(writing in progress, draft)
Suicides at France Telecom, a sign of the weakness of its employees under the terms of Christophe Barbier ?
I sincerely believe that the problem is elsewhere, and refers to a problem I already had occasion to comment : the contradiction between a France that was immersed in the competition (market opening in Europe and global competition for openings ,...) sector monopoly and its social system, which is quite generous relative to the average of developed countries, but whose generosity is focused on defending the statutes, rather than accompany the transitions.
For our social system, although evolving, is largely influenced by compensation status past (allowance as% of final salary, job search more focused on the present than on the qualification that it would be useful to develop for the future, no guidance system worthy of the name, managed by industry training which means that large sectors of the past have essentially means any and emerging sectors) rather than transitions useful preparation (skills assessment, training, guidance, creation business, anticipate change ,...). The public is not left, instead of marking a body system where the status is acquired for the lives of 25 years by academic ability. But
competition produces efficiency precisely by reducing rents, and thus upsetting the statutes. It will stress the need to recognize and support - what John Hicks summarized in the phrase "The best of all monopoly profits Is A Quiet Life" (which also means that the biggest drawback of Competition is a stressful life). And those who suffer most are those who, starting from a situation of status (ie the case in former monopolies) face the need to manage a career transition (change of position, profession or business) without having the "social capital" - including friends or training that can " bounce "- or be accompanied (pole job does not help, or whatever, people with jobs at risk, unnecessary, or place holder in a position of unbearable stress). And it has nothing to do with a supposed weakness of the public official: it covers some agents of France Telecom, but also the textile workers of 50 years in northern France, a wine of Beaujolais threatened by competition of foreign wine or a young journalism student faces the effects on employment in his trade as the Internet wave.
In these conditions, one can imagine three "worlds" possible: a world of caste, status and low economic performance (which is also reflected in a lower quality of health care system, a greatest poverty, ... ) but also of injustice "latent" (inability of a brilliant young to make a career if not of good status or good "body", more linked to professional success who knows that what we can do, crony capitalism ...). A second state
the "world" as possible, and that the current situation in France, combines openness to competition and lack of support system wide enough (regarding those who lost their jobs but also those who do have not yet, trainees and those in a job that they want to get out). It has the advantages of competition for most mobile (educated or "good families" who can reap the benefits of globalization while avoiding the risks, or who are in their "network" to anticipate and levers accompany their professional transitions) and disadvantages for those who are less so (unless someone educated or highly specialized in a business subject to competition, and do not have the networks to "bounce"). He has, for the more modest, injustices "latent" status of a world of violence with "dynamic" of a competitive world (sudden loss of employment without opportunity to prepare a result, job changes not allowed , unanticipated, disqualification because of lack of qualification in the trades "carriers" or redirect it ...). Best placed, on the contrary, the benefits of purchasing power of a world in competition with the peace of a world of caste.
The third possibility is that of a more productive and more "dynamic", accompanied by a social system that reduces violence status changes and the questioning of annuities. This is the one that describes brilliantly John Sutton.
Or is the responsibility? First, for organizing the opening to competition (market liberalization, open markets, competition within Europe) - which was a good thing - without at the same time developed the necessary social support for these developments. Political leaders such as Jacques Delors has repeatedly denounced the risks induced by this lack of "social pillar" in the European construction and opening its markets , but the phenomenon is broader.
The responsibility is then to have been slow to react to this lack. In defense of the powers that have followed, supporting the idea that "human" is an essential part of our social system is relatively recent - it dates from a few years. Before that, the "experts" offered at left, a development of social law (working time, the fight against stress) and to the right, liberalization (opening up the market placement of the unemployed, reducing the complexity of the law). To some extent, these proposals were, at least in part, a utility. But she never touched the heart of the problem and how to make decisions that will better orient, train and support people affected for restructuring in all its forms. From this point of view, the cause is the lack of reflection and "research and development" policy ideas: politicians, government, researchers and parties bear the responsibility ... Again, responsibility is diffuse - there account including party leaders who have drained their "intellectuals" to strength to exploit, not to listen or discourage those who would have liked to spend time with the "r & d policy.
The cause is also the level of centralization of our country: in fact the attenuation of stress related to competition called operational responses, close to the people and their problems, where experts - economists and officials - looking for recipes the only visible problems in their ivory tower statistic (which does not measure the malaise at work, nor happiness elsewhere), and solutions that can be expressed by the requirements expressed by them, and carried by agents of those lands that nobody asked to think ... Somehow, many economists are the spiritual children of planners, with the efficiency that we know.
To return to the subject of this article, it is obviously true that the welfare state made people weak. Now is the pressure level associated with the evolution of competition that induces sometimes intolerable pressures (the careful reader will note the place of countries as "soft" vis-à-vis their employees than the United States). The solution lies in supporting transitions, rather than the "mental capacity" of personal considered too weak! Speaking of weakness in these cases is as relevant as to propose the cake for those who lack bread: it does not help find a solution, besides being insulting - although this is probably a blunder that could have been avoided by adjusting the strength of assertions to the sensitivity and complexity of the situation ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment