have existed without the law; this indicates that improved employer flexibility helps reduce unemployment. Estimates of the number of jobs created because of CNEs vary according to sources, from 80,000 per year (INSEE National Institute of Statistics extrapolations) to 29 percent of all CNEs (Ifop, December 2005). A June 2006 Les Échos study is the latest available study, and the first one based on actual figures. According to the study 440,000 CNE contracts were signed between August 2005 and April 2006, 10 percent (44,000) of which would not have existed under existing job contracts. This is significant, since there were only 50,000 private-sector jobs created in 2005. The study also showed that an additional 20 percent of jobs would have been delayed without a CNE, demonstrating employers' reluctance to hire under existing long-term contracts. Employee benefits One consequence of the two-year probation is flexibility for employees, who are free to change jobs during their first two years without the usual one- to three-month advance notice required by long-term contracts. The 2006 Les Echos study demonstrated that more CNE contracts were terminated by employees (45 percent) than by employers (38 percent). Opposition The CNE law passed quietly in August 2005, with less opposition than that sparked by the CPE since it applies to non-unionized businesses. However, its repeal was a primary goal of demonstrations held on October 4, 2005. After the April 2006 cancellation of the First Employment Contract, unions have increased pressure to cancel this contract; they contend that it creates precarious work for employees, endangering job security. Opponents of the law argue that the new "flexibility" negates labour laws which the workers' movement secured after decades of struggle. They argue that it may be difficult to counter the inversion of the burden of the proof introduced by the new contract (for example, if an employee is fired because of psychological pressure such as sexual harassment). In contrast to a CDI contract, CNE employees are at a disadvantage in obtaining credit or housing. This claim, however, has been denied by banks. After the February 20, 2006 judgment (see below), the CGT trade union declared that "the magistrate has put in evidence the embezzlement of the CNE and the abusive character of the rupture": "it is the principle itself of the CNE which allows such illegitimate use: by suppressing the guaranties which protect against abusive firing, the CNE favorize all arbitrary