Three years ago, when I studied at the University of Rennes 2 in France for a semester, the students went on strike and blocked all the buildings. At first it seemed like the majority of students supported the strike and blockage, which was in response to a proposed work contract that most graduates would have when entering the work force. However, after six weeks of strike most students wanted to return to class. A minority continued to block all the campus buildings.
Rennes 2 started a new strike about seven weeks ago. Again, the situation has developed to where a minority of students blocks the majority from going to class. The president of the university – whom I once heard speak during the strike three years ago, right before a striker violently took the microphone from him – officially closed the university for safety reasons. Students squat in the buildings. The estimated cost to repair the damage from graffiti and other vandalism is around 10,000 euros. I remember the strikers asking for money at one of the weekly meetings, an assembly general, so they can eat and continue their strike.
I questioned the logic and justice of the blockage when I was a student at Rennes. Yet I thought it was an interesting culture experience, and I tried to keep an open mind. Now I’m two hours away from the university, having nearly no interaction with the strike other than seeing news reports about it, and it makes me mad. I want to attack the strikers. I want to smash their stupid barricades and squatting spots. I want to drag them by their dumb dreadlocks and ridiculous clown pants and ask them when was the last time they worked. I want to gather them all up and ship them to an uninhabited island. Go on strike there. Block others from getting an education on your own stupid island. Live on sunshine and good vibes.
NECA TMNT Toon “Binky’s Day Out” Slash V2
16 hours ago
4 comments:
What is the deal with the work contract? Why would it illicit such a strong reaction from (at least some of) the students?
As a rule I'm usually skeptical of most "radicals", but historically the majority has not always fully understood the severity of these type of situations until after the shit has already hit the fan.
I'm with you on the clown pants though.
Shawn, welcome to the Republican Party (yuk-yuk!)
Bob d., the Work Contract, essentially, is that once you have a job, you have it forever. Imagine running an orchestra that way. The majority fully understands because most of them benefit from it. The government would like to move away from this lifetime employment requirement for new hires.
Protesting is treated like a religion in France. It's a national character trait. I believe Shawn once spoke of waiting for a delayed flight, and hearing someone remark humorously, "We are French. We should protest."
These characters are similar to the hooligans who trashed the RBS during the G-20 meeting. I realize that they are making the point that no one is listening to them, so they must get attention this way. But do they have something constructive to say, to add, to contribute other than polemic and invective? No. They make these grand gestures and get the attention and then have nothing interesting to say. Believe me, if it was interesting, it would make the 24 hr news cycle. It is an object lesson in being prepared for your 15 minutes of fame. Have your pithy quotes ready!
Bob, here's a super long response to your question. I need to work on concise writing.
All jobs here require a contract between employee and employer. Even if you're working at McDonald's, you'll have a contract that specifies how many hours you'll work each week, what rights and benefits you get, and how long your employment will last. In general, contracts make it difficult to fire an employee. They can also create a hassle in hiring employees.
Since France had/has a serious unemployment problem - notably with males between 18 and 24, arguably the worst demographic to have unemployed when trying to stop cycles of rioting near major cities - the government created a new type of contract specifically for young people that would make it easier for employers to hire, and fire, employees. The idea was that the current contract system caused much of the unemployment, and a new type of contract would ameliorate the unemployment problem.
As I understand it, there are three types of contracts. The most sought after is the public service contract. This contract is normally for employees in education, public transportation, health care, etc. Since France has a larger percentage of work in the public than private sector, a fair amount of French employees have this contract. This is the “forever” job that Bob Kelly referred to. Though they’re not always indefinite contracts, they often are for a long term and they’re very difficult for an employer to terminate.
Some people working in the public sector, such as myself, have the second type of contract. It has a fixed duration but is also difficult for an employer to terminate. My contract lasts for seven months, though I think they’re typically longer. The final type is for workers in the private sector. Though they’re not usually as cushy as the first type of contract, the contract still creates a lot of paper work and makes it more difficult to hire and fire employees when compared to the US system.
The proposed fourth type of contract actually made it through the legislative process and became law. However, the pressure from the strikes, including at least two days of a countrywide strike, forced the government to rewrite the law and withdraw the contract. So, the strikes worked. The thing is, they didn’t address the problem that the new contract was intended to fix. I believe many of the university students, especially those in the Arts and Humanities departments who, lacking any “technical” skill, would look to enter the public sector and get the same cushy contract their parents have, got scared. They didn’t like the prospect of work based on a system of meritocracy.
At the same time, many politically left French people believe, and maybe rightfully, that France is giving more and more power to employers, privatizing more of the public sector, and shifting from a socialist-based economy to a capitalist-based one. French citizens have the right to strike. If they see the government doing something they don’t like, especially if it’s perceived as an attack against their rights, they will strike. The CPE, the name of the contract, was a big enough deal in and of itself, but many people went on strike because they saw it as a part of the government’s overall movement to a system they don’t agree with.
I wasn’t for the CPE, nor whatever it is the students are currently protesting. That’s not what bothers me about the strikes. My first criticism is the principle of a student strike. I think strikes can work, like when factory workers go on strike and disrupt the fat cats’ system. But the students aren’t disrupting anything but their own education. It’s like saying: I’m not content with what’s happening, so I refuse to get smarter. It’s a non sequitur. Second, as I already mentioned, the students were against the CPE but they offered no alternative solution to replace it. Finally, I dislike the blockers imposition of their will on other students. If they don’t want to go to class, that’s their decision. But it’s unacceptable when they stop others from going to class. Bob E.’s Republican comment was a joke, I’m assuming, but that’s a major beef I have with the Republican party too. Much of their policy involves restricting others’ choices and abilities while imposing their own beliefs, usual on issues of foreign policy and social liberties. Then again, I’m not a Democrat either.
Live Free or Die, sir.
Concise Writing? Shawn, you're Irish. We never use one word when ten will do.
Post a Comment