In a recent column titled “The lessons of French labor law,” my fellow columnist Ryan Gorman lambasted the French left for being “misguided in its attacks on the reforms” currently happening in France. However, Gorman uses subversive language that perpetuates stereotypes and omits relevant factors of French society that influence how French people view business and capitalism.
First, the use of the phrase “anti-industry” as being exclusively a feature of the French left is wrong. In a 2010 public opinion poll on whether the free market was the best system, only 33 percent of French people said they agreed strongly or somewhat with that statement. A suspicion of capitalism and industry is prevalent in a vast majority of French people. A suspicion of business is inherent in their culture and society; it is not just an idea of the left.
Gorman then moves on to draw a tenuous link between these lawsuits, France’s labor codes in general and slow growth accompanied by high unemployment. Both of these measures are influenced by a wide variety of factors and no single reason can pinpoint the difference between countries. The United States does have a generally higher growth rate than France; however, this is due to societal preferences.
The French are willing to sacrifice higher growth rates either intentionally or unintentionally and tolerate higher unemployment in order to create a more equitable system for the majority of their citizens. On the other hand, the United States opts for a maximum growth strategy. There is nothing inherently wrong with either choice — they simply reflect different societal values.
French growth is lower than that of the United States, but in the United States a disproportionate amount of the growth belongs to top earners. The United States is a richer but also much more unequal society than France, which has a higher percentage of workers in small businesses. Using the same logic as Gorman, these important differences are “significantly” caused by the difference in labor codes. Indeed, the French are mistrustful of business for a reason. One study has shown business-friendly policies correlate with higher income inequality and another study has shown higher inequality correlates with lower economic growth.
French and U.S. workers are about equally as productive, but the French have lower incomes because they work fewer hours. This choice is an example of the societal differences between countries that can affect labor and income. Condemning the French for doing what they believe will help most people the most is wrong. Furthermore, claiming they are wrong and urging them to adopt a U.S.- and business-centric approach reveals a profound misunderstanding about the fierce independence of the French people.
Indeed, calling what they are doing “reform” is subversive in and of itself. To reform is to make changes in order to improve something. Reforming French labor laws would be to preserve the original intent of protecting workers and to limit the possibility of corruption with new ideas and technology, not to get rid of the restrictions altogether. If businesses complain about what the people want, they should form a government of, by and for the pursuit of profit. To categorically condemn France’s laws as bad reduces the impact of the millions that it helps and has helped in the past. Doing so without looking at the other end of the spectrum, from human slavery in Qatar, racist hiring in Italy or child labor in Bangladesh marginalizes the problems that can come from giving business too much power.
The American methodology and linguistic bias in Gorman’s piece skews the perception he is attempting to put forth of France’s labor laws and society. Instead of allowing them to choose what they want as a people, they are to listen to what corporations want. He misunderstands the French people and misses the point of why the French have these problems, which is because, generally speaking, they don’t want any of the alternatives.
Sawan Patel is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached ats.patel@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | 5 days agoIt is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
ELJAZZAR: Advising changes are a step toward student success
By Farah Eljazzar | December 10, 2024With the long history of student complaints regarding advising in the College, it is commendable that the University administration is committed to responding to student concerns and prioritizing student academic well-being.
