Vive la Diffe-rance!

Though we've only been back in France for three weeks, it's hard to resist talking about how different the French world-view is from our own.
I'd expected to find more changes in the French outlook since I'd left in 1967. However troublesome it had been back then to obtain a work visa entitling me to stay indefinitely, I took it in stride as part of the adventure of living in a foreign country. Having employment with French companies before my first visit to the Prefecture of Police gave me an ostensible reason to be there in the first place and even a certain credibility.
This time, after waiting in line with the huddled masses at the Prefecture for over an hour, all we could get was a list of the required documents. When we came back with our court-approved translations, etc., we could see the the official behind the counter narrow her eyes to search for defects, which of course she found and marked by adding details to the list -- presumably already accurate and complete -- we'd been given the previous time.
No French person who hears this tale has the slightest sympathy. Sure, we know that foreigners don't have an easy time with our immigration officials, but the ordinary Frenchman encounters the same attitude every day and accepts it as a fact of life. He may have to make multiple trips to the office of the Securite Sociale, but there is a payoff in the form of real health security.
Much of what we are learning about economic life in France has come from our readings and writings at the Alliance Francaise, We've had whole units on work-life, including working conditions (much concern over "stress") and the problems young people encounter in finding employment. Nicholas Sarkozy came to power in May, 2007 on the campaign theme of "working longer to earn more." You might be surprised to find this a controversial notion, considering that his starting point was the 35-hour work week that had come into effect just seven years earlier! There doesn't seem to be much dissent to the original idea that underlay the reduction of working hours, namely that cutting the jobs into smaller pieces would reduce unemployment by spreading the work around to more people. But additional hiring didn't follow, it is said because French workforce regulations make it too hard for employers to lay people off when business conditions change.
The employer-employee relationship takes various contractual forms defined by law, notably the CDI ("indefinite duration" thus presumably permanent) and CDD ("definite duration" thus expiring within two years and renewable only once). Except for graduates of the elite schools ("grands ecoles") and high tech talent, folks in their 20s are often stuck with CDD jobs or worse. Because of the perceived insecurity of such employment, they can't qualify for mortgages or even car loans. In short, the mobility of labor is hamstrung by regulations that neither American employers nor workers would ever accept.
Defenders of these arrangements, such as our host, say that, sure, companies can lay off CDI employees when conditions warrant, but if challenged, employers have to prove such business necessity to the satisfaction of a government agency. He considers employment security a natural concomitant to healthy family life and thus a compelling national interest requiring the government constantly to balance the interests of business and workers against each other. In the U.S. by comparison, mentioning "Main Street and Wall Street" in the same breath is about the closest you can come to suggesting that their interests differ, before being accused of inciting class warfare.
What I find interesting is that political life here doesn't seem to suffer by the fact of such social stratification being acknowledged. Some say that French people accept their roles in life and don't assume that they will climb the socio-economic ladder (attain the "American Dream") as our people do. I couldn't make that judgment, though for instance there's no shame in being a "peasant" in France. But from the outside, it looks like the French are pretty successfully defending their interests in a good quality of life within their system. Consider by comparison the costs Americans are now paying for having pretended that the "ownership society" could be bought in a few years' time with cheap mortgage money.
I don't even understand it enough to argue that we should emulate the French model, but neither should we be too quick to dismiss it or predict its demise. If we try it, as with a government healthcare option, a lot of Americans may find they like it too.