Reading the British Press over the past couple of weeks you could mistaken for believing that the Government is imposing some Draconian measure in order to further hinder small businesses from economic recovery, but 'no' actually all that is happening is that they are, at last, beginning to redress the balance with regard to parental leave. There seems to be a somewhat unjustified preoccupation about the financial impact this will have, over and above the moral implications of the measure.
Equal leave rights have been in place in many Scandinavian countries for many years and have encouraged more couples to share the time off that they spend with their children but Britain has been stuck with a measly two-week break for dads in order to help look after baby. Not only is this a bit harsh on the mother, potentially by herself to care for her newborn pretty quickly after parturition but isn't it terribly sexist??
Clearly there are physical reasons why women may be more tied to looking after their newborn (although it looks like breastfeeding recommendations are changing again) but where is it written that mothers make better carers than fathers? If the shoe were on the other foot, would women be morally outraged? There are neurochemicals that are released in both sexes when baby comes on the scene in order to foster bonding and discourage abandonment, but it seems that there is such a fundamental assumption made about the 'natural instincts' and innate superiority of women in this regard that they are beyond question.
Implicit associations show us that many of us have a tendency to associate women with family and men with careers, even if this is happening at a subconscious level. Is it this bias that makes our assumptions go unchallenged? Or do we have these tendencies because there really is something fundamentally different about nature's roles for us in this regard? Perhaps, in the recognition that workplace discrimination has done so much to hold women back for so many years, this was the one area where women had some 'compensation' and was therefore untouchable. Ultimately however, it's the only chance that women have of achieving parity...if both parents can take leave then employers may cast worried glances at men of 'child-bearing age' too!"
En disant aux Roms de France de retourner « chez eux », la France a certainement durci sa politique d'accueil vis-à-vis des Roms dénoués de leur pays.
Le point le plus sensible dans le débat entre Bruxelles et Paris est bien sur le fait de cibler une population ethnique pour la renvoyer de France alors que les frontières des pays de l'Union sont censées être ouvertes pour les différents états membres. Et ne pas le faire pour les autres sans papiers de France apparait comme du racisme (en témoigne le nombre d'articles parus dans la presse française, posant la question : « La France ; est-elle raciste ?»).
Pour Nicolas Sarkozy, il est clair qu'avec son niveau de popularité plus bas que jamais et la menace de Strauss-Kahn, cette démarche fait partie de sa tentative d'accumuler plus de voix avant l'élection de 2012 parmi l'électorat des plus à droites et des malcontents d'une gauche plus 'laissez faire'. Dans un état de crise cette tactique est bien conseillée.
Pourquoi ? Une crise économique créée de l'anxiété parmi les gens. Un sentiment d'insécurité s'installe provoquant chez les gens le besoin de protéger leurs intérêts personnels. Et ce, au détriment de la défense des gens qui sont censés être à l'extérieur d'un cercle de connexions relativement intime.
Pour l'homme cela se traduit par ses propres intérêts, sa famille, ses proches... finalement son « tribe » - les gens avec qui nous partageons des liens ou des caractéristiques.
Comme Tajfel nous l'a expliqué il y a très longtemps (e.g. 1971), il est très facile de créer des démarcations d'un tribe. C'est apparemment un besoin humain assez fondamental.
Peut être alors, y a-t-il un lien, entre la décision de l'UMP de lancer des politiques qui s'appuient sur la peur et le manque de confiance ou tout au moins sur le désintérêt (voir le commentaire de CNN la semaine dernière sur le peu de gens descendu dans la rue pour protester contre l'abus potentiel d'un droit de l'homme) de la populace pour les peuples considérés comme étant à l'extérieur de leur groupe et une période où le français(e) moyen(ne) se retrouve confronté à la baisse du pouvoir d'achat, à l'augmentation du chômage et au besoin de soutenir de sa famille.
Dans une telle conjoncture, quelle distance sépare l'égalité de la fraternité ?
Rachida Dati is an interesting woman: she is the first senior minister of North African origin, she has enjoyed an accelerated and controversial rise to her position as Justice Minister and was the subject of many gossip columns due to her 'mysterious' pregnancy.
What the papers are excited about now is Dati's speedy return to work five days after the birth of her daughter, Zohra.
Whilst some french magazines have applauded her vitality and particularly, how slender she looks, the majority of views expressed are resolutely critical of her "wanting to play superwoman".
As a nation with a cultural emphasis on the family and motherhood, the French press is busy heaping guilt on her decision to abandon her newborn in favour of her ministerial duties, whilst the British press are speculating that fear over losing her job has driven her back to work.
The question is; why is her decision so scandalous?
I don't remember anyone commenting on how soon Gordon Brown was back at work after his baby was born! Society has rigid ideals about what it means to be a good mother and 'woe betide' any public figure if they step outside of this norm. But wouldn't she have been equally criticised for neglecting her role in government during a major judicial reform?
Yes, Rachida Dati is an important role model as a talented, female politician from an unprivileged background but isn't it her business what kind of mother she is?
Companies face similar moral dilemmas with their staff: to what degree should women be implicitly encouraged to come back to work a.s.a.p.? If a business recruits 50% women, what will they do if they all take maternity leave?
These are real questions that won't go away but we can at least remove gender as much as possible from childcare policy and give couples more flexibility about how they care for baby - after all it is a bit unfair that men don't have the same options as women to take time to look after their infants.
As a dynamic, influential politician, I don't think there is anything wrong with Dati's decision to attend a reform meeting soon after giving birth - as with any work-life balance issue, what is important is her right to choose. And as her fellow politician said in her support "you don't have to be menopausal to be a minister".
Several articles in the press recently have picked up on the number of restaurant and café closures in France. The restaurant trade is now third in the French bankruptcy stakes after house-builders and estate agents, with 3,000 establishments going into liquidation in just three months earlier this year.
As exemplars of work life balance with ‘two-hour lunches and a 35-hour working week’, Europeans seem to be worried that, with the French example gone, the credit crunch will move us all towards being workaholic automatons doomed to shake crumbs out of our keyboards every lunchtime.
Perhaps France is moving away from its cultural roots but does it matter? As many people commented following the articles, the Brits do all right on a cheese and pickle roll at their desks. Don’t they?
French or British, we could be sacrificing more than we think…
As research indicates, workers without a break are operating on a principle of “diminishing returns” regarding their energy and productiveness. By late afternoon you may be putting an awful lot in and not getting much out.
One other important element that the French lunch offers is the opportunity to build meaningful relationships at work. This is a key factor in job satisfaction and retention but also acts as an important buffer against the stresses and strains of work and has positive health benefits too.
It is likely that the French would suffer particularly if this disappeared as socialising after work in France, is rare.
Whilst it may seem a small change therefore, French businesses should beware: happiness at work and all of its associated benefits (creativity, network building, support for others) is greatly influenced by the ‘small things’ – the little uplifts rather than major changes in working conditions. Lunch then, may be more important than that pay rise.
Plusieurs articles dans la Presse ont récemment repris le nombre de fermetures de restaurants et de cafés en France. La restauration représente maintenant un tiers des faillites françaises après les constructeurs de maisons et les agents immobiliers, avec 3000 établissements entrant en liquidation dans une période de trois mois, cette année 2008.
Les Français sont les exemples de l’équilibrent entre la vie et le travail avec des « déjeuners de deux heures et une semaine de 35 ».
Les Européens semblent être inquiets de la disparition de cet exemple français ; la crise financière nous conduira-t-elle tous à être des automates drogués du travail condamnés à secouer les miettes de nos claviers d’ordinateur à chaque déjeuner?
Peut-être que la France s'éloigne de ses racines culturelles? Est-ce un problème? Beaucoup de personnes en font la remarque, les Britanniques le font bien avec un « Cheese & Pickle roll » sur le coin de leur bureau, n’est-ce pas ?
Français ou Britannique… Nous pourrions sacrifier plus que nous pensons … Comme les études le décrivent, des ouvriers sans pause fonctionnent sur le principe du « diminishing returns » quant à leur énergie et productivité. À la fin de l’après-midi vous pouvez fournir énormément et rien en dégager.
Un autre élément important est que les invitations à déjeuner françaises sont l'occasion de nouer des relations significatives au travail. C'est un facteur clef dans la satisfaction et l’engagement des emplois, mais agit aussi comme un amortisseur important contre les tensions et pressions de travail et contribue au bien être.
Il est probable que les Français souffriraient particulièrement de cette disparition, parce que c’est rare de rencontrer les gens après le travail.
Alors que cela peut sembler un petit changement, les entreprises françaises devraient prendre garde: Le bonheur au travail et tous ses avantages associés (la créativité, la construction de réseau, l'appui pour d'autres) dépendent énormément de l'influence de « petites choses » - Les petits bonheurs plutôt que les changements majeurs de conditions de travail. Le déjeuner alors, peut être plus important qu’une augmentation de salaire.
Feed