As far as I see it, this is a measure to fight against unpaid overtime - which is abundant at least in southern european countries, where being a "good" professional implies working late by default (even if say a Greek is less productive in 10 hours than a German is in 5). So it should also foster an increase in productivity on an hourly basis - meaning less glocals/facebook checking during working hours for those of you on the other side of the border :P

I have a hard time understanding why "The Australian" is being quoted for a story about France ( ;) )  so here is a more reputable source, with the actual text of the agreement:

http://www.lesechos.fr/economie-politique/politique/actu/0203424438907-syntec-reconnait-le-droit-des-cadres-a-la-deconnexion-662543.php

According to the OECD, the annual household disposable income growth in france went down 0.3%, GDP growth is at 0%, government debt as % of GDP has gone up, taxes on the average worker went up, import went down (reflecting decrease in growth), purchasing power went down, unemployment rate went up to more than 10.2%, average time worked per person is among the lowest in Europe, and generally while France is still the 2nd biggest economy in Europe it is not doing very well.

Can anyone explain to me the economic benefit of this agreement?
Even less work hours, in a country that already has one of the lowest work hours per person in Europe?

Asking genuinly to try and understand the economic thought behind it.
Thanks.

Disclaimer: I'm not a specialist in French politics, so I might be wrong.

But going back to the subject, you have to read between the lines in these things. Notice that unpaid working hours means they are not declared, hence they are not part of the statistics. 

The agreement as far as I see it leaves firms with two options:

a) Start declaring these extra hours - this will increase hours only in statistical terms, but will also increase tax revenues for the state, income for workers, and cut firms' profits - and in a way limits how much firms can "explore" their employees.

b) Push workers to be more efficient. This has zero statistical impact, but gives workers incentives to be more efficient whenever possible, since in most cases they will be expected to have the same output of work in less hours.

A last word of caution to Yaron regarding hours' statistic: This is a very tricky indicator. For instance, before the crisis the EU country with higher hours worked per week was Greece. On the same line, the ONLY country in the EU for which hours went up during the Great Recession was Spain. And for instance in Germany's case, a lot of firms negotiated reductions of working hours with workers during the worst years of the crisis to avoid firing them. This will automatically reduce the hours indicator, whereas the other alternative - firing workers and keep working hours the same - would increase (or at least mantain) the hours' statistics.

Hope this was not too confusing.

As I understand it, the "no emails after 6pm" policy aims in reducing stress among employees; workers' unions were concerned by the fact that new technologies makes it impossible for some to disconnect from work duties (emails, calls). Occupational/public health services in France are concerned by the fact that about 25% of French people are using anti-depressant and anxiolitics on a regular basis; and most of the people recognize their working conditions as cause (if not the primary cause) of their anxiety/stress.

And to be honest, this new policy is not a bad thing. Being reachable 24/7 should not become the new standard. If a manager is unable to get from his employees what needs to be done during working hours, either he's a bad manager, either he should employ extra staff.

It was only after a long and often bitter struggle that trade unions and other organizations defending workers’ rights were able to negotiate time for adequate rest and recreation for employees in the western world but now that hard-won concession is being eroded as employers save on staffing costs by pressurizing their employees to be on call 24/7 any and every place – even, reports say, in hospital beds.

We may tut-tut when we hear shocking stories of employee exploitation in other parts of the world, but is the situation really that much better here when managements prefer to reduce the number of rank-and-file positions rather than trim the bonuses of a few at the top of the ladder?

lazy ... ... ...

There is no law forbidding work emails in France after 6 pm. Some unions just recognized that legal rest time should be respected for autonomous workers which are counting work days instead of hours.

35h week and 5weeks holiday DO NOT apply to this category of workers, barely protected by any law in theory, nearly none in reality, and hardly defended by unions as they are not employees. It would not concern more than 250 000 people according to some sources.
More infos for example on http://www.lesechos.fr/economie-politique/politique/actu/0203424438907-syntec-reconnait-le-droit-des-cadres-a-la-deconnexion-662543.php

Perhaps its not a bad idea.  The 35 hr work week is not realistic in many French businesses as workers are expected to get things done just like everywhere else in the world.  I have known of French people working 50 hrs a week or more because they had to get something done, but then, they are paid for 35 hrs because there's a no overtime policy.  However, if you don't get things done, management will find someone else who will, and who is willing to do it for less.  This has become a standard in a lot of companies in France... and in most western countries to be honest.  The fact that the legal work week in France is 35 hrs, doesn't mean that people just work their 35 hours.  In a way, it seems they are worse off than other countries where 40 hrs per week is the standard.

As we continue to move into a work environment were a single employee does the work of what normally would be done by 2 or 3 people, I don't see this new law as a bad thing.  Companies are sitting on a lot of money these days, and they are not using this money to hire more people (as they should).  At the contrary, companies continue to downsize and those employees that remain, end up doing more work, sometimes in exchange for maybe 5% more on their paycheck.  This results in more burn out cases and increased frustration and unhappiness for everyone.  Profits are increased, but the quality of the way we conduct business might probably not be the same as before.