France clamps down on sick leave as bankruptcy looms
But a central tenet to what many in France would call a hard-fought right, is now at risk as authorities aim to curb a record rate of absenteeism that is costing the country billions more than its neighbours.
François Bayrou, the centrist at the head of the minority government since December, has declared war on malingering as part of his drive to 'reconcile the French with work' — and save the country from looming bankruptcy.
François Bayrou is aiming to discourage unwarranted sick leave
MOHAMMED BADRA/EPA
The French absentee level is one of Europe's highest and about double that of Britain and the United States. The cost is estimated at up to €80 billion, more than the state education budget.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Government defends Online Safety Act after X claims it threatens free speech
In a post titled What Happens When Oversight Becomes Overreach, the platform, formerly known as Twitter, outlined criticism of the act and the 'heavy-handed' UK regulators. The Government countered that it is 'demonstrably false' that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech and said it is not designed to censor political debate. Under rules that came into effect on July 25, online platforms must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide. This includes a new duty for online providers to reduce the risk that users encounter illegal content as well as age verification measures in the UK to access pornographic content. 'As a result, the act's laudable intentions are at risk of being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach. Without a more balanced, collaborative approach, free speech will suffer,' X said. It accused regulators of taking a 'heavy-handed approach' and said that 'many are now concerned that a plan ostensibly intended to keep children safe is at risk of seriously infringing on the public's right to free expression'. Ofcom said this week it had launched investigations into 34 pornography sites for new age-check requirements. The company said 'a balanced approach is the only way to protect individual liberties, encourage innovation and safeguard children'. A Government spokesperson said: 'It is demonstrably false that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech. 'As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression. Failure to meet either obligation can lead to severe penalties, including fines of up to 10% of global revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater. 'The Act is not designed to censor political debate and does not require platforms to age gate any content other than those which present the most serious risks to children such as pornography or suicide and self-harm content. 'Platforms have had several months to prepare for this law. It is a disservice to their users to hide behind deadlines as an excuse for failing to properly implement it.' Technology Secretary Peter Kyle became embroiled in a row with Nigel Farage earlier this week over Reform UK's pledge that it would scrap the Act if the party came into power. He said the Reform UK leader of being on the side of 'extreme pornographers'.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Reeves must break her manifesto pledge to save Britain from ruin
UK business leaders are perennially a gloomy lot, but it takes a special kind of disenchantment to make them quite as gloomy as they are now. According to the latest survey by the Institute of Directors, they are gloomier than they were even after the Brexit referendum, the onset of the pandemic, and the debacle of Liz Truss's mini-Budget. The main cause of that gloom is easily diagnosed; above all it is the near certainty of further tax rises in the autumn Budget three months from now. This hangs like a sword of Damocles over all gainful activity, with consumers already tightening their belts and firms delaying investment decisions until they know just what's coming down the road at them. Granted, you wouldn't think this on reading the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) latest assessment of the UK economy, published a week ago. This said that economic recovery was already well under way, with growth projected at 1.2pc for 2025 before gaining further momentum next year. Moreover, said the IMF, the Government's 'fiscal plans strike a good balance between supporting growth and safeguarding fiscal sustainability'. This they most certainly do not, as anyone with half an eye on what's really going on in the UK economy would know. The IMF has a habit of being overly generous to key member states, and this would appear to be a case in point. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, might have written the report herself. The reality is a great deal different. The Chancellor's tears in the House of Commons just days after the Prime Minister pulled the rug from under her by abandoning £5bn of welfare cuts told their own story of the pressure she's under, whatever the ultimate cause. Sadly, the Labour leadership has no one to blame but itself. There have been two key errors in policy. First was the manifesto commitment not to raise any of the main sources of taxation, including value added tax, income tax and National Insurance. Second was a set of fiscal rules which though they initially allowed a considerable loosening in borrowing constraints now act like a pro-cyclical straitjacket which is forcing the Government into growth destructive measures. The Chancellor calls herself an economist, but it is clear that she doesn't properly understand the often pernicious way in which public policy interacts with commercial and consumer behaviour – or if she does, she seems to have decided to deliberately ignore it. The root of the problem is the rule that obliges the Government to balance the books on day-to-day spending in five years' time. Nobody knows what the situation might look like five years from now; your guess is as good as mine. But the rules nevertheless require the Office for Budget Responsibility to project five years into the future and adjudicate on whether the rule is met or not. The last time the OBR passed judgment, Reeves was given the thumbs-up, but only by the narrowest of margins. Things have deteriorated a lot since then, making it highly likely that the rule will be broken when the OBR next adjudicates. The obvious solution is for the Government to grit its teeth and make