- il y a 2 jours
Certains mots sont d’un usage si courant qu’on finit par les utiliser sans en interroger le sens. Travail… par exemple.
Depuis la nuit des temps l’homme travaille, or du Paléolithique à nos jours cette activité n’a cessé d’évoluer. Qu’est-ce que le travail aujourd’hui ? Le travail est-il devenu une marchandise ? Et qu’achète-t-on sur le marché du travail? Pourquoi et comment est apparu le Code du travail ?
Depuis la nuit des temps l’homme travaille, or du Paléolithique à nos jours cette activité n’a cessé d’évoluer. Qu’est-ce que le travail aujourd’hui ? Le travail est-il devenu une marchandise ? Et qu’achète-t-on sur le marché du travail? Pourquoi et comment est apparu le Code du travail ?
Catégorie
📚
ÉducationTranscription
00:00Let's go!
00:33Wages are the sum of money that the capitalist pays for a specific amount of work or for the
00:39provision of a specific task.
00:43So, what is Marx talking about here? He's talking about what we call the
00:48abstract work.
00:48Abstract work, that is to say indeterminate work, interchangeable work, work without quality.
00:56Someone who can work on one task, then move on to another, or even another factory, without
01:03transition.
01:04To describe human activity, work and employment appear as two interchangeable terms.
01:11In ordinary terms today, employment is the term most often used to refer to work.
01:22Work and employment refer to two concepts that are not identical, it seems to me.
01:34In work, we see something physical.
01:39We sense a process of a physical nature, of effort being made.
01:49In employment, there is already a form of institutionalization of the work process.
02:00The proof is that people often say that unemployment is an invention.
02:06If you go to my village in Togo, the concept of employment will be relative.
02:16Because there are periods when people don't do much, because the land is in
02:23wasteland,
02:24They need to be allowed to rebuild themselves, and then there are periods when people will be working extremely hard.
02:33And so, the concept of employment, from this point of view, will be linked to the method or the process
02:43of institutionalization in society.
02:48So, there is a former director of the French Development Agency in Burkina Faso,
02:53who once told me, Kako, your cotton producers, you shouldn't pay them much,
03:05because when they are not producing cotton, they are not doing anything else.
03:15And he told me that we should use these producers to clean up rural tracks during periods when
03:25They don't farm.
03:28So, I told him, during your summer holidays in France, we should use you to go
03:35cleaning the Eiffel Tower
03:37since you are not working during your holidays.
03:41Well, he wasn't very happy, but he was someone who had been a French aid worker in Africa.
03:47who still hadn't understood that a society has its own rhythms, values, and traditions,
03:56and has its own concept of work, and its own concept of employment.
04:00Employment is an exchange between; I give up all freedom, all control over what I will do.
04:08TO DO,
04:09and in exchange, I have minimal or optimal economic and physical security.
04:15And the scope of social justice, the perimeter of social justice, is restricted to exchanges of quantity.
04:22There was a debate that has regained great relevance today, with the beginnings of Taylorism.
04:32who has traversed the political and trade union left.
04:36We wondered...
04:38Well, we have entire masses of people who are assigned to slave labor.
04:45This has been beautifully portrayed by artists.
04:47I mentioned Chaplin, but one could also think of Fritz Lang; it captures that historical moment, a century ago.
04:55Exactly.
04:56We ask ourselves, what kind of world are we building?
05:02And let's say, there were two possible answers.
05:06The answer that ultimately prevailed historically and led to the creation of employment,
05:10It is to say, well, this subjection to meaningless work is necessary.
05:21This is the price to pay for technological modernity.
05:25There is a science of work organization that compels us to treat human beings as
05:32gears
05:32and therefore deprive them of the experience of meaning in what they do.
05:42Employment generally means a job.
05:45So we work for someone else.
05:47In European history, working for someone else was considered an activity
05:57and reserved essentially for the youngest, for those who were not yet adults.
06:06It wasn't something that was done continuously, except for the learning phase.
06:16In the Middle Ages, everyone had to work for someone else, for example as a servant.
06:22And this applies not only to craftsmen, farmers or domestic servants.
06:29There were nobles who served the higher nobility.
06:34Everyone, from top to bottom, had to spend time working for someone else.
06:40What was once considered a service is what we now consider a job.
06:51In German, there is activity.
06:53Employment and work are practically synonymous.
06:58Employment includes self-employment in a liberal profession.
07:02Perhaps we could make this distinction between the work of the self-employed worker
07:07and that of the salaried worker.
07:10But the lexical, ideological distinction is not very clear.
07:17Work is the act of working.
07:25Employment is the act of working in a formal market.
07:31There is a capitalist, there is a worker, there is a formal professional agreement.
07:39according to which the worker will work 8 hours for a given salary.
07:44Selling boxes of matches on the street is work.
07:47This is not employment.
07:50What we want is to have a job.
07:53We are less concerned about the issue of work.
07:56We want to be part of society, to have an income,
08:01because we are stigmatized when we don't have a job,
08:05Well, we're looking for a job while forgetting about the work aspect.
08:11what the meaning of the work one does can be,
08:14or the working conditions under which this employment relationship will be carried out.
08:21The definition of employment, according to the ILO, the International Labour Organization,
08:29starts from the principle that someone who is paid for more than one hour per week is employed.
