Productivity in France

[Osem]

Well unemployment is certainly higher there but productivity is apparently quite a bit higher than in the UK too. A successful French businesswoman being interviewed on BBC news explained that it's largely due to the far greater costs associated with employing people and running businesses over there. Being self employed I admit I've never really thought to much about it but it makes sense and probably explains why so many of our businesses seem to be run in a rather old fashioned manner with outdated equipment etc. Staff are relatively cheap/easy to hire so they're more likely to get jobs but is that better or worse for UK plc?

It's called "the British disease", and was also the case when we had mighty trade unions and endemic overmanning of bloated state-run businesses.

There is simply something in our character, that we don't get as much done in a working day than many of our close economic competitors. Too many tea breaks, probably.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

It's called "the British disease", and was also the case when we had mighty trade unions and endemic overmanning of bloated state-run businesses.

There is simply something in our character, that we don't get as much done in a working day than many of our close economic competitors. Too many tea breaks, probably.

... and/or a 'make do and mend' legacy of the past maybe?

Yes I well recall the days when gross over-manning was rife in certain environments and we all know what that eventually led to. The thing is, is it better overall to have higher, less productive, employment or lower, more productive employment? I guess the answer depends to an extent on perspective and the cost to the nation of having more people out of work, on benefits, than would otherwise be the case.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chris

It's called "the British disease", and was also the case when we had mighty trade unions and endemic overmanning of bloated state-run businesses.

There is simply something in our character, that we don't get as much done in a working day than many of our close economic competitors. Too many tea breaks, probably.

In the case of France this probably helps.
Alongside that the low productivity is actually a cause of the overmanning. Low productivity per staff member = more staff needed for the same output of work. Solve one and the other goes down, but not a lot has been done to.

---------- Post added at 10:30 ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

... and/or a 'make do and mend' legacy of the past maybe?

Yes I well recall the days when gross over-manning was rife in certain environments and we all know what that eventually led to. The thing is, is it better overall to have higher, less productive, employment or lower, more productive employment? I guess the answer depends to an extent on perspective and the cost to the nation of having more people out of work, on benefits, than would otherwise be the case.

Not that you'll read this as you appear unable to handle well argued cases that are contrary to your opinion, preferring to think of people making them as trolls and ignoring them, but there seem to be different views and a few factors in play.

It is certainly in part down to a conscious decision to try and maximise employment at the expense of productivity.

But the ONS said output per worker in 2012 was 3% lower than it had been five years earlier and 16% below the level that might have been expected, had its previous upward trend not been interrupted by the most severe slump of the postwar era.

Another aspect is the low levels of investment in the economy by the private and public sectors. Lower CapEx means a less efficient workforce.

As a share of GDP, UK investment began to trail that of the US, Canada, France, and Switzerland in the 1990s. Investment fell from around a quarter of GDP in the late 1980s to just over 15%. With less investment, then there's less productive capital for employees to work with, and thus lower output per worker.

Rather than going into investment in the business money has been going into profits, shareholder returns, and compensation of senior management. We have also seen gross misuse of capital. Rather than going to productive investment in enterprise it's been finding its way into property.

The amount of zombie companies we still have operating, existing on cheap credit and unable to invest, isn't going to help. They should have been allowed to go bankrupt but our near-bankrupt banks wouldn't be able to take the hit.

Second, rock-bottom interest rates, and “forbearance” by lenders reluctant to crystallise their losses by calling in loans may have allowed inefficient businesses to survive when it might have been better – for the country’s productivity record at least – if they had been swept away by the crisis.

These are also mentioned by the BoE as the main issues.

Basically, then, we need to invest in our businesses, get more money into productive investment rather than have it sitting in buy-to-let, invest more in our people, and raise interest rates to force banks to take their losses.

Or we, as a nation, are just work-shy despite having the second longest working hours in Europe and all our industries, including those privatised decades ago, are apparently grossly overstaffed, with employers paying people just for fun when, actually, we have relatively liberal labour laws compared to our peers and outside of the public sector trade unions are practically non-existent unlike in Germany, France, and other places with less liberal labour laws and far stronger private sector unions.

Whatever most appeals.

