 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
Thecontrat première embauche (CPE; English:first employment contract) was a new form ofemployment contract pushed in spring 2006 in France byPrime MinisterDominique de Villepin. This employment contract, available solely to employees under 26, would have made it easier for the employer tofire employees by removing the need to provide reasons for dismissal for an initial "trial period" of two years, in exchange for some financial guarantees for employees, the intention being to make employers less reluctant to hire additional staff. However, the enactment of this amendment to the so-called "Equality of Opportunity Act" (loi sur l'égalité des chances) establishing this contract was so unpopular that soonmassive protests were held, mostly by young students, and the government rescinded the amendment.
PresidentJacques Chirac declared that the law would be put on the statute book, but that it would not be applied. Article 8 of the 31 March 2006 Equality of Opportunity Act, establishing the CPE, was repealed by a 21 April 2006 law on the Access of Youth to Professional Life in Firms. The rest of the Equality of Opportunity Act, whose dispositions were also contested by thestudents' protests, was maintained.
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(March 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
CPE was introduced by the Government as anamendment (n°3) to the "Statute on the Equality of Opportunities" law. This law was proposed byPrime MinisterDominique de Villepin allegedly to tackle a 23%unemployment rate among the young,[1] and also as a response to thecivil unrest in October 2005. The reasoning of the government for introducing CPE was that unemployment was one of the major causes of lawlessness in poorer neighbourhoods, that workforce laws putting theburden of proof for valid reasons for dismissal on the employer discouraged hiring, especially of people with "risky" profiles, and thus that making dismissal easier would improve the employment prospects of such youngsters.
The bill was examined by theFrench National Assembly between 31 January and 9 February. The amendment was adopted by the Assembly around 2 AM on 9 February 2006, after much heated debate. On the same day, in the afternoon, Prime Minister de Villepin announced to the National Assembly that he invoked article 49-3 of theConstitution of France on that text; this meant that the law would be considered adopted in its current state, without being approved by the National Assembly, unless a motion of censure were adopted by the Assembly.[2] Since Villepin's UMP party had an absolute majority in the Assembly, there was no chance that such a motion could be adopted. Predictably, a motion of censure was proposed by the left-wing opposition and was rejected by the Assembly on 21 February.
The Law was then examined by the Senate between 23 February and 5 March, at which date the Senate approved it. Since the texts from the Assembly and the Senate were different, and the law was deemed urgent by the Prime Minister, the bill was sent before a mixed Assembly/Senate commission charged with the drafting of a compromise text. The law was then adopted on 8 March by the Assembly, and on 9 March by the Senate.
Because opposition members of the Assembly and the Senate requested constitutional review of the text, the law was sent before theConstitutional Council. The Council considered the law constitutional, but made a number of reservations, on 30 March. Those reservations impose guidelines under which the law was to be applied.
Meanwhile, the law was disapproved by a sizable proportion of the French population. Massive street protests began, mostly by students from high schools and universities, and Prime Minister de Villepin's approval rate began to plummet. The protest movement was certainly the biggest seen in France since 1968.
The whole act was signed into law on 31 March by presidentJacques Chirac. However, Chirac paradoxically asked for a delay of application of the law (which he is not constitutionally empowered to do), to allow the conservativeUnion for a Popular Majority (UMP) to prepare a new law modifying the "Statute on the Equality of Opportunities" law (changing, in particular, the two years "probationary period" to only one year).
The student movement as well as all trade unions (including theCGT) and theSocialist Party asked not only for the suppression of the CPE but also of theCNE, a similar contract passed in November 2005 by the same government. On 10 April, as the protests were still getting bigger, the government completely withdrew the law, and substituted for it fiscal incentives to firms employing young people.
The CPE sparked debates among the political classes, and drew massive protests from students in the streets of France, along with sudden strikes. Criticism was levied at both the substance of the CPE and the way it was enacted.