08:37To me, it's a joke.
08:39Someone who delivers newspapers in the morning, you're not going to tell me he's an employee.
08:44This is not a job that allows him to feed his family.
08:48It's a trick to sugarcoat the pill.
08:54More and more people are supposed to be employed, but are in fact unemployed.
08:59They were removed from the statistics to make the figures more presentable.
09:06In Germany, the ruling party claims that there is full employment.
09:10But that's not true.
09:14We often hear about employment, every day, when reading the newspaper, when listening to television.
09:20Because the employment we're referring to here isn't work, it's employment at
09:26macroeconomic sense.
09:27That is to say, it effectively allows us to talk about employment policy, employment levels, etc.
09:39However, in this case, we are referring to something which, upon reflection, is not strictly speaking
09:48to speak of an individual job, but a sum of jobs.
09:52From a macroeconomic point of view, employment is a statistic.
09:57This is the number of people who, at a given time, occupy a position, have performed a job
10:10over a given period of time, for example.
10:12Okay? So we'll say we're at full employment if it doesn't exist or if it
10:16There are few people who are supposed to be working, are looking for a job at some point in time, and don't...
10:23They can't find it.
10:24Okay? So that's the job.
10:27But indeed, that's not the job.
10:29So, there's this inversion, this lexical inversion which, in my opinion, is, well, that
10:36I have never been able to help but see the discourse of the
10:43Economic theory, the discourse of economic science.
10:45The thing is, in ordinary life, people ask for a job.
10:53And in economic theory, employees provide labor.
10:57So everything is a complete mess.
11:00During the industrial era, employment conditions became codified and, in a way, ossified.
11:07In May 1968, particularly in France, employees demanded more freedom and initiative.
11:15If we have a form of work that is constantly interchangeable, a form of work that has no
11:23of quality, which is work without quality
11:25work that anyone can do and that can be done anywhere, ultimately.
11:31It would seem that this type of work was well suited to the industrial era.
11:35That corresponded well to a period that goes, I don't know, let's say from the beginning of the 19th century until the
11:431900s, 1960s,
11:46at the point where we will have both mass production and mass consumption.
11:51And then, starting in the 1970s, we had a whole discourse on this subject.
11:56a whole discourse surrounding product differentiation.
11:59That is to say, we will no longer mass-produce two grey horses all the same
12:07options,
12:08but a whole range of products that will be differentiated according to consumer tastes.
12:14And that will also lead to the differentiation of the worker's tasks.
12:18The worker will be able to be more versatile.
12:20The whole discourse revolves around, no longer Taylorism, fragmented work based on tasks, but Toyotism.
12:27This means that the workers will be able to change tasks,
12:30We're going to have quality controls, we're going to trace the work chain, etc.
12:35And then, with the arrival of new technologies in the 80s and 90s,
12:39We still have a discourse surrounding work that is being redefined.
12:43in the sense that we will need highly qualified people
12:48who will be able to apply their skills to complex tools.
12:54Around 1968, in all Western countries, but particularly in France,
13:00where there were, nevertheless, three weeks of general strike with factory occupations,
13:03There has been a global questioning of the Taylorist-Fordist rules of the game in companies.
13:09And what was interesting was that, for example, the slogan emerged
13:15not to lose their lives earning a living, a desire on the part of the workers
13:20to be able to flourish and achieve fulfillment in their work,
13:24to be able to contribute one's own skills while being recognized for the qualities one puts into one's work.
13:31And so, the employees, especially the workers, demanded dignity.
13:35but a little more autonomy, more freedom at work,
13:39greater recognition for the qualities put into the work and the quality of the commitment.
13:46And this revolt truly traumatized the employers.
13:50because company management, as employers, were convinced
13:54that they would not be able to get this rebellious working class back to work.
13:59So, a way had to be found to continue exploiting this workforce.
14:07with their consent, with their consent.
14:09And a truly new managerial model has emerged.
14:13which was based on a very interesting foundation,
14:18from their perspective as employers,
14:19This involves individualizing the management of employees.
14:25and the organization of their work.
14:27And that was a real Trojan horse.
14:30because, obviously, it allows you to reverse the balance of power
14:35which had manifested itself in such an unfavorable way,
14:38But at the same time, employers have developed a whole rhetoric
14:43To put it simply, a bit like De Gaulle said at the time,
14:47"I understand you," he said.
14:49"We understand what you want."
14:51"You, the employees, want freedom, autonomy,
14:55"We will give you recognition and dignity."
14:58But this necessarily involves individualization.
15:02And so, we saw the arrival of a whole series of devices
15:06seemingly innocuous things, such as variable working hours,
15:10which in fact meant a full-blown attack on collectives.
15:13because if we don't hire at the same time,
15:16We don't take our breaks at the same time.
15:18We don't have lunch at the same time, we don't go out together,
15:20So it destabilizes the groups a bit,
15:22in the same way as job rotation,
15:25to introduce variety.
15:27But that means we're no longer side by side in the workshop.
15:29and that we no longer have that feeling of sharing a common destiny within the company.
15:34And then afterwards, there was the individualization of bonuses,
15:38quite naturally.
15:40If you want to be recognized for your true qualities,
15:43We need to make a distinction, and we will reward them.
15:46those who have the best commitment to their work,
15:48which are the most efficient, the most inventive.