meaningful cuts in public spending. Sadly, this does not seem to be an option with the present lot. Despite a huge majority, Downing Street repeatedly caves at the first sign of rebellion. Large scale cuts in spending might in any case further entrench today's economic stagnation. With the big sources of taxation ruled out, Reeves is instead left casting around in the foothills of the tax system for revenue that might fill the gap. Her problem is that virtually all such options tend to evoke strong behavioural responses and therefore end up raising far less money than static costing suggests. Many of them also tend to be growth destructive, witness the exodus of non-doms and millionaires since the last tax-raising Budget. Reeves says she is strongly focused on growth in all she does, yet she has locked herself into a set of fiscal rules which oblige her to do the exact opposite. I imagine that she will continue trying to paper over the cracks in the autumn Budget with lots of itsy-bitsy revenue-raising measures which further discourage wealth creation. Her rules are non-negotiable, she insists, making it hard to see how she can credibly wriggle out of them. Presumably it would be a resigning issue. One of the unfortunate consequences of the Truss debacle is that it has made her successors almost completely beholden to the bond markets. Their terror is in some respects justified; lack of progress towards meeting the balanced budget rule is already causing distress in the gilts in the market, where yields have risen sharply and are now the highest in the G7 – higher even than the US, where fiscal profligacy has run riot, and higher than both France and Italy, both of which have larger debt burdens than the UK. Credit risk is becoming a real issue for investors in UK gilts, adding further to the Government's already crushing debt servicing costs. These are forecast to be more than 8pc of all public spending this financial year, making them bigger than the Government's entire capital spending budget. The Bank of England might mitigate the consequent waste of public money by discontinuing its ruinous programme of quantitative tightening. To be still selling off the stockpile of gilts accumulated during the era of quantitative easing looks hard to justify in current circumstances. But it wouldn't be enough to make any more than a marginal difference. When it comes to fiscal consolidation, the Government has shown itself incapable of sticking to its guns on at least three occasions now – once with the winter fuel allowance and then twice with welfare cuts. This has undermined confidence in Downing Street's commitment to almost any form of fiscal correction, with announced initiatives quickly reversed in the face of backbench pressure. The sensible thing for Reeves to do would be to abandon the current mishmash of fiscal rules, and replace them with a single, easily understood commitment to limiting the rise in overall spending to less than the rate of economic growth, subject to the operation of automatic stabilisers at times of economic contraction. She should also break the manifesto commitment not to raise any of the main sources of taxation. Cuts to National Insurance by the last government were always unaffordable given the already perilous state of the books. This could still be used as political cover for reversing them or raising one of the other big sources of tax. These two measures combined would give the markets greater confidence in fiscal sustainability, and thereby take the pressure off bond yields. This would in turn reduce debt-servicing costs, and once wealth creators were certain they are no longer a target, potentially create a virtuous circle of growth and improvement in the public finances. Will the Chancellor take my advice? Don't hold your breath.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Good news on the fight to tackle scourge of council tax debt
Firstly, following years of campaigning by Citizens Advice Scotland, the Scottish Government is funding a national project, which we are leading. Local CABs are working hand in hand with their councils to develop policies and practices that will reduce the impact of council tax debt on people who are financially struggling, while helping council tax collection rates. This project is still in its early stages but already we're seeing some fantastic examples of collaborative working, for example to increase awareness of council tax discounts and to focus on ways of identifying people who need support before they explicitly ask for it. Secondly, the governments in the UK and Wales are consulting on reforming council tax collection processes. Positive proposals include more time to pay, more time for advice and support, provision of alternative payment arrangements, and avoiding excessive enforcement action. We have written, with the support of others, to the Scottish Government to urge them to join with the other nations of the UK to conduct a similar consultation and drive forward this kind of change. Allowing people more time to pay their arrears is perhaps the most important reform we would like to see. The debt recovery process is too quick and needs slowing, and a pause in the process is key to helping those who are struggling. This would allow people time to seek advice from agencies such as their local CAB to get budgeting help and income maximisation support so they're in a better position to meet some, if not all, of the arrears. This would benefit the council too, as it will get council tax income it may not otherwise have received while reducing the costs of recovering the arrears. As I say, it is hugely promising to see to see momentum and movement in the right direction on this issue. And it's real proof that our type of rational, compassionate evidenced-based advocacy can get results that will make a real difference to peoples' lives. There is growing support across civic Scotland for a fairer system of council tax collection, one which puts a clearer emphasis on helping those in arrears but who are willing to pay, while balancing the needs of councils to collect their income. With the Holyrood election less than a year away, we – along with other charities – will be aiming to make sure that tackling council tax debt, and public sector debt more widely, is on the agenda of party manifestos and campaigns. Watch this space. Myles Fitt is head of the Financial Health team at Citizens Advice Scotland
