Talk:Contrat nouvelle embauche

message: This Talk page was listed on Wikipedia:Third opinion, but it appears the debate has been resolved (and a third user has already become involved). Is there some outstanding debate that still needs resolution here, some specific passage which isn't being agreed upon? Fagstein 05:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: Wikipedia:Information suppression is not well seen. I advise you to report to Wikipedia:Etiquette: "Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time: consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (e.g. saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative." Finally, Wikipedia:NPOV dispute may also be of some help. In other words, you are invited to edit correspondingly to your views, but instead of reversing the article since they are obvious ameliorations (I think that just the table of contents could indicate that to you; it is not very "encyclopedic" to title a section "What is the CNE all about?" when you can title it "Clauses", and I don't think that's pushing a POV!) Fare well, Lapaz 21:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  complete reversals when obvious ameliorations have been brought is no way to proceed 

message: If we want to make the article better we need to clean it up a lot....Let's remove the red links. Thanks, Sarreau for putting the disputed article sign up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestH2 (talk • contribs) 
Checked wikipedia procedure. Will proceed to Requests_for_comment if nothing changed and Lapaz keeps rejecting the problems and revert without trying to improve.Sarreau 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Re: Un contrat en CNE jugé contraire au droit international:<BR>
My french isn't the best, but from a google translation it isn't clear what the court was deciding. Did it decide against the CNE in one single case of a secretary, and opponents are hoping that this will set a precedent if followed through to higher courts? (If so, it would seem that this one court case is receiving undue weight, especially in the opening paragraph). MartinRe
you are right to raise the question: it only ruled against one EMPLOYER, considering it took advantage of the CNE. There is little doubt it will happen again. The court (according to the source) also indicated they felt that some part of the CNE is unreasonable. This, unlike what Lapaz is trying to say, does not threaten the existence of the CNE in general, and definitely does not rule against the CNE. This is only a one court case as you say... one out of 400,000 contracts signed so far. That's why it is receiving undue weight, though important to mention in the article... once and briefly.
You have to understand also it very probably will happen again, as there is everyday courts ruling against other job contracts employers! Sarreau 19:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Court case question

message: Lapaz, I don't think it is acceptable to include your comments inbetween past discussions... you have been doing it several times, I just noticed and corrected some.
But now I feel I have to make it clear since I noticed your input of "NO, I haven't "kept deleting it"" just comes before the "I would agree" from MartinRe, making it looks like his "I would agree" is for you.
Use the :: clearly so that it shows how the discussion developped chronologically, and who was talking to who! I don't think we need another fight on this, I suggest to respect chronological discussion if not Discussion is not readable!!
I fixed some of your remarks with either "::" or moved the back to a chronological order!
Sarreau 10:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  keep comments in discussion in chronological order... 

message: Here is finally the legal text from the Conseil d'Etat about the CNE!, given it was available on internet I have to apologize for finding it only now, this should bring this issue to an end. I included a link to another legal text it refers to... It should also be understood that this "conseil d'Etat" issue is part of the legal efforts from the Unions (see text) to cancel the CNE; the Conseil d'Etat rejects this demand. This text here shows what has been decided about the burden of proof:
THIS is the legal text:
"En ce qui concerne la méconnaissance de la directive 97/80/CE du Conseil du 15 décembre 1997 relative à la charge de la preuve dans les cas de discrimination fondée sur le sexe et de la directive 2000/78/CE du Conseil du 27 novembre 2000 (note from Sarreau: check here) portant création d'un cadre général en faveur de l'égalité de traitement en matière d'emploi et de travail :
Considérant qu'en vertu de ces deux directives, lorsqu'une personne s'estimant lésée par le non-respect à son égard du principe de l'égalité de traitement établit devant une juridiction des faits permettant de présumer l'existence d'une discrimination directe ou indirecte, il incombe à la partie défenderesse de prouver qu'il n'y pas eu violation du principe de l'égalité de traitement ; que la transposition de ces dispositions est assurée par l'article L. 122-45 du code du travail qui n'est pas au nombre des dispositions dont l'ordonnance du 2 août 2005 a exclu l'application au "contrat nouvelles embauches" ; que, par suite, le moyen tiré de ce que l'ordonnance attaquée aurait été prise en méconnaissance des objectifs de ces deux directives ne peut qu'être écarté".
Now it means that when the plaintiff/employee starts the procedure, as soon as he brings forward an allegation of discrimination, the burden of proof is reversed to the defendant/employer side.
Discrimination that the text refers to are (see my link above):"discrimination fondée sur la religion ou les convictions, l'handicap, l'âge ou l'orientation sexuelle", meaning discrimination based on religion, political opinion, physical disability, age, sexual orientation.
This is what I wrote when I edited! So now it's factual, and it's sourced.Sarreau 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. It does seem to mean that. I'd be very careful, however, of any definitive interpretation. As I told you before, I am not a lawyer nor a jurist & although it is very nice to have found the original Conseil d'Etat decision, such decisions are complicated & must be seen as what they are: primary sources that must be reenforced by secondary sources if to be understood at all. As you know, it is totally possible that another paragraph or a sidenote 20 pages later says the reverse (I'm not saying that to dislegitimate your find, but just to warn against definitive interpretations concerning juridical texts. I had put the "factual accuracy" disputed for reasons explained above, it doesn't matter much). Lapaz 14:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, you brought this Conseil d'Etat thing from the French wikipedia. Now that you have the original version of what the Conseil d'Etat said, you are trying to say that what it says might not be exactly what it says?? I mean, I know what you mean, legal phrasing is not always clear, but this legal text, therefore factual. You are free to indicate opinions about it, as long as you indicate it is an opponent's opinion.  Sarreau 16:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "burden of proof": the original legal text applying: 