Instead of putting the clauses creating CPE inside the bill it was proposing to Parliament, the government chose to submit it as an amendment of its own text. This bypasses some compulsory legal review by theConseil d'État and reduces the time available for examination by members of the Parliament. Earlier in 2006, president of the AssemblyJean-Louis Debré, though a fellow member of UMP and an ally of Villepin, complained about the Villepin government submitting lengthy amendments of its own bills and said that it showed these bills were badly prepared.[3] Furthermore, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin forced approval of the law by the Assembly on its first reading by invoking article 49-3 of the Constitution: under 49-3, a bill is considered approved in its present state by the Assembly unless the Assembly chooses to dismiss the Prime Minister. Such a move hardly ever occurs, since both the Assembly and the Prime Minister are from the same majority. Use of 49-3 is seen as an infringement on the legislative prerogatives of Parliament and is thus reserved for exceptional cases. As many have pointed out, especially when the Prime Minister announced the use of 49-3, Dominique de Villepin has never run for elected office.
Although the CPE is the primary target of the student movement against the law, other measures of the "Statute on the Equality of Opportunities" have also been contested. Among them, allowingapprenticeships from as young as 14 years old (allowing a youth to leave the standardpublic education system), night work from the age of 15 (instead of 16 now) and suspension of certain type ofwelfare measures (families with more than three children have the right to some governmental financial support in France) when studentsskip school. This last measure has been for a long time in the program of the far-right movementFront National, thus also explaining part of the popular protests. The most controversial part of this new law lies in the way it brings flexibility to employers: this contract allowsFrenchemployers to fire workers under the age of 26 without juridicial motive during the first two years of the contract, among other things.
If the employee seeks juridical recourse against arbitrary firing, theburden of proof would be reversed. In anindefinite contract, the burden of proof was reversed during the probationary period, which lasted from just a few days to three months, depending on the type of job, requiring an employee seekinglegal recourse to prove they wereunjustly fired rather than the employer to provejust cause for the dismissal.[4]
The CPE was officially designed to encourage employers to hire more employees under 26 by offering tax cuts and flexibility to employers,[5] and was expected to offer young people access the job market that they have been desperately missing previously (One in four young people in France is unemployed, but the figure rises to 50% in the poor suburbs.[6]) Unlike in more conservative employment environments, such as those of the US or the UK, firing an employee under long-term contract is made hard for French employers once the probation period (maximum three months) elapses. "Firing people is difficult and costly, this has made firms over the years more and more reluctant to take people on"[7]The purported aim of the CPE law was to break this reluctance.
Supporters of the CPE believe it will reduce the highunemployment, particularly among poor youths. Employers, they contend, will be more willing to take chances with young employees if they are not constrained by France'sjob security laws. They claim that unemployment is partially caused by the restrictivelabor laws which they believe have also helped keepeconomic growth at a low level by discouraging business foundation and expansion.[8] Softening the "rigid employment code"[9] has been the motto ofMEDEF and employers in general for years, and is claimed by Frenchliberals (those supporting free-market policies) to be a key way to help both economic growth and employment.[10]
Supporters of the CPE and opponents of the blockading of the universities called demonstrations in the streets in March and April. These demonstrations of support from the government only mustered hundreds, while the anti-government protests got millions.
Critics of the law included all trade unions[citation needed] (evincing a rarely found unanimity between the various politically oriented unions – CGT,CFDT,FO,CFTC,CGC-CGE etc.), many students (for example thestudents' unionUNEF), all theleft-wing political parties, and – to a lesser extent – somecentrist opponents, such as the moderately conservativeUnion for French Democracy (UDF), saying that the CPE would make it easier for employers to exert pressure on employees (lowering wages,sexual harassment, etc.) since they could dismiss their younger employees at any time, without any judicially contestable reason. Some opponents dubbed it the "Kleenex contract", implying that the CPE would allow employers to discard young people likefacial tissue. According to them, the law will only encourage the growth of theworking poor and theprecarity phenomena, and violates a requirement of French labor law introduced in 1973, as well as article 24 of theEuropean social charter, which states that the employer must provide a motive for dismissal of employees.