15:51Then afterwards, there was the individualization of salaries.
15:54And we were moving away from this equation of equal work, equal pay.
15:57And so, it's truly an explosion
15:59of the common identity of the working class
16:03to arrive at this famous interview with each employee
16:06with his hierarchical superior, with his N plus 1,
16:09during which each person is given personal goals
16:14and then, after a year, evaluated on his personal performance.
16:18This leads to what we can now see in companies,
16:20It's about showing us who you are.
16:23Show us what you are capable of.
16:26Amaze us, surpass yourselves!
16:28The difficulty that Fordism encountered,
16:31The joys were not linked to the work itself.
16:38which was a little less arduous than in the mining days,
16:43but not much less.
16:47And obviously, this limit had effects on productivity.
16:54that the crisis of Fordism, at the end of the 1960s, at the beginning of the 1970s,
16:58began to become apparent.
17:01Capitalism has overcome this problem
17:03by taking the path of work enrichment
17:06it affects an intrinsic joyful feeling,
17:08that is, by undertaking to convince employees
17:10that real life is life at work,
17:12that it is at work that we truly find fulfillment.
17:15Self-realization is self-realization in and through work.
17:20Well, this gives rise to a whole host of demonstrations and practices,
17:25which oscillate between the grotesque and the desolate,
17:30around the false promises of autonomy,
17:33based on seminars for executives,
17:36where they were introduced to the practice of laughing together,
17:41and even to entirely contemporary extremes,
17:46enough to make your eyes pop out of their sockets.
17:47There is now a new kind of leader in the company,
17:53a new functional position within the company's management structure,
17:57who is called the "chief happiness officer",
17:59that is to say, the director in charge of happiness.
18:01So there you have it, we bundle up, we snuggle up,
18:04It shows that we care about the employees.
18:06Then there's another part which is,
18:10You shouldn't joke around when you're an employer.
18:13We want to attract, we want to get employees on board.
18:16This method is found through psychological means of provoking them.
18:20but they still need to stick to certain methods
18:23that we find the most effective ones.
18:25And so, there is still a whole body of methodology,
18:29methods, protocols, processes,
18:32practices, benchmarked best practices, reporting,
18:36All of this is necessary and imposed on all employees
18:40whether they are managers, employees, technicians, operators.
18:43And here, we see that we are already entering into dimensions
18:45highly contradictory within the model,
18:48because on the one hand, you are told,
18:50We're counting on your intuition, your intelligence,
18:52You must push yourself, you must be excellent.
18:55Show us everything you're capable of.
18:57And then, on the other hand, yes, but then be careful,
18:58How are you going to do it? We'll tell you.
19:00specifically, how did they think, for you,
19:03international expert firms
19:05who defined the procedures and protocols
19:07And who will tell you how, you
19:09regardless of your level of education or intelligence,
19:12You have to work.
19:13Because, of course, fraudulent promises are more or less valid
19:15when everything is going well, in ordinary weather.
19:18But as soon as there is a crisis situation,
19:20These are the vital stakes of capitalism.
19:22which immediately resurface,
19:24In other words, yes, we'll have to increase productivity.
19:26We're going to have to close some sites.
19:28Costs will have to be reduced.
19:29profitability will need to be increased again
19:32for the shareholders, etc., etc.
19:33And all of this will be done with a knout.
19:35That is to say, the chief happiness officer,
19:38He will put it on hold for a while.
19:40Or he will try to present something beautiful.
19:43but dwelling on this disaster
19:47productivist and financial.
19:48There is another element,
19:49and which is completely harmful,
19:51to force employees,
19:53regardless of their level,
19:54to agree to adhere to these protocols
19:57and these processes and best practices,
19:59This is somewhat in line with Taylor's aim.
20:01who said, "Knowledge is power",
20:03It's a questioning of the professions,
20:07knowledge, employee experience,
20:10by simply making them obsolete
20:12through constant change.
20:15We practice constant change
20:17in such a way that the experience
20:19become obsolete
20:20and that employees cannot
20:22to legitimately claim
20:24to their knowledge
20:26from their experience,
20:27of their profession to say
20:28“Ah no, no, no, work,
20:29That's not how it's done.
20:30I am a professional.
20:32or a professional woman
20:33I have experience,
20:34"They're not going to do this to me just like that."
20:35because they will be answered
20:36"Ah yes, but that was before."
20:38Now, everything has changed.
20:44In the United States, in schools,
20:46more and more teachers
20:48were called upon to follow
20:49precise indications
20:51about what they should do,
20:53how to teach,
20:55how to deal with this or that situation.
21:00They are not employed
21:03by capitalists,
21:04but by the State.
21:06We find here
21:07all the features
21:09of an employer-employee relationship
21:11in a private company.
21:13The way of working
21:15from the private sector
21:16spread
21:17in the public sector.
21:19We do what we are told to do.
21:21Actually,
21:24our ability to make use
21:26of our judgment
21:27to have creativity
21:29tends to be fought.
21:32We are losing control.
21:33power over what we do.
21:37And the idea,
21:38that's what the employees
21:39clinging on
21:40to all these procedures,
21:42these protocols,
21:42like lifebuoys
21:43because in reality,
21:45they are in a universe
21:46where everything is constantly moving.
21:47The departments are being restructured.
