- Every Friday, 20 Minutes offers a personality to comment on a social phenomenon, in our meeting "20 Minutes with ...".
- Dominique Méda, director of the social science laboratory at Paris-Dauphine University, looks back on the upheavals that have taken place in recent weeks in the world of work, and beyond.
- Consequences of generalized telework and massive partial unemployment, social utility of the trades, interconnections of activities… The coronavirus epidemic and confinement have raised many questions.
An almost total upheaval. For almost everyone. Since the announcement made by Emmanuel Macron, on March 12 on television, of the upcoming closure of schools in the face of the coronavirus epidemic, France is advancing, every day a little more, in an unknown land. Classes at home, teleworking for those who can, massive use of short-time working, closure of non-essential businesses ... The daily life of the entire population has been turned upside down in the space of two weeks, and will continue to do so. to be for a while.
For millions of workers, this is an unprecedented and destabilizing situation, which Dominique Méda, sociologist of work, director of the social science laboratory at Paris-Dauphine University, and co-author of Another route is possible *.
We have been witnessing an upheaval in our society in recent weeks. Regarding the world of work, what is the main teaching?
The most important jobs are not what we thought. There is a huge contradiction between the hierarchy of wages, social recognition, on the one hand, and the usefulness of the trades, on the other. Those who are at the front are certainly professions still endowed with prestige, such as doctors and nurses, but there are also on the front line of many people who belong to the care trades (care and taking care, nursing assistants , home helpers, carers ...), or in the sales, cleaning, transport and production professions (cashiers, delivery men, carriers, garbage collectors, etc.). Some of these trades are given little consideration - we sometimes speak of low-skilled or unskilled trades.
However, we can see that these activities are today the most important for the life and survival of society.
On the other hand, many very prestigious and extremely well-paid jobs have disappeared from the screens and seem devoid of any immediate utility. The gap between the two hierarchies, that of remuneration and that of social utility, is enormous. We are rediscovering the immense usefulness of invisible trades, of people who are little regarded and most often very badly paid.
Do you think we can see a questioning of these hierarchies?
The problem is that more often than not, the most prestigious professions are also exercised by those who have power. So it will be very difficult. You will be told that advertisers, traders, consultants, financiers are extremely important people and that it is not because we do not see them at work today that they are not decisive for the economy.
What could be called into question is the huge difference in remuneration for the services rendered. In one case, there is under remuneration. We know, for example, that women are on the front line in the fight against the coronavirus, that they are massively present in trades at the front, sales, care , trades that are chronically underpaid. Why ? Because there is part-time work, and because we consider that these are natural skills: women can naturally take care of, smile, sell, be nice ... It would therefore not be worth paying for these qualities.
These trades deserve an increase, not to reward them for their investment, but in the name of their social utility. As for exorbitant remuneration, many voices call for limiting it, and we have an opportunity to do so so that the two hierarchies, utility and social recognition, are more consistent.
The Ministry of Labor estimates that 8 million French people in the private sector have the capacity to telecommute. Many of them were not used to it. What do they discover?
First what the lack of work means, so the structuring power of it. And on the other hand, the advantages and disadvantages of telework. The advantage, of course, is to stay protected, sometimes to be a little better focused.
But there are many disadvantages: the lack of contact with colleagues, the inability to meet to counterbalance instructions that would be too unbearable.
And you have all the people who have to take care of their children, even dependent or sick family members, in addition to taking care of the domestic chores. We know, in general, that women are responsible for most of the domestic and family responsibilities. So I think that men will discover the extent of these activities and their heaviness. Are we going to witness a new sharing of roles thanks to confinement?
All the info on the coronavirus
Coming out of the epidemic and confinement, can we anticipate a boom in telework, a redesign of the way of organizing work in the company?
I don't think there will be more generalization of telework. There will undoubtedly be a wider dissemination of this practice, because a certain number of people who had not yet experienced it have found interest. Furthermore, to the extent that we risk experiencing containment cycles in the future, and if we take seriously the requirements of the fight against climate change (which means less recourse to means of transport), it is an argument in favor of telework. But I rather imagine resorting to one or two days a week.
Indeed, one of the fears of employers and not being able to sufficiently control their subordinates. In addition, it is very tiring: giving lessons or hosting a meeting is much less comfortable. And forced and exclusive telework considerably blurs the lines between work and non-work.
In addition, teleworking prevents, by definition, any direct human contact in companies ...
Researchers have been warning for a long time about the dangers of over-resorting to this practice: "in teleworking, people are isolated, alone in front of their computers, more subject to possible overflows from the employer".
We will see that human contact is part of work, to realize the structuring effects of work.
All these little moments, at the coffee machine, where we exchange information, seeing, touching, talking ... This is an integral part. People who are confined alone are even more aware of this. Until now, it was only the unemployed, the intermittent and the temporary who experienced the lack of work. I think that the collective experience that we are living will make the place given to it by the French even more important - which already places it very high.
Will this crisis be an opportunity to question yourself, to want to give more meaning to your professional activity?
I think that a certain number of people will indeed wonder about the usefulness of their work, but it is very difficult to say to yourself "it is not useful", "I am of no use". On the other hand, a public on which this will work enormously, public which besides was already asking itself a lot of questions, are the young people.
They are confused. Because even before the epidemic, they asked themselves: What is the point of studying in this world which we are told is collapsing? Is it useful to study? What profession will I practice? What are the jobs that will allow me to contribute to the fight against climate change? They will ask more questions
The epidemic highlights the interconnections between Nations, between economic sectors. And therefore between trades. Will this system be questioned?
This is the essential reflection that will have to be had. Even before this crisis, a number of people, including myself, argued that the top priority should be to prepare for the ecological crisis, and to try by all means to slow it down.
We are only at the beginning and this episode is a wake-up call that highlights the unpreparedness of our societies.
They must engage in what I call a real ecological conversion. We must rebuild our economy from top to bottom to both prepare for large-scale disasters, the consequences of which will be very serious (storms, cyclones, rising sea levels, fires, drought, food shortages, climatic migrations, wars…) and partly avoid them.
This ecological conversion requires huge investments, particularly in the thermal renovation of buildings, the reconstruction of cities, infrastructure and much more sober practices. This also supposes that we relocate our productions and that we make our territories more autonomous. It is a project that will require colossal energy.
This epidemic shows that a virus can flatten our public services. As soon as the crisis comes out, we will have to prepare our societies to provide essential services: health, feeding the populations. That we don't even have the gloves, the masks, the tests for our own populations, because all of this has been relocated, it's staggering. Another reason to be amazed: the fact that for a year, nobody has taken seriously the warning cry of caregivers. It happens today exactly what they had planned.
* Dominique Méda co-wrote with Eric Heyer and Pascal Lokiec "Another way is possible", at Flammarion, in 2018. She also co-edited, among others, the essay "Towards a post-growth society", editions of L ' dawn, in 2017, with Isabelle Cassiers and Kevin Maréchal.
Society
Coronavirus: Housing, teleworking, exposure to the virus… French people are not all equal in the face of the epidemic
Paris
Coronavirus in Ile-de-France: Without markets and restaurants, how will farmers sell their produce?
- Coronavirus
- Economy
- epidemic
- Employees
- Job
- 20 Minutes with