Sixtysocialist deputies and sixty socialist senators appealed against the law to theConstitutional Council; see below.
The law has met heavy resistance from students,trade unions, andleft-wingactivists, sparkingprotests in February and March 2006 (and continuing into April) with hundreds of thousands of participants in over 180 cities and towns across France. On 18 March, up to as many as 1.5 million demonstrated across France, over half of the country's 84 publicuniversities were closed because of student blockades, andBernard Thibault, the leader of theCGT, one of France's five major labour unions, suggested that ageneral strike across the country would occur if the law was notrepealed. A big march was prepared for 4 April, while students' organizations had already called for a general strike. In the biggest student movement since1968, mass meetings were held in many universities (InToulouse over 4,000 students occupied the rugby stadium to hold their meeting). Motorways were blockaded and employers organisations offices were occupied. The actions were (unusually) supported by all of the main trade union federations and all the Left political parties (more or less enthusiastically). The protests spread to high schools, and involved large numbers of young people both from prestigious universities, and from technical high schools and other places of education drawing a mainly working class student body.
Amid calls for a general strike, opponents agreed to a 'day of action' against the law, including strikes, demonstrations and university occupations across France on 28 March to oppose the law. Strikes disrupted transport, public education and mail services while more than one million to three million marched against the law. The estimates vary; the police estimate in the lower one million range while the unions estimate much higher.[11][12] On 4 April, between 93,000 (police estimate) and 700,000 (union estimate) demonstrated in Paris and three million in all of France.
On 21 March, the Prime Minister refused to change tack, saying that "with this law, there are three things which are impossible. The first is its withdrawal, because that would mean that we are surrendering to the logic of ultimatums and prerequisites. This is obviously what our electorate does not want, and they would not forgive us for it. The second is its suspension, quite simply because that is against our Constitution. And the third is reworking the bill, because if it loses its balance, any chance for success would be deprived."[13][citation needed]
On 30 March, theConstitutional Council, the highest constitutional authority, validated most of the law, along with its 8th article instituting the First Employment Contract. The law was considered to abide by the Constitution of France; the Constitutional Council didn't pronounce on the question of conformity tointernational andEuropean law, which it is not empowered to consider. The Socialist deputies and senators who had deposed the legal recourse before the Constitutional Council notably claimed that the law was superseded by article 24 of theEuropean social charter, which states that the employer must give a juridical motive before firing an employee, and against theInternational Labour Convention (n°158). Labor courts would have to create jurisprudence concerning this point.[14][15]
On the evening of 31 March,PresidentChirac announced in an address to the nation that he wouldpromulgate the law, but asked the government at the same time to prepare a new law including two modifications: the trial period would be reduced to one year, and employers would now have to give a reason for the dismissal of the employment. However, Chirac did not specify whether this reason would be a juridical motive or a simple letter without any juridical value. He also asked employers not to start using the contract until these modifications came into force, but suggested no means of enforcement. Chirac's paradoxical call (officially promulgating the law while unofficially asking at the same time for its suspension) has only baffled both partisans and opponents of the text. The president's move was widely analyzed by the press as support for his prime minister Dominique de Villepin against his 2007 election rival,Nicolas Sarkozy, who was the leader of Chirac's political party, theUMP. Villepin had declared that he would have resigned had Chirac refused to promulgate the law. Some 2,000 students were waiting on thePlace de la Bastille for Chirac's address to the nation. After hearing it, they carried out a night demonstration, which collected as many as 6,000 persons between theHôtel de Ville and theOpéra. A few hundred demonstrators continued until four in the morning.[16]
On 10 April, the French government decided to withdraw the CPE and rewrite it by introducing new measures. This decision appears to be an about-face for Dominique de Villepin.[1][2][dead link]