21:50and the services without interruption.
21:51We are restructuring the professions.
21:53We're changing the software.
21:54We outsource,
21:56then we internalize
21:57activities.
21:58Systematic mobility is imposed
22:00to the intermediate hierarchy.
22:02We are carrying out geographical relocations.
22:04so that people
22:05they no longer know each other
22:06they no longer know their customers
22:07the services they depend on,
22:09etc.
22:10And in short,
22:11all professional benchmarks
22:12switch
22:13and the employees
22:14are immersed
22:15in what I call
22:16a subjective precariousness.
22:18Hence this fatigue,
22:20this feeling of exhaustion
22:22which is called burnout.
22:23We have to start over all the time.
22:24It's never over.
22:25And what's more,
22:27a personal breakdown
22:28which comes from the fact
22:29that we no longer trust
22:30within oneself.
22:31The risk of harm
22:33to mental health
22:37was practically unknown
22:38in the world
22:38of the traditional industry.
22:40Exactly,
22:41that of...
22:42What we risked,
22:43It's mind-numbing.
22:44We're idiots,
22:45Good,
22:46But it doesn't make you delirious.
22:48Gold,
22:51what we observe,
22:52Well then,
22:53The law is a good indicator.
22:55mental health problems
22:57emerging in the Code
22:58French labor
22:59I believe,
22:59It's the late 80s.
23:00early 1990s.
23:02We see the emergence of,
23:03we must be careful
23:04to mental health.
23:06Good,
23:06What's going on?
23:07SO,
23:07Since,
23:07there was an increase
23:08potentially.
23:10Workplace suicides
23:11are only the famous part
23:14the tip of the iceberg
23:15because there is
23:16all the disorders,
23:17depression,
23:20There's a whole sudden thing going on.
23:22And statistics
23:23are very impressive.
23:25I think that's it
23:25in January 2018,
23:28statistics
23:29health insurance
23:30regarding accidents
23:31professionals in France,
23:32we see a very slight decrease
23:35reported accidents
23:37and occupational diseases
23:39and a multiplication
23:41by seven
23:42mental illnesses
23:43in five years.
23:44By seven
23:45in five years.
23:47SO,
23:47we are facing
23:49to fashions
23:50work organization
23:51who create
23:52mental suffering
23:53in all organizations.
23:55And that,
23:56it's something
23:56which is built
23:57as a strategy
23:58because I,
23:59I had heard
23:59in the 1980s,
24:01Part two
24:02from the 90s,
24:03an official
24:04from France Telecom,
24:05of which we then know
24:06What became of it?
24:08tell me,
24:10You know,
24:10Mrs,
24:11What is my real job?
24:12I say,
24:13No,
24:13tell me,
24:14my job,
24:14it's about producing
24:15of amnesia.
24:16Ah,
24:17I said,
24:17Good,
24:17What does that mean?
24:18I am here
24:19to ensure
24:20that the agents,
24:22because at the time,
24:22They are agents.
24:23They forget professional values,
24:26the values of public services,
24:28the rules of the trade
24:29that they had previously
24:31because we're going to start
24:32a commercial shift,
24:33that we will totally
24:34transforming the company
24:35And so,
24:36I want to start from scratch.
24:37of everything they have
24:39in the head
24:39so that they are receptive
24:41to all the news
24:43ways of working
24:44that we want to see them take.
24:45I say,
24:45Yes,
24:45But how do we do it?
24:47To create amnesia?
24:48He told me,
24:49Mrs,
24:49It's very easy.
24:50you need to shake the cocotte
24:51permanently.
24:52What does that mean?
24:53To move.
24:54SO,
24:55at the time,
24:55he told me,
24:56to get them out
24:57of their routines,
24:58of their habits,
24:59from their networks of complicity.
25:00Things need to change
25:01because in that way,
25:03they will be a little lost
25:05and will be very happy
25:06to listen to us
25:07and to follow us
25:08when we tell them
25:10how to work.
25:11Is it work,
25:12Today,
25:13was a climb
25:14in skills,
25:15was he
25:16An increase in versatility?
25:18Well,
25:19Maybe not.
25:20In fact.
25:20Perhaps
25:21new technologies,
25:24new technologies,
25:25the work that we owe
25:26to apply them,
25:27either it does not exist
25:28since they are algorithms
25:30who will produce the work,
25:32So, finally,
25:33It is pure abstract work.
25:36That's to say,
25:36Anyone can do it.
25:38Anyone can do it
25:39PowerPoints
25:40to prepare for the next meeting
25:44brainstorming
25:45where we will talk
25:46from the next meeting
25:48which will relate
25:49how could we do
25:51to improve processes.
25:53SO,
25:54endless meetings
25:56if you wish
25:57with a job
25:58completely interchangeable
25:59that just about anyone
26:01who would have the baccalaureate
26:02could do,
26:03bulk.
26:04and this work,
26:06Ultimately,
26:07he becomes
26:09practically devoid
26:09of meaning.
26:10SO,
26:11we come from
26:11to an idea
26:13according to which
26:15we can't see
26:16what it is used for.
26:17We can't see
26:17what is it used for
26:18probably
26:18because it serves no purpose.