As far as which of these are in prospect there are no signs that the government have any plans to invest in people, they want to reduce education spend per student and have already cut them at higher and further level, little appetite for interest rate rises and I'm sure the government don't want these as interest rates are a bragging point for them, and they continue to actively encourage misallocation of capital through constant demand-side stimulus of housing.

The attempts in the last administration to push more investment towards businesses failed and the cheap money ended up in property.

Bizarrely the poor productivity being resolved would actually both improve wages and improve return on investment.

[Taf]

Having seen French employment from the inside, I can tell you that employment law is so strict and pro-worker that once you are in a job, and on full contract, it is VERY hard to get you out of that job. The literature covering employment law is a HUGE book, and unions know every word, nuance and loophole.

So employers are extremely motivated to employ only the best, and that usually means those that will work their asses off. And that high productivity means the bosses need fewer workers, so their unemployment rate is much higher that ours (around 10% I believe).

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Taf

Having seen French employment from the inside, I can tell you that employment law is so strict and pro-worker that once you are in a job, and on full contract, it is VERY hard to get you out of that job. The literature covering employment law is a HUGE book, and unions know every word, nuance and loophole.

So employers are extremely motivated to employ only the best, and that usually means those that will work their asses off. And that high productivity means the bosses need fewer workers, so their unemployment rate is much higher that ours (around 10% I believe).

Yes, that's pretty much what the French businesswoman I listened to said. So whilst making firms far more careful about whom they employ does mean they tend to get better staff and those who're not up to scratch get left behind.
It's almost the reverse of what I'd expect in more socialist countries like France where the state run/subsidised sector is much bigger than here IIRC.

I did hear somewhere that there's a growing 'industry' in France of phantom companies which are staffed and operate exactly like real ones but produce nothing and are simply set up to give experience to the unemployed. I'm not sure whether those engaged in such activities are counted as being unemployed however.

[Taf]

The French A.N.P.E. (Agence National Pour l'Emploi) makes our D.W.P. look like amateurs with hearts of gold. They will send you on courses, interim work placement, obligatory job placement... and if you don't pull your weight and get stuck in it will badly hurt you financially. They didn't count those on courses. etc. as employed, but I have heard that they now do in most cases (Socialist tweaking of the figures).

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Taf

The French A.N.P.E. (Agence National Pour l'Emploi) makes our D.W.P. look like amateurs with hearts of gold. They will send you on courses, interim work placement, obligatory job placement... and if you don't pull your weight and get stuck in it will badly hurt you financially. They didn't count those on courses. etc. as employed, but I have heard that they now do in most cases (Socialist tweaking of the figures).

Interesting.

Sounds like French socialists are worse than evil Tories then...

[denphone]

Again we have stereotype views that do not accurately reflect reality.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Osem

Interesting.

Sounds like French socialists are worse than evil Tories then...

What! The garlic munching surrender monkeys worse than the baby eating Tories.?

[johnathome]

That doesn't tally with what this American says

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21526713

"They get one hour for breaks and lunch, talk for three and work for three. I told this to the French union workers to their faces. They told me that's the French way!"

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Taf

So employers are extremely motivated to employ only the best, and that usually means those that will work their asses off. And that high productivity means the bosses need fewer workers, so their unemployment rate is much higher that ours (around 10% I believe).

Now that's a very interesting point. Unintended consequences again

---------- Post added at 19:50 ---------- Previous post was at 19:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Taf

The French A.N.P.E. (Agence National Pour l'Emploi) makes our D.W.P. look like amateurs with hearts of gold. They will send you on courses, interim work placement, obligatory job placement... and if you don't pull your weight and get stuck in it will badly hurt you financially. They didn't count those on courses. etc. as employed, but I have heard that they now do in most cases (Socialist tweaking of the figures).

The plot thickens

[Osem]

Originally Posted by denphone

Again we have stereotype views that do not accurately reflect reality.

It was only a joke Den. Don't take it too seriously.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Osem

It was only a joke Den. Don't take it too seriously.

l know it was only a joke but it is important that we break down many of the stereotypes in this world though don't you think.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by denphone

l know it was only a joke but it is important that we break down many of the stereotypes in this world though don't you think.

I think it's more important to retain some semblance of a sense of humour or we'll be frightened to say anything for fear of upsetting someone or other.

Anyway I'm glad you're concerned about me stereotyping Tories as being evil.