Doesn't seem correct "Upon termination of employment, the employer may release the employee from working during all or part of the notice period and pay him an indemnity in lieu of notice"

https://knowledge.leglobal.org/restrictive-covenants-in-fran...

Indeed! And that is perfectly fine. The employer can dispense you from your préavis de licenciement, especially if it's a single person being fired. https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F24660

However, any firing must be notified of an entretien préalable de licenciement by letter (can be given directly). This is usually a week after, to grant the employee time to prepare (and to eventually be helped by employee representatives). Then, after this, the employer has to give at least 48 hours before doing anything. This gets even worse in the case of a massive layoff like Coinbase's for economical reasons, the company is obligated to have meetings with the employee representatives, at the very least twice spaced by 15 days. For a company the size of Coinbase, the CSE has 2-4 months to answer and can ask for proof that the company is, indeed in financial troubles, having them open their books. https://entreprendre.service-public.fr/vosdroits/F24648

So, in practice, while quick firings are possible for individual cases, massive layoffs like that do not happen over a single day.

So if you want to lay someone off in France, you have to allow them access to company facilities and systems and allow them to work? You cannot just pay them through their severance period, but tell them to stay home? If so, that’s absurd, and I don’t see what purpose it would serve.

Are you sure? This is a quite common practice for businesses to put the fired employees on paid leave until the contract is terminated, I would be really surprised if that would not be possible in France.

Article L1234-5 [1] of French Labor Code looks like it is possible.

* [1] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGISCTA000006195622...

Paid leave is entirely different. Paid leave is, well, leave. You do not have to show up to the office, unable to do anything.

L1234-5 (which is a very nice number) merely says that you have to pay the employee a compensation if the préavis is not respected, equal to the amount of days the employee would have worked, in addition to everything else (severance package, etc). It gets more complicated in the case of massive layoffs, because the CSE/lawyers get involved, and for a 50+ employee company firing over 10 employees, a plan de sauvegarde de l'emploi is put into place, which lasts multiple months.

How is it different? If you are on paid leave, you are not supposed to do any work. For security reasons your access can and should be restricted for this period.

The only context in which you can be technically still employed but be refused access to your work tools is if you are suspended for a grave mistake. Abuse this at your own risk, as the employee isn't paid in the mean time and will very likely get tribunal-happy. Any other concept (paid leave, maternity leave, vacation leave, * leave) means you are still an employee of the company and the company is legally obligated to give you access to your work tools.

On leave, you are trusted as an employee to not do any work. Anything you do will be your own responsibility, or eventually the employer's responsibility to refuse any work you hand over. You are also not covered by the company's insurance on your leave. Your company cutting off access is a clear breach of contract.

Can you refer to a specific regulation or legal precedent proving this point in clear words?

This does sound non-sensical to me. If someone is not working, there should not be any entitlement to access.

To give you an example: let’s say a factory is temporarily closed due to lack of supply materials or modernization and workers are put on paid leave. Are those workers allowed to visit their workplace to access their tools? If not, why digital workers should have this privilege when they are on paid leave?

>not providing your employees with the means to work

Logic would dictate that providing the exact same pay/benefits as one would get for the work ought to be sufficient. But, <insert joke about logic and French labour laws here>...

Logic would also dictate that the employer-employee power relationship is inherently biased towards the employer, and that said employer can hurt you much more than you can hurt him. You not doing your job for a month might be impractical, but it's relatively easy to get over. You suddenly being out of a job with no warning and your severance is much more damaging.

Also consider that software developer is an incredibly privileged position and that, while you may not give a shit because you get 100k and can find another job in two weeks, many people have a salary that barely covers their living expenses and take much longer to find a new job. In effect, that would be subsidizing employers through unemployment benefits and therefore, cost society as a whole.

<insert joke about american laws having no foresight or absolutely fuck all experience in fighting for workers>

Coming from an American perspective, that is super interesting. I don't think I understand why it is seen as harm to the employee? They are getting full pay, but aren't required to do anything for it.

The core reasons are:

* as an employee, you sign a contract that exchanges your time for both a salary and a job. Refusing to provide either of those is a breach of contract. It's one thing to say "things are a bit slow right now, so do whatever". It is an entirely other one to not give your employee tools, access to things they'd need to do their job, or even leave them wondering if they even have a job still. Doubly worse if you require them to come to the office to not know what to do. Hence, the common solution to that is to change their job to something that just puts them in the corner on mostly useless tasks. They're technically working, but you can't fire them unless you have a good reason to. It's then hoped that the boredom makes you leave. However, that goes in to point two:

* Putting people in such a position is alienating and potentially damaging mentally. You are seen as the guy who does fuck all by your colleagues, you are not allowed to take another job in the mean time, itb is mentally unfulfilling and morally discouraging. Do so at your own risks, because there have been plenty of instances where the employer has had to pay damages.

Basically, if you want to fire someone, either do it and pay the (quite expensive if the employee has been here for a while) indemnities, or don't. The halfway solution of boring them until they quit is illegal.

That doesn't seem right. This discussion (as I understand it) is NOT about having a full time employee with no access.

It is when somebody is explicitly fired and laid off (as is the case in Coinbase, and all the examples I believe we've been discussing in this thread).

They DO know what their status is, it's not ambiguous. Essentially it is: "Hi; You've been laid off; your services are no longer required; we will continue paying you for the remainder of your contractual notice period / two weeks; you'll get whatever package is due to you; please go home and ensure you take all of your materials with you."

This is completely unrelated to any notion of effectively dis-empowering an active employee or keeping them in the dark.

Wait, France makes it illegal to keep paying an employee and tell them not to do any work?

That sounds awful.

Doubly so if it's alienating and you require them to come to work, as it is considered harassment and mental abuse.

you may however send the employee home with his full salary and no obligation to work. I know, worker protection is a crazy concept.

You started by quoting

>> You can definitely be paid laid off employee for a period of time, while having your access revoked.

and replying

> In France, this is a breach of contract

And now you write

> you may however send the employee home with his full salary and no obligation to work

Which was exactly the original claim!

I'm not sure if you misread or misunderstood, but you have been arguing incorrectly in most of your subsequent replies, and the sarcastic jibes at other countries don't help.

France is a more trusting society than the USA, so I won't be surprised if gardening leave is less common, but you can be sure it's sometimes used when employees of investment banks, defence contractors, the government, military etc are made redundant or resign.

The core part of the problem is "you revoke his access". It's simple. You revoke someone's access, it is akin to firing, and it is illegal.

Send people home with their severence after the necessary period to inform the employee that they're getting fired, sure. But telling them out of the blue "Fuck off, don't come to work today, your access is revoked" is a breach of contract and is illegal.

So, no, you cannot be a paid laid off employee with no access. You're either employee, paid a salary and with access, or not an employee with your severance package and no access. There is no inbetween, and your lack of reading comprehension doesn't mean i misunderstood.

It is not "Akin to firing", it IS an action following firing or laying off.

>>You're either employee, paid a salary and with access, or not an employee with your severance package and no access.

The latter. It's the latter. We've all been discussing the latter (or at least that's my impression, as that's what the original article is about, and certainly what my post was about :).

There's no way this is true.