26:20And perhaps we've arrived,
26:22despite all the talk
26:23around the climb
26:24in competence,
26:25We may have arrived
26:26to the pure form
26:26abstract work,
26:28that is to say, work
26:28which is no longer of any use,
26:30which produces nothing
26:32and finally
26:33which is only
26:34counted.
26:35Accounted for,
26:36as Marx told us,
26:37in time
26:37or in a task.
26:40Neoliberalism
26:42promotes
26:42a form of employment
26:43both archaic
26:45and new,
26:46self-employment.
26:48The employees
26:49transform
26:50as micro-entrepreneurs.
26:52Regarding the employment relationship,
26:53gradually
26:54replaces
26:55a relationship
26:56strictly commercial.
26:59The movement
27:00precisely general
27:01of capitalism,
27:03it's about leaving
27:04of a situation
27:04where people
27:05were self-employed.
27:06In any case,
27:07a good number of people,
27:08you had,
27:08in a country
27:09like France,
27:10the majority
27:11of the population
27:12was either
27:12small farmers
27:13owners,
27:14either small
27:14merchants,
27:15either small
27:15craftsmen,
27:16etc.
27:16The laws of competition
27:18swept all of that away.
27:20The laws of competition
27:20made disappear
27:21all those people.
27:22Even in France,
27:23at the exit
27:23of the Second World War,
27:25we still have
27:25a peasantry
27:26or small shopkeepers
27:27which are extremely numerous.
27:30Take a walk today
27:31in the countryside
27:31or in a city center
27:32French.
27:33There is nothing left but
27:34employees,
27:35Finally,
27:35where there is still
27:37some,
27:37But it's a survival.
27:39SO,
27:39the idea that we will
27:41evolve in the future
27:42in,
27:43how to put it,
27:43by backpedaling
27:44and by reinventing
27:46a class
27:47small landowners
27:48etc.,
27:48I think that
27:49It's a sweet utopia.
27:51Finally,
27:52gentle,
27:52I'm not sure.
27:53Utopia,
27:54I'm sure of it.
27:55Besides,
27:56In reality,
27:56What's going on?
27:57Self-employed individuals,
27:58They are employees in disguise.
28:00And we can see it very clearly.
28:01with the strikes
28:02delivery drivers
28:03who began
28:04to burst out everywhere
28:05or the drivers
28:06from Uber
28:07who became furious.
28:10The fact is,
28:11they are formally
28:12self-employed workers.
28:13In reality,
28:14These are employees
28:15bound hand and foot
28:16to their major client.
28:18Today,
28:20we are witnessing
28:21to a process
28:22of uberization.
28:24There are entire sections
28:26of the economy
28:26who are threatened
28:28through this kind of uberization.
28:29Airbnb threatens
28:31traditional hotels,
28:32Uber drivers
28:34threats
28:35traditional taxis,
28:37For example,
28:38and we hear
28:39much talk
28:40effects
28:41That's disastrous.
28:43But in reality,
28:45why is it
28:45Does it work?
28:46It works
28:47because
28:48the actors
28:48of that game,
28:49they accept
28:50to play it constantly.
28:51We will evaluate
28:54our Uber driver
28:55thanks to the application,
28:57That's funny.
28:58We're going to order
28:59a taxi
28:59when we want
29:00at 3 a.m.
29:03while there is no
29:06other transport
29:06available.
29:07So we want,
29:08instead of making sure
29:11to go home
29:13by public transport,
29:14now we know
29:15that we can count
29:15on Uber, etc.
29:16That brings us
29:17a whole range of services
29:17and we use them
29:18every day.
29:18So there is membership
29:21in fact permanent
29:23of all individuals
29:25to this system.
29:26Even if these same
29:27individuals
29:28who adhere to it
29:30short term
29:32through these actions,
29:33our purchases
29:34at Amazon,
29:36our order
29:36Uber, etc.
29:37Even if these same
29:38actors-there
29:39end up saying
29:40with a little more
29:41recoil
29:41"Oh dear,
29:42it destroys
29:43the company,
29:44it destroys
29:45sections
29:45of the economy,
29:47This poses problems.
29:47Nevertheless
29:48that they adhere to it.
29:50We present
29:51as progress
29:52the act of going
29:53towards a form
29:54joint
29:56a bit commercial
29:57between companies,
30:00moreover reduced
30:00as a result
30:01to a circle
30:01managers
30:02a little narrow
30:03and then
30:04an entire population
30:06self-employed workers
30:07who are chasing after a fee,
30:09who jump
30:09of a task
30:10to another,
30:11who pass
30:11of a contract
30:12or a project
30:13to another.
30:14That,
30:15that evolution,
30:16it is possible
30:17for part,
30:21she catches
30:22something
30:23that many people
30:26wish.
30:27I can see that clearly.
30:28through my children,
30:29in the younger generation,
30:30a certain degree of mobility,
30:31a certain...
30:32But for another part,
30:34she is absolutely
30:35catastrophic
30:36and above all
30:38she misses
30:40what there is
30:41moreover...
30:42what I perceive
30:44more interesting
30:47in the new dimensions
30:50work,
30:50the cooperation dimension
30:53and the innovation dimension.
