Nice Première continues its consultation regarding the First Employment Contract in order to understand the opinions of the people of Nice.
For this second part, we present the responses from:
– Dominique Boy Mottard: General Councilor (PS),
– Simone Monticelli: Municipal Councilor (PC),
– Patrick Allemand: Vice President of the PACA Region and General Councilor (PS),
– Sébastien Bonfil: President of the League of Young Niçois.
Each of them shares their thoughts on the CPE just a few days before the major national demonstration that will take place next Tuesday.
Nice Première: What do you think of the First Employment Contract?
Dominique Boy Mottard: Certainly not good. The CPE increases the precarity of young people who are already those who endure the most precarious forms of employment. The provisions of the law are well known: it essentially gives employers the ability to dismiss the young employee at any time within two years, without needing to provide any reason. The Villepin-Sarkozy government is revisiting the provisions of the 2005 New Employment Contract, which applies to all companies with less than twenty employees, without any age conditions.
They tell us that the CPE is better than nothing, that it is made to provide a solution to youth unemployment. But no! It is not better than nothing: it is worse than everything! How could one think that introducing such an imbalance in labor relations could be an answer to employment problems? Such contempt for young people, such contempt for employees! The government pretends to bet on the goodwill of employers, pretends to believe they will only dismiss for obvious reasons. But if that were the case, why not stick with the traditional employment contract? The permanent contract (CDI) does not prevent dismissing someone who is a problem, it provides a trial period long enough to test the worker’s abilities: two years are not needed to know if someone is suitable or not (and that’s coming from a boss who told me so a few days ago).
On the contrary, the CPE allows dismissing for bad reasons… since no reasons need to be given: one day, they simply tell you that you no longer have a job at the company. Why? For nothing. But in fact, it will not be for nothing: the reasons that can motivate the employer are clear. Want to unionize? Fired! Pregnant? Fired! Don’t want to stay after work? Fired!… These reasons are not “legal”? Would it be an unfair dismissal? Of course not… because the reasons will not be given. Of course, not all employers will act this way, fortunately! But some will not hesitate, and the young employee will then be left without legal protection.
It is outrageous to claim that such a contract is more interesting than a temporary contract (CDD): it is a swindle to say that. At least, when you have a six-month CDD, you are set for six months; if an employer resorts to several successive CDDs, the contract will automatically convert to a CDI; moreover, the employer cannot immediately use another CDD for the same position. None of this is true with the CPE.
With the CPE, for two years, if you are not fired before, you go to bed at night thinking that maybe tomorrow… No, one cannot live like this.
Simone Monticelli: It is a major attack on the labor code. It superimposes over the precarity built since 1984 through contracts for the youth, the elderly etc., which should never have existed (I remind you that the communists had refused the T.U.C). Furthermore, these contracts have exempted employers from the sums due to the employees (and not just charges), thus contributing to depleting the coffers of retirement funds, social security etc. The C.P.E removes all protection from the person hired.
Patrick Allemand: The CPE is derived from an arbitrary law that was passed without any consultation with the social partners. And as often happens in these cases, it leads to a measure that is both socially unjust and economically ineffective.
From a social standpoint, it precarious the whole generation, increasingly making them a variable adjustment of the labor market, even for the most qualified who face real difficulties in finding a job that matches their skills and who are generally underpaid. Without access to credit or housing, how can young people, whether graduates or not, seriously consider starting a family or even consuming?
That’s why the CPE is an economic absurdity. Today, France faces a growth problem and a lack of confidence among households. The CPE goes against these vital needs. And it will not create a job except for opportunistic effects at the expense of other employees who are even more precarious.
Sébastien Bonfil: After a thorough study of the text, its potential effects in comparison to those obtained with the CNE, I have come to the conclusion that this contract is surely better than nothing. After all, yes, two years of probation is long (but the Prime Minister might revisit that), and the so-called non-obligation to motivate dismissal is indeed planned by the text as for the CNE, but the first dismissals of people hired under such a contract have occurred and the labor courts have “broke” all unmotivateddismissals. I do not see why it would be different with the CPE. Then again, we enter into the debate of bad faith with arguments like the immediate dismissal of a woman who just got pregnant, etc.; the labor code FORBIDS the dismissal of a pregnant woman, whether she works in the public sector or the private sector. As far as I know, the CPE does not create a new labor code.
Moreover, perhaps we should look at the other side of the coin. First of all, CPE, CDD, or CDI, a boss who wants to fire an employee always manages to do it for more or less cost.
Then, a boss who invests his money in his company, who mortgages his house, do you think he’s going to keep employees who don’t work satisfactorily and who cost him money, his money? Do you think he’s going to prefer to keep them until he ends up on the street rather than firing them on the pretext that, right or wrong, an employee cannot be fired?
Finally, perhaps we should stop with this vision of the boss who only thinks of one thing when he hires someone: to fire them the week after! It’s not a game. A boss who hires is a boss who has a real need for manpower.
