have single-handedly selected the Democratic nominee for President in just about every year. Not to mention that new pro-labor laws are passed every day. When was the last anti-labor passed? 1870?


First of all, there aren't many jobs where you can work 48 hours in a week. Outside of doctors and lawyers, only certain minimum wage jobs can you possibly work that much (no corporate accountant is working 48 hours). In general, it's not in the interest of a company to have people work that much. Your workers will be liable to quit, or not put in a full-effort. Also, you'll get the lowest workers, because anyone who was qualified to get a better job would.


Besides, if you're worried about people being forced to work more than 48 hours, then write laws preventing that. But how you can force someone to stop working seems unconscionable to me. Or how you can deny some sick person a doctor, because he's already been there 48 hours that week...

[UpstateRunner]

In today's anti-union world?? There has never been a time in history where unions had more power. The AFL-CIO is the biggest lobbying group in Washington, and they have single-handedly selected the Democratic nominee for President in just about every year. Not to mention that new pro-labor laws are passed every day. When was the last anti-labor passed? 1870?


First of all, there aren't many jobs where you can work 48 hours in a week. Outside of doctors and lawyers, only certain minimum wage jobs can you possibly work that much (no corporate accountant is working 48 hours). In general, it's not in the interest of a company to have people work that much. Your workers will be liable to quit, or not put in a full-effort. Also, you'll get the lowest workers, because anyone who was qualified to get a better job would.


Besides, if you're worried about people being forced to work more than 48 hours, then write laws preventing that. But how you can force someone to stop working seems unconscionable to me. Or how you can deny some sick person a doctor, because he's already been there 48 hours that week...

Union memberships are very low and still decreasing. This is largely because labor is being streamlined into unskilled jobs. Does a checkout clerk at a supermarket feel the need to pay union dues on his minimum wage paycheck? And labor laws are not what unions are for. Labor laws in the end hurt unions because once the laws are in place what is the need to pay union dues? If every worker had collective bargaining they could make decent wages and work decent hours.

As far as the issue about doctors, there are lots of doctors who struggle to find work because many are working 50-60 hours/week to make a little more cash to upgrade their rolls.

=> the point, if we pay workers decent wages then they don't have to work excessive hours and families can have some time together at a decent standard of living.

[jersey_guy]

More stellar economic data from EUSSR:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/20/news/international/french_gdp.reut/index.htm

France's economy grew less than expected in the first quarter, hindering the government's efforts to reduce unemployment and adding to its woes nine days before a referendum on the European Union's new constitution.

Statistics office INSEE said the euro zone's second largest economy grew by 0.2 percent in the first quarter, less than the 0.4 percent expected in a Reuters poll, and less than the 0.7 percent growth seen in the last quarter of 2004.

"It's disappointing. We expected growth of 0.5 percent quarter-on-quarter," said Nicolas Claquin, economist at CCF. "The overall picture for the French economy is rather negative. The good news is that business investment is improving and consumer spending is still doing okay."

Economists said the worse-than-expected growth data might make it even harder for the government to bring down the jobless rate from a 5-year high of 10.2 percent.

"It raises questions. If with 2.1 percent growth in 2004 France could not create jobs, it will then be even more difficult this year," said Marc Touati, economist at Natexis Banques Populaires.

"France needs structural reforms to achieve a more flexible economy, with less taxes, less involvement from the state. That's what is needed to create some growth momentum," he said.

The French figures came after data showed Europe's largest economy, Germany, grew at its fastest pace in four years in the first quarter, expanding 1.0 percent,( they better cool it down, it's totally out-of-control growth ) helped by buoyant exports.

But Italian GDP fell by 0.5 percent in the first three months of 2005 and the Dutch economy contracted 0.1 percent.

[MoMo]

I don't really understand this constant Euro-schadenfreude.

Obviously some people feel comforted by European economic shortcomings as a sort of perverse proof of American superiority, though this constant need to be able to crow about American superiority is anything but becoming. The confident man doesn't go around bragging all the time.

It's obvious that many of the European economies need structural reform in today's globalizing world (though you can understand why they're not entirely in love with globalization). That doesn't mean every single thing they do is stupid or unreasoned or without historic/geographic/social/cultural context.

I just find it exceedingly pointless, juvenile and in poor taste, to constantly pi*s on those less powerful.

[Jwaksman]

I don't get enjoyment out of seeing other people suffer. I feel bad for Europeans, and I constantly root for the better leaders in each of the big country's elections (against the socialists in France, against Schroeder in Germany, etc.).


However, I do think it's important to point out the inferiority of the European system so that our country doesn't go down the wrong road.


The European Union had growth of 1% last year. One percent. We had 3.1% (approximately, I don't want to look it up) last year and everyone bashed it as a mediocre year. I want 3.1% every year.