message: The  have been put at the end of the links. This is the first time I see it on Wikipedia, and in this case, I don't really see the use of it (the icon is there to show that it's in French so that someone who doesn't speak the language doesn't bother reading it; if it's at the end of the sentence, this meant he already read the sentence and already knows that he doesn't understand it). It's a detail, of course, but it goes against the way other Wikipedia articles are done. Lapaz 19:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Template:Languageicon it is preferable that language icons are placed *after* the link. I take your point, though... you could start a discussion of this at Template talk:Languageicon if you wanted. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French language icons 

message: The CNE was struck down by the Cour de Cassation, France's highest civil court, on 1 July 2008. That information is readily available on the Net. As the French version of this Wikipedia article says, the law has been repealed. Not interfering in the opinion questions, as least the factual part of the article needs updating. Flexfrog (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article out of date. CNE invalidated by Cour de Cassation, law repealed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Contrat nouvelle embauche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifop.com/europe/docs/CNE.pdf
*Added  tag to http://today.reuters.fr/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-04-28T165412Z_01_TOU860781_RTRIDST_0_OFRTP-FRANCE-EMPLOI-CNE-TRIBUNAL-20060428.XML
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017020632/http://www.lexpress.fr/info/quotidien/actu.asp?id=3591 to http://www.lexpress.fr/info/quotidien/actu.asp?id=3591
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Contrat nouvelle embauche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lemonde.fr/web/chat/0%2C46-0%402-3224%2C55-745929%2C0.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://today.reuters.fr/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-04-28T165412Z_01_TOU860781_RTRIDST_0_OFRTP-FRANCE-EMPLOI-CNE-TRIBUNAL-20060428.XML
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928213625/http://www.davidtate.fr/spip.php?article719 to http://www.davidtate.fr/spip.php?article719
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928213613/http://www.davidtate.fr/spip.php?article928 to http://www.davidtate.fr/spip.php?article928
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Contrat nouvelle embauche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930183647/http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/en/information/special-reports_98/the-emergency-employment-plan_493/seeking-out-jobs-wherever_53324.html to http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/en/information/special-reports_98/the-emergency-employment-plan_493/seeking-out-jobs-wherever_53324.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060709223103/http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/jurispd/index_ac_ld0550.shtml to http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/jurispd/index_ac_ld0550.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502113428/http://www.lentreprise.com/actu/1.13454.html to http://www.lentreprise.com/actu/1.13454.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184439/http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/en/information/latest-news_97/dominique-villepin-building-sound_55283.html?var_recherche=CNE to http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/en/information/latest-news_97/dominique-villepin-building-sound_55283.html?var_recherche=CNE
*Added archive https://archive.is/20060322231549/http://www.lentreprise.com/actu/1.13080.html to http://www.lentreprise.com/actu/1.13080.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220153821/http://www.lentreprise.com/actu/1.12479.html to http://www.lentreprise.com/actu/1.12479.html/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007151447/http://www.ilo.org/global/What_we_do/Officialmeetings/gb/decisions/DecisionsTaken/lang--en/WCMS_089230/index.htm to http://www.ilo.org/global/What_we_do/Officialmeetings/gb/decisions/DecisionsTaken/lang--en/WCMS_089230/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified