@pipige: I can’t understand how I could have missed this explanatory factor, how you can write bombastic messages and ignore fairly fundamental elements. However, and with a first glance at INSEE, I note that despite these massive retirements, the size of the active population (therefore employed workers + unemployed) tends to increase rather than to reduce these recent years (due apparently to the increased participation of seniors and women in the labor market) and is expected to increase further (without however preventing the decline in the working-to-retired ratio). If a stable or increasing working population is combined with a falling unemployment rate, I believe that I can maintain my hypothesis of weak growth that is strangely rich in jobs. Any brighter light than that of a lawyer on the subject would be good to take (this is a call to the community).
@Red Tsar: you are right to point out to me that inflation is not in itself a favorable factor for the employee, I was probably reasoning in a too « glorious thirties » scheme when writing that. Let’s say that inflation nevertheless legitimizes sustained wage demands, and that in an economy very dependent on household consumption, a drop in the real wage would be quite disastrous, but indeed these are too poor logical connections to justify what I wrote. In theory (and I mean in theory), the fall in the unemployment rate is a much more convincing factor of a reversal of the balance of power. For once that explains the repressive posture quite convincingly: a balance of power favorable to the employee is a fairly logical consequence if we reach the political zenith of full employment, so to avoid this reversal, we have to be tougher with workers and the unemployed as we approach full employment.
@remarks on sabotage: I made it clear that I was only placing myself in the position of an employee tempted by job abandonment (I would have plenty of sabotage ideas to reserve for whole sections of the productive system, but this is not the topic of the day). In a time when people are asked to think like rational agents, if we really succeed in placing them in the alternative « either resignation/abandonment of post and zero allowances; or serious or gross negligence and dismissal without allowances but with allowances « , it seems to me basically perfectly logical to find a fault more or less nice to commit, to invent on the continuum between « come but to do nothing » and « downright rotting stuff ». It is an « effective violation of the law » like any other, and after all it is a way of thinking promoted through many other texts. And I sincerely wonder if all the side effects in terms of conflicting social relations have been anticipated (the idea of a « valve » mentioned in my first message).
Last clarification: if by chance you are wondering why the unemployment insurance regulations treat all dismissals the same by granting unemployment benefits without distinction, you must return to the « preliminary privilege » enjoyed by the employer, which allows him to decide alone your reason for dismissal (whether he makes good or bad use of this right). In other words, sorting out the dismissals would amount to giving the employer a right of life or death over your unemployment benefits, it being understood that if the employee can always contest his reason for dismissal, it remains within deadlines which have absolutely no no use in terms of compensation by Pôle emploi. Our system can hardly condemn someone to eat rabid cow while waiting for a response from a labor court. Finally, the way things are going, I would be tempted to add « for the moment »…