[mzungu]

you want 3.1% while the bush administration projects 3.5% long term in their calculations of benefits from private investment of social security.

unfortunately, the bush administration projects only 1.9% growth long term in their calculations of projected social security deficits.

not sure which side of the mouth to believe.

[Jwaksman]

Oh, I'm not going to argue that Republicans don't manipulate numbers and statistics as much as Democrats do. Cause they do.


All I'm saying is that European countries can only dream about 3% growth right now. And that's the way it's going to be until they hit bottom. They're like alcoholics, getting drunk on huge welfare programs. As things get worse and worse, they'll eventually hit bottom. And then they'll fix their economies... eventually...

[jersey_guy]

When France has a muslim majority, GDP growth will be the least of their problems.

[MoMo]

I'm trying to take that last comment as not being racist.

When France has a Muslim majority, the majority will be quite happy to be Muslim, and also to be French, even though being French won't mean quite the same thing.

You can say the same about when this country has a Hispanic majority. Things change, and you gotta deal with it.

[Jwaksman]

I don't get what you're saying. There's no question that Europeans are much more anti-immigration than Americans are. There is a lot of tension in several European countries about the Immigrants. The French didn't make too many muslim friends by banning head-scarves in schools.

[jersey_guy]

I'm trying to take that last comment as not being racist.

When France has a Muslim majority, the majority will be quite happy to be Muslim, and also to be French, even though being French won't mean quite the same thing.


Yeaaa because unlike in their native lands, the European Muslims are very open-minded and love the West:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/18759971?source=PA#

Muslim protesters today called for the bombing of New York in a demonstration outside the US embassy in London.

There were threats of "another 9/11" from militants angry at reports of the desecration of the Koran by US troops in Iraq.

Some among the crowd burned an effigy of Tony Blair on a crucifix and then set fire to a Union flag and a Stars and Stripes.

Led by a man on a megaphone, they chanted, "USA watch your back, Osama is coming back" and "Kill, kill USA, kill, kill George Bush". A small detail of police watched as they shouted: "Bomb, bomb New York" and "George Bush, you will pay, with your blood, with your head."

Demonstrators in Grosvenor Square, some with their faces covered with scarves, waved placards which included the message: "Desecrate today and see another 9/11 tomorrow."

One of the protesters called for the release of radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza. He shouted: "Your so-called democracy will fall under the sword of Allah. The day of judgment is coming."

[Jwaksman]

Let's not project the actions of a few idiots onto a whole religion, Jersey_Guy. Most muslims do not hate the west.


The question with immigration is simply the same one that we face with Mexicans in our own country. Immigrants are uneducated, some think that they take jobs, they are a drag on a lot of public institutions. That's the problem. Not any hatred of the west...

[jersey_guy]

Let's not project the actions of a few idiots onto a whole religion, Jersey_Guy. Most muslims do not hate the west.


The question with immigration is simply the same one that we face with Mexicans in our own country. Immigrants are uneducated, some think that they take jobs, they are a drag on a lot of public institutions. That's the problem. Not any hatred of the west...

It's not a few idiots. The hatred of the West, America, and the Jews is mainstream in most Muslim countries and encouraged by some governments (Iran is just one example). Moderate muslims are completely in the shadow of people like in the link above and it will be a long time before we are able to change it.

And immigration in Europe is completely different than in the US. Here, most immigrants are illegal and as such to not have the right to any money from the government. Not to mention that most of immigrants in the US have a great work ethic and contribute to our economic growth. In Europe, on the other hand, immigrants are a mojor burden on the expansive welfare system.

[Jwaksman]

No, hatred of Jews is not as widespread as you would think. The governments of Iran and Syria (and a few other countries) hate Jews and the west and feed propaganda in the newspapers. But most people are not stupid. A minority of people support the terrorists.


I remember when I was in Palestine. I'd heard some on the religious right argue that terrorists only exist because the populace supports them. So, if everytime a terrorist does something you bomb the village that they're from, that will turn the tide against terrorism and stop it. However, most Palestinians are not in favor of terrorism. They certainly have a skewed version of America, but I wouldn't say that it's any worse than a lot of Americans. A majority may hate America, but they're not at the point where they would dream of flying planes into buildings, or supporting anyone who does.


It's a small group of people that are violent enough to be involved in terrorism.

[jrun]

Here, most immigrants are illegal

Source?

[jersey_guy]

This year's Bear Stearns report estimates the number of illegals in the US to be around 20 million. The federal government puts it at half that because if it told the truth about how incompetent it is at securing the borders, it would carry heavy political consequences. It's obviously impossible to determine the real number, but you can bet it's much closer to 20 than to 9. Either way, less than a milion immigrants are admitted to the US legally every year while 2-3 million enter illegally.

http://www.steinreport.com/BearStearnsStudy.pdf