Basically, the employer has to ask for permission to hire a foreigner over a local (or EU) national - which involves giving proof that the employer has attempted to fill a given position with a candidate from within France or within the EU. It involves showing that the position has been posted for a certain time with Pôle d'emploi (the unemployment agency) and elsewhere for a certain minimum time, and evidence that the candidates that did put in for the post were not acceptable (and for what specific reasons).
Cheers,
Bev

 

Perfect Thanks!

 

some kind of fee?

Doesn't the employer also need to pay something like 900€ ?

(I understand that the employee can offer to pay everything in the process as well, but most expect the company to put up with all the expenses of the process)

 

Doesn't the employer also need to pay something like 900€ ?

(I understand that the employee can offer to pay everything in the process as well, but most expect the company to put up with all the expenses of the process)

It's rare that any government office in France does anything for free, but I don't have the particulars about the fees involved. The difficult part is getting the permission to hire a foreigner, and I suspect if it were known that the candidate is offering to pay the employer's fees, that could jeopardize the approval.
Cheers,
Bev

 

Boo! There are non-EU citizens who want to work in France too

 

Oddly enough, the vast majority of voters seem to feel that a national government's first obligation is towards its own citizens. (There are non-US citizens who want to work in the US, too. Just look at the reception they get there!)
Cheers,
Bev

 

That's why our current international system is nothing but a dressed up version of feudalism.

 

The problem is that there is no one "international system." It's a patchwork of each country setting its own standards - and appealing to its own national voters. Any consistency between the various systems is pretty much coincidental.
Cheers,
Bev

 

I don't think you understood what I was referring to.

I was making an analogy between countries and fiefs. We have more or less the same freedom to move about as serfs did. And I mean "we" as everybody, not just the few privileged people who fall into special categories allowing them to go live and work wherever they want.

The problem is that there is no one "international system."

Again, I don't think we are talking about the same thing. There is an international system to which all countries belong to, which enforces the very entity of a nation-state, or country, it's borders, the entitlement to its own laws, etc.

This is the one international system that everybody must play by. And it is very feudal.

I think what you meant is that there isn't one international system as if the whole world were one country. That's what I was pointing to, because it's this fragmentation into fiefs dressed up as countries that chains people to their original fief (country) and largely impedes mobility, freedom of choice, etc.

 

I think what you meant is that there isn't one international system as if the whole world were one country. That's what I was pointing to, because it's this fragmentation into fiefs dressed up as countries that chains people to their original fief (country) and largely impedes mobility, freedom of choice, etc.

The difference is that these "fiefs" are governed by various types of political systems rather than "overlords". Although it could be argued that some countries still have one overlord who does whatever s/he wants, while others have a group of people who collaborate.

Calling it's fiefs is just playing word games. But whatever. We can all still dream of Utopia.