The contrary case do not even represent 1

Beginning of December, employers and employees will vote in the election tribunals. For employers, it's a trap! There are at least three good reasons to boycott the vote.

First, the elected must be a false oath. According to the law, a newly elected submitted adviser shall take an oath to judge, as the thick volumes of the French Labour Code and its numerous annexes and his bloated and unstable case. No one is supposed to ignore the law, but as she is obese and contradictory, no one is able to know... His mind viscerally anti-employeur is glaring. The spectre of the "rogue boss" is floating watermark between the lines. The founding assumption is "relationship of subordination" between employee and employer. The latter being rogue, it belongs to the law to prevent abuse. And it pays: legislators politicians, always in the field, know that the electorate has at least ten, one hundred times more employees than employers.

"Typing patterns" eventually infallibly expatriate labour, capital and skills, but it weighs in the balance. "Relationship of subordination" is therefore planed, time and political interests, to the point where there is almost no. The authority is undermined, the Organization at risk, with the competitiveness of companies and the country to the rider. And it is in this Act, hypocritical, malicious and hostile, that we must take the oath of allegiance submitted!

Obey, pushed and shoved into a terrible legislation is one thing. Voluntarily sworn to try and suppress our peers in his name is another.

Then, the elected risk naivety. Think again, candidates labor employers who believe in the possibility to act of the Interior, influence despite the oath and statutory unfair judgments! We are dealing with consultants employed in equal numbers and superior jurisdiction. Staff and Union delegates experienced employees protected, they are often masters of advice and defence of the employees. And they consider this support as an extension of career, the agrarian elections subject to electoral battle between unions. Opponents almost professional so that a "normal" employer in activity, having something to do, volunteer prud'homme, can hardly be measured.

Incidentally, we must be aware that the Act provides that the case is decided by a "départiteur judge" in opposition to equality between labor employees and employers. In challenge of the judgment submitted by one of the parties, almost always the employee, the case is retried on appeal. The départiteur judge and the judges of the Court of appeal are officials, acting pursuant to the above decried Act, with often adverse to the employer bias.

It is therefore naive to hope to influence judgments labour of the Interior. The dice are loaded. What it does, the final verdict will be consistent with legislation to combat. Worse, our industrial illusion is expensive in time and energy. And most importantly, our moutonnière collaboration plays to our detriment. How advocating a radical overhaul of the French legislation work while our employers organizations inspire us to docility, to collaborate in the labor and to pronounce the oath of allegiance

Finally, the effect of a boycott of the elections by employers is guaranteed. A short term, the advice of the labor being joint, the absence of counsel employers prohibit any proceedings. The judgment at first instance will have, therefore, be taken in charge by justice so-called "ordinary". However this last, for structural reasons and budget well known, will not be able to ensure the succession in the foreseeable future. The result being paid judicial processing time in the first instance from a few months now to a few years.

Let us remember that almost all cases to the labor are filed by employees against employers. The contrary case do not even represent 1. Politically correct or not, this extension should not displease us and will probably limit the enthusiasm of the employees to drag us to justice.

Term, the boycott will clearly show the opposition of the management body to the spirit and the letter of the French labour legislation. It is the opposite of the current situation to find our complacency given our docile participation on the boards of the labor and swearing. Such an initiative on our part will support and build those among legislators, and there, militating for the redesign of this institution in a direction more favourable to work, initiative, employment and consequently to employees.