30:55Otherwise,
30:57the natural tendency,
30:59I would say,
30:59laziness,
31:00And that,
31:00it does not require
31:01a lot of creativity,
31:03it's about continuing
31:05towards this species
31:06of fragmentation
31:07of the employment relationship
31:10with constitution
31:10from a group,
31:12Indeed,
31:12which will never be in the majority
31:14but increasingly
31:15important
31:16employees
31:17who are
31:19fake independent contractors
31:21fake employees.
31:22The status
31:23other entrepreneurs,
31:24who finally
31:25doesn't wear it at all anymore
31:27related
31:27an employer
31:29and an employee,
31:30but finally
31:31two entrepreneurs,
31:33And that status,
31:37he is a kind
31:40of outcome
31:42of a theory
31:44or a vision
31:46rather neoliberal
31:47work
31:47because we will
31:51really extend
31:53the mechanism
31:54competition,
31:55All right ?
31:56The entrepreneur,
31:59instead of hiring
32:00someone
32:00and give him
32:01a status
32:02for a certain period of time,
32:03In fact,
32:04He will appeal
32:05to another
32:07entrepreneur
32:07who will be pushed
32:09to do the work
32:10better
32:11that a
32:13third entrepreneur
32:14that we could take
32:16if we were not satisfied
32:17work
32:18which was done
32:18by what has been proven.
32:19So in fact,
32:20competition
32:22between
32:23the workers
32:24is much stronger
32:25if they have
32:26this status
32:27self-employed
32:28because they will
32:29try everything
32:29to do the work
32:31themselves
32:32at the lowest cost.
32:34This world
32:34A little
32:37neoliberal
32:37that I am referring to,
32:40it is clearly
32:41more
32:43TRUE
32:44and perhaps
32:45also violent
32:46for part
32:49employees
32:51who have little
32:52skills
32:52to be argued,
32:54which finally
32:55the job
32:58could be done
33:00I want to say
33:01by
33:02anyone.
33:04All right ?
33:07And indeed,
33:09for this type
33:10of that work,
33:11companies
33:12are going
33:14probably
33:15wanting to do without
33:16of the workforce
33:17permed
33:18and then have
33:19appeal
33:20has
33:21to contractors,
33:23to self-employed individuals
33:25for a whole bunch
33:26of reasons.
33:27He is not
33:29maybe
33:29intrinsic
33:30to capitalism
33:31to have the employees
33:32within the company.
33:33Perhaps
33:33even better
33:34when the relationship
33:37with the employees
33:38is a relationship
33:39commercial.
33:40So, you see,
33:41all of this makes
33:42A little
33:43doubtful
33:44when we
33:46describe
33:46a certain
33:47number
33:48of developments
33:49in progress
33:50and perhaps
33:51that one of the
33:52challenges
33:54current
33:55one of the great
33:56divisions
33:57in front of which
33:57we are
33:58Today,
33:59It is
34:00there,
34:01within 10
34:01or 20
34:02in the coming years,
34:04in the system
34:04neoliberal
34:05operation
34:06of the labor market
34:07that we know
34:08what's going to
34:09happen
34:10are we going to
34:11again
34:11bring out
34:13a significant part
34:14employees
34:15of the company
34:16or on the contrary,
34:18and you will
34:19guess which scenario
34:20I prefer,
34:21or on the contrary,
34:22is it necessary
34:23to strenghten,
34:25consolidate,
34:27constitutionalize
34:28the presence
34:29employees
34:29in companies
34:31by giving them
34:33their rightful place
34:34in the government
34:35of the company?
34:36Once again,
34:37the future
34:38and the future
34:40according to Marx,
34:40it's not
34:40self-employed individuals,
34:42On the contrary
34:42that the global economy
34:45become one
34:47large cooperative,
34:48it's not about going back
34:49to the crumbling
34:50which preceded
34:51capitalism,
34:52on the contrary,
34:52Marx acknowledged
34:54a progressive role
34:55to capitalism,
34:56he built
34:57a global economy,
34:58he interconnected
34:59all the economies
35:01national,
35:01he ended
35:02in isolation
35:03provinces,
35:04etc.
35:05Marx's idea,
35:06it's not
35:07that we go back
35:08to small producers
35:10crumbled,
35:11it's not
35:11that we spin
35:12of the wheel
35:12of history
35:12upside down,
35:13On the contrary
35:14let's move forward
35:15and let's leave
35:15from this base
35:18socialized,
35:18of an economy
35:19collective in reality
35:21that capitalism
35:22has put in place.
35:23What we observe,
35:24that's what the young man
35:26who becomes self-employed
35:27Or perhaps it works very well.
35:28Or it doesn't work.
35:30If it works very well,
35:31I don't know,
35:31he's going to put himself
35:32in some department or other,
35:33computer science,
35:34video games,
35:35I don't know what.
35:35If it works very well,
35:37to cope
35:38on request
35:38who will come towards him
35:39he will have to
35:40to call on others.
35:41And so,
35:42by force of circumstances,
35:43He becomes a small business owner.
35:45Then if that doesn't work well,
35:47he will have to work
35:47for others.
35:48So we see them reappearing
35:50in various forms,
35:51we can try
35:52to avoid qualification
35:53employment contract,
35:54But anyway,
35:55volance,
35:56no lens,
35:56we find shapes
35:58of a working community
36:00organized
36:01with a principle
36:02of a certain hierarchy.
36:06Economic developments
36:08contemporary
36:08would she carry within her
36:10the disappearance
36:11salaried work
36:12as we know it?
36:13Some economists
36:15They strongly believe this.
36:16others remain
36:17much more skeptical.
36:19In any case,
36:20with robotics
36:21and computerization,
36:22the future of employment
36:24is at stake.
36:26The three units,
36:30units of time,
36:32units of place
36:33and units of action
36:34which define
36:35the work
36:36in capitalism,
36:39are put
36:40severely tested
36:41through the various innovations
36:45to which we are
36:47confronted
36:48at present.
36:52Teleworking
36:54is something
36:55which is developing.
36:56I see in institutions
36:58like the World Bank,
37:00Today,
37:00very clearly,
37:02you can work
37:03from your home
37:05and once,
37:06every two months
37:07or every three months,
37:08you go to headquarters
37:09of the World Bank.
37:10But you remain an employee
37:11of the World Bank
37:12because you have the internet
37:14and you no longer need
37:19to be physically present
37:21to work.
37:25The question of the unit of time,
37:29work eight hours a day,
37:30for a researcher,
37:31that doesn't mean anything
37:33because you can work
37:35from midnight to four in the morning
37:37because you are more productive
37:39and then sleep for nine hours
37:42at one o'clock.
37:44And so on.
37:47So, technological innovations
37:48they are prompting us to rethink
37:52the Fordist consensus,
37:56Taylorist-Fordist,
37:58who finally said
38:00that there are three units
38:01which defined work.
38:09Nobody knows
38:10what will happen
38:11with the massive changes
38:12in terms of artificial intelligence.
38:24Let me give you an example.
38:25When I started
38:27to work at the university,
38:28in the 1970s,
38:29we had a small department
38:32about a dozen
38:33or fifteen members.
38:36We had two secretaries.
38:4235 years later,
38:44There was only one left.
38:46A large part of the work
38:48What were the secretaries doing?
38:49was carried out
38:51by a member of staff.
38:55Each teacher
38:56had his computer
38:57and did what
38:59The secretaries used to do it.
39:04I made an estimate,
39:06there had probably been
39:08100 job losses
39:09secretary
39:10at that time.
39:16I then looked
39:18the number of employees
39:19to the department
39:20technologies
39:21of information technology.
39:23There was approximately
39:24100 people.
39:29So, a type of work
39:31had been replaced
39:33by another type.
39:35They were not
39:36the same people
39:37but the number of jobs
39:38had not decreased.
39:41I made a short list
39:47thematic
39:48which tends to answer
39:49to the question
39:50"What will the work be like?"
39:52"In the future?"
40:00Currently,
40:04We ask ourselves a lot of questions
40:06to know
40:06if there will still be
40:07work
40:08or if a good part
40:10will be carried out
40:11through artificial intelligence,
40:13robots
40:14or other technologies.
40:18SO,
40:19What remains?
40:19for humans?
40:21What a job!
40:21will they do it?
40:25Another question
40:26comes back regularly.
40:28what weather
40:29work
40:29Is it necessary?
40:31That's an idea
40:32which circulates a lot
40:33Today.
40:35Eight hours a day,
40:36a 40-hour week,
40:38these are things
40:39appeared historically.
40:43This is not a natural law.
40:45It is a historical building.
40:48It's completely reversible.
40:51Today,
40:52that's a question
40:53much discussed.
40:55Many scientists
40:57claim that 3 p.m.
40:58weekly work
41:00would be more than sufficient.
41:03That would free humans
41:04for other activities.
41:12We could do things
41:13in a very different way.
41:15Even when reducing
41:16the number of jobs,
41:17there is another way
41:18to manage that.
41:19We are not condemned
41:20mass unemployment.
41:22We can simply reduce
41:23working hours.
41:27Historically,
41:28not in recent history,
41:29But for the last 200 years,
41:31there is a huge reduction
41:32in the number of hours
41:33that most people
41:35work every day.
41:41We have the impression
41:42that we work for a very long time,
41:43etc.
41:44But for a worker
41:46in the factory,
41:47if we compare the end
41:48of the 20th century
41:49and the end of the 19th century,
41:51There's a huge discount.
41:53And that's progress.
41:56We could transform
42:03the nature of the work
42:04if we really wanted to.
42:06A large part
42:08could be eliminated.
42:09One of our difficulties
42:11is to imagine
42:12what jobs could
42:13disappear.
42:14thinking,
42:15" Oh my God,
42:16That would be a problem.
42:18Right away,
42:18we say to ourselves,
42:19" Oh my God,
42:20That will be a problem.
42:22"What's going to happen
42:23in construction,
42:24in the factories?
42:26"People will not have
42:27"There's nothing more to be done."
42:38In our economic system,
42:41the reduction of work
42:43poses a problem
42:44because that's assumed
42:45to redistribute it
42:47so that everyone has their share
42:49and can devote his time
42:51to other activities.
42:59that seems totally impossible
43:01in our economic system.
43:03That's strange
43:04because we think
43:05that it is as efficient as possible
43:07while it does not solve
43:09all the problems.
43:10That's how it is.
43:11I don't think we should
43:11to talk about it.
43:12I think we must
43:13think about the possibilities.
43:14I think we must
43:15think about what we need
43:17in a world
43:18where all these things
43:20that our parents
43:20imagined
43:22I wish we would go
43:24towards a world
43:25like our grandparents
43:26they imagined it
43:27when they worked
43:28in the factories.
