French sociologist Dominique Méda is a familiar TV and radio personality renowned for her research on work and how it is changing in our societies. A professor at Paris-Dauphine University and director of a think-tank dedicated to economic reform, for several decades she has been examining the way in which work structures our lives, what we expect from it, what it brings us… or doesn’t bring us. She is particularly interested in the loss of meaning felt in certain professions, working conditions and the inequalities that permeate the professional world.

The author of numerous books, Méda defends a vision of work as a source of fulfilment and social cohesion. At the invitation of the Chamber of Employees (CSL), she will be giving a lecture (in French) on 7 May in Luxembourg on the theme . Ahead of this talk, Paperjam found an opportunity to talk to the academic about these issues.

Paperjam: It seems like the dialogue has broken down between two sides: people experiencing a work crisis on a daily basis versus those who say that, at least on the whole, there is no crisis insofar as the value of work is concerned. How do you account for this? Is the problem with attitude, politics, company model…?

Dominique Méda: There is an ideological problem. I don’t know whether it’s the same in Luxembourg or not, but in France what we hear is that people don’t want to work anymore, that they’ve become lazy, that young people are even lazier than others and so on. But when you look at the surveys, i.e. what people actually say about their expectations of work and the reality of work, you get a completely different picture. In fact, the representations and expectations of work are enormous in France. Perhaps too enormous, even. People expect a lot from work. In particular, to have an interesting job that gives them the impression of making a difference. Over 80% of young people say this. When we ask them what they find most important in work, they answer: “A job that allows me to make a difference.”

The second point is the reality of working conditions, which are extremely mediocre. People complain about it. And here there is a real denial, an ignorance on the part of those who uphold the value of work, the ruling classes. They don’t understand, they don’t hear, they don’t believe that there is a problem with working conditions.

Let’s return to the question of meaning. Does your research point to a general loss of meaning or does it implicate certain forms of management (or sectors)? To put it another way… has work become absurd or is it simply badly organised?

Very good question! Work can be both the best and the worst thing for people. Even so, in 2016, half the people in France still associated work with unhappiness. And according to the latest statistics available, dating back to 2019, 37% of people in employment say that they do not feel capable of holding down their job until retirement, with an over-representation of young people and women--but a fairly high similarity between managers (32%) and non-managers (39%). More than a third!

Afterwards, of course there are sectors or professions that are more concerned. We know, for example, that when it comes to psychosocial risks, carers or people in contact with the public might be more likely to say that things aren’t going well. It also depends on the company: there are companies where management is more toxic than in others.

Whose fault is it, really?

There are general causes that concern most industrialised countries, and causes that are more specifically French, and perhaps Luxembourgish. The general causes are globalisation, financialisation, the fact that companies are increasingly required to be profitable, mergers and acquisitions, the spread of information technology, constant organisational change… these are facts. And it’s relayed, pushed, promoted by an ideology that says we need to get people moving, that they mustn’t rest, that we need constant reporting, that we need to be able to show off people’s performance, individualise rewards and so on.

And then there’s the French specificity: namely the still very hierarchical nature of the company, industrial relations that aren’t good between fairly rigid management and unions that, as a result, aren’t in dialogue. When we compare France with countries where co-determination is in force--be it Germany or the Nordic countries--this is what makes a big difference. In France, we live in a country where social dialogue doesn’t work.

You draw a parallel with the United States, where deindustrialisation has fuelled deep political resentment. Could Europe go the same way? Are we already heading towards this type of social despair?

Yes… I’m thinking of the French or European regions that have been affected by deindustrialisation and that are reacting in the same way as in the United States, i.e. by voting for the far right. And no, because I think we have more social shock absorbers than in the United States. But, indeed, the situation is similar if you look at the political forces and the way they have reacted to this deindustrialisation. In the United States and, as far as I know, in France, the Democrats on the one hand and the left-wing parties on the other have not sufficiently understood the scale of the problem. They don’t know how to respond to the expectations of these people who have lost their jobs, who were afraid of losing them or who have seen a sharp deterioration in their working conditions.

So what’s the final takeaway? That, for a section of the population, work has become a real negative?

Clearly. Work could be a positive factor in emancipation and health, so to speak. But for some people, it no longer is--it has in fact become a real source of suffering. Suffering when you don’t have or have lost your job… and suffering when you find yourself in certain jobs.

This article in French.