anthony js

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

How brilliant is this?



















The protests worked. I can't believe it. It's brilliant. But I should keep in mind that France is not America, nor Australia for that matter.

The French government has completely axed the proposed First Job Contract (CPE), which had been protested by millions on the streets in France. The new labour laws would have made it easier for employers to sack young people. People left their jobs to protest, they held strikes, they forgot about university. They made their displeasure known.

Obviously, protesting is not new. Dissatisfaction with the government is certainly not new. But a major difference being made as a result - ie. the government making a complete u-turn - is not common. At least not here.

Because the majority of the Australian population were not on the streets to protest the IR reforms here, the protestors might as well have been invisible. They represented a small minority, we were told. They didn't know what they were talking about, we were told. They were stirring up unnecessary fear, we were told. Did you feel like I did during those protests? I felt they motivated the government even more to pass the laws. I felt the protests tripled their stubborness. Where was democracy? Surely the right to protest is about more than just holding signs and wearing masks. But the system has become so unresponsive. We vote. And then we are absolutely nothing. To protest in this country is to make a fool of yourself.

I applaud not only President Chirac for listening, but I applaud the French themselves, who consistently realise and utilise their power to make change.

6 Comments:

  • At Fri Apr 14, 02:07:00 PM, Blogger Sarah said…

    The French are more motivated about protecting workers' rights because they realise that most of them actually are workers.

    Australians on the other hand seem largely not to care or perhaps not to realise the full extent of the potentially devastating impact that our IR laws could have on them personally. Perhaps it's a misguided sense of optimism that it's something that happens to 'someone else' rather than 'me'. Apathy reigns.

     
  • At Sat Apr 15, 11:45:00 AM, Blogger Anthony Stoddart said…

    Morality is important. The economy, though we are told otherwise, is not the be all and end all. Our country depends on a good economy, but should it not also rely on a healthy social situation in which human beings can feel safe, and feel confident that their leaders are concerned about them?

    I haven't explained myself too well. But my point is that there is so much more to good governance than economics.

     
  • At Sun Apr 16, 09:41:00 PM, Blogger Sarah said…

    'High employment' doesn't include the huge proportion of workers that are underemployed. Workers can't just pick and choose jobs and 'negotiate' as if they are on equal terms with a potential employer. It wasn't the case with the old system and it's not the case with the new one; the only difference is that we have the Howard government telling us they can.

     
  • At Mon Apr 17, 02:37:00 PM, Blogger Sarah said…

    I think you have the wrong figure there, Hayden- I can't remember off the top of my head how high the real figure is, but I'll try and look it up.

    Also, in The Australian today:

    By 2005, 27.6 per cent of workers were earning less than two-thirds of median weekly earnings (the most common definition of low pay), up from 24.4 per cent in 1990.

    You're not going to tell me that the 27.6% referred to there aren't looking for more pay? The 24.4% figure under Labor isn't too hot either, if you ask me, but things are getting worse, not better.

     
  • At Mon Apr 17, 02:42:00 PM, Blogger Sarah said…

    Here we go, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, release on March 23rd 2006, the number of underemployed Australian workers is 18%, or almost one in five.

     
  • At Tue Apr 18, 03:51:00 PM, Blogger Sarah said…

    Yes, a worker who is working 40-50 hours a week isn't going to call themselves 'underemployed', even if they are earning minimum wage. Wanting higher-paid employment is different to desiring more hours in the same or similar line of work.

    I'm guessing an example of the 'full time workers' you include in the ranks of underemployed would be, say, a graduate student who failed to find full time work in their chosen field and instead took up a full-time job in another lower-paying line of work? That makes sense, I guess.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home