43:32They imagined
43:33that their grandchildren
43:35have not
43:35to work so hard.
43:38They thought
43:40that the future
43:40would free them.
43:42While it is possible
43:43Today,
43:44instead of celebrating this,
43:45we wonder
43:46"But what is it?"
43:47What are we going to do?
43:56Marx had imagined
43:57than in a society
43:59Communist,
44:00in the morning, for example
44:01We were going hunting.
44:03In the afternoon,
44:04we could work
44:05in the fields
44:06or fishing
44:07and in the evening
44:08to make political criticisms.
44:12There, everyone
44:14would be free
44:14and would have a development
44:16complete.
44:19For many people
44:21Today,
44:22It seems impossible
44:23to imagine
44:24because of the problems
44:25which are being asked.
44:27But we are convinced
44:30that with the development
44:31of the company,
44:32at a certain point,
44:34we won't need it anymore
44:35of so many people
44:36to work.
44:40Today,
44:41we have already noticed
44:43that throughout the world,
44:44from the point of view
44:45of the workforce,
44:47approximately 10%
44:48of the workforce
44:49was enough to produce
44:51the goods
44:51which we need.
44:57One can imagine
44:58another situation
44:59than the one imagined
45:01by Marx in his time.
45:035 or 10% of people
45:05work
45:06and 90% of the others
45:08are not obliged
45:09to do it.
45:14We can dedicate
45:155 to 10%
45:17of our time
45:17to work
45:18and everyone
45:19may have a job.
45:24But in mode
45:27of capitalist production,
45:29That's not possible.
45:42More and more,
45:44arduous work
45:46previous periods
45:47is entrusted to machines
45:49and from a perspective
45:51longer,
45:52people
45:53who will create them
45:54They will be engineers.
45:59But it will still be necessary
46:02of the workforce
46:03to produce
46:04iron,
46:04plastic,
46:06the cables,
46:07assemble the robots.
46:10Today,
46:12those who build
46:13these robots
46:13are integrated
46:15in companies.
46:16but their work
46:17is monopolized
46:18by the owners
46:20machines
46:20and techniques.
46:23SO,
46:24how to achieve
46:25to do
46:26that people
46:26continue
46:27to shoot
46:27an income
46:28of these robots?
46:30The distribution
46:31profits
46:32will be the biggest
46:33question for
46:34the welfare state,
46:35because the capital
46:36will have to be taxed
46:38and from there,
46:39probably,
46:40a universal basic income
46:42will have to come back
46:43to everyone.
46:46I can't find
46:47That's surprising
46:48that we are in the process
46:48to discuss it.
46:50Many young people
46:50Today
46:51do not arrive
46:52to find a regular job.
46:53They only have
46:54precarious, low-paying jobs.
46:56Is that
46:57will allow them
46:58to open rights
46:59retired ?
47:07What are we going to tax?
47:11Are we going to tax it?
47:12human labor
47:13or are we going to tax it?
47:15Robotic work?
47:19And how to tax
47:20That job?
47:21Those are the questions.
47:23very important.
47:26A universal basic income
47:27unconditionally
47:28maybe
47:29a very important point.
47:32People who support it
47:34start from the principle
47:35that humans
47:36will continue
47:37to be active,
47:38to be productive,
47:40they will continue
47:41to work on,
47:42but not necessarily
47:43for an income
47:44as a means of earning a living.
47:46That's why
47:47that the idea
47:48universal basic income
47:49unconditionally
47:50is perhaps
47:51the way
47:51to redefine
47:52the future of work.
47:58So, is it
47:59human labor,
48:00is the job
48:01of the human being
48:02is still necessary
48:03to capitalism?
48:04We can ask ourselves
48:06Honestly, the question.
48:07And that's it.
48:08that the concern
48:09on maybe
48:11the dozens
48:12millions
48:12jobs at risk
48:13both
48:14by algorithms
48:15and at the same time
48:15through robotics
48:17the question arises.
48:17Which leads
48:18Effectively
48:19the question
48:20what are we going to do
48:21of all these jobs?
48:23Of course.
48:24What good will that do?
48:26What are people
48:26What will they do?
48:27Hence the theoretical ideas
48:30Today
48:31that emerge
48:31centered around a universal basic income,
48:33taxes on robots
48:36or reduction
48:37inequalities
48:38simply
48:38or taxation
48:40simply
48:40of progressivity
48:42more important
48:43taxation
48:43which would
48:45to redistribute
48:47the wealth created
48:48to people
48:49that we will no longer be able to
48:50to work?
48:51Maybe.
48:52Probably.
48:52Since apart
48:54service jobs
48:55to the person
48:56the number
48:57and jobs
48:58highly qualified
48:58salaried jobs
48:59highly qualified
49:00there may not be
49:02virtually no jobs left
49:03as we know them
49:05Today.
49:08After work
49:09and employment
49:10a third element
49:11questions our daily life
49:12the salary.
49:15Marx thought
49:16that the salary
49:16was a way
49:17binding the free man
49:19the peasant
49:19the craftsman
49:20to come and work
49:21in the factories.
49:24Today
49:24the salary
49:25has changed status.
49:26there is no
49:47of status.
49:47There is no
Commentaires