Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

New French Employment Legislation One Year Later

By John D. Shyer and Matthias Rubner
July 02, 2014

On June 14, 2013, France enacted the so-called “Employment Securization Law.” Promised to be a “small revolution” by the then Minister of Labor (now Minister of Finance) Michel Sapin (of the Socialist Party), it affects almost all aspects of the employer-employee relationship, including recruiting, benefits, training, employee representatives, and termination. It is therefore of the highest importance to all corporations having operations in France. However, the most significant changes the law enacted affect companies with at least 50 employees in France. This, of course, includes the operations in France of companies whose headquarters are located in other countries, such as the United States.

The text of the law is a relatively faithful transcription by the legislature of an agreement reached after months of intense negotiations between unions and employer federations at the national level. Only two (the CGT and FO) out of five unions refused to sign, leading moderate policymakers, employers and unions to be cautious optimistic that the law would bring more balanced, consensual and therefore more efficient ways of addressing, among other things, restructurings and headcount reductions in France. Now, just about one year after the law came into force, employers, professionals and policymakers alike are asking: Did the new law keep its promises?

'Flexicurity'

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.