In a study published this week, the Institut Montaigne explores the relationship of the French to work. Pensions, working hours, satisfaction, professional mobility, psychological burden… The survey calls into question many received ideas. Bertrand Martinot, labor market specialist, led this analysis.
L’Express: According to some commentators, the strong opposition of the French to the pension reform comes from a problematic relationship to work. Is this an observation that emerges from your study?
Bertrand Martinot : No, it’s probably a deeper subject than just the employment relationship. If it were only people with back pain who are against pension reform, there wouldn’t be so much opposition! Rather, it must be linked to a distrust of government. According to our survey, opposition to the pension reform transcends professional categories, age, gender, and the only people who declare themselves “in favor” are those over 64 and managers who already know that they will have to work more. There is no one factor that would explain the opposition to the pension reform, even if some, such as uneasiness with management, the feeling that the workload has increased, or seniority at his workstation favors the crystallization of the strongest oppositions. The problem is to be found outside the relationship to work, perhaps in the general anesthesia vis-à-vis public spending.
One of the challenges of the pension reform is to improve the employment of seniors. What are the workers’ expectations in this regard?
Even if they are against postponing the age and they say they are ready to leave earlier with a reduced pension, this does not prevent them from being pragmatic with regard to end-of-career arrangements. 40% of respondents are ready to consider them, and 14% are ready to make deals between part-time work, change of position and reduction of remuneration. Not to mention another minority ready to combine employment and pensions. This gives food for thought. The State must therefore provide the right fiscal and social framework: the proposal in the bill to facilitate gradual retirement and the accumulation of employment and pensions is therefore a step in the right direction. But then, it is up to the social partners to negotiate in the branches to arrange the workstations. They need to take this issue seriously.
Since the Covid, the terms “Great Resignation”, and its variant, “quiet quitting” (“silent resignation”), have emerged. Does this reflect a reality and a change in our relationship to work?
There is a crisis in the relationship to work, but it was not born during the pandemic, and we do not see any major break between today and before Covid in the responses given. There is no world before and after, the reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction remain the same. The only difference is the emergence of telework, acclaimed by those who practice it, but a source of great frustration for those who cannot have access to it. The “Great Resignation” is only the reflection of a labor market at full employment: the resignation rate is high, because our level of unemployment is low. This somewhat fantasized phenomenon of the “Great Resignation” reflects an appetite among workers for a change of position or professional mobility. But in reality, inertia is very important: the average seniority in a position is high and has not changed.
For what reasons ?
There are many barriers to mobility: people are a little lost, advice and guidance are not necessarily suitable, and they fear changing and losing pay. The last reform of vocational training was very angled on work-study and the CPF, and it led to a loss of means for retraining, whereas the accent should be placed on its financing and orientation.
Some politicians evoke a “right to laziness”, is this really a claim of the French?
A third of employees surveyed say they want to work more to earn more. Those who want to work less, even if it means earning less, are far fewer. Work value has not been affected, and we are not dealing with a lazy society. The context of slowing wages also weighs: remuneration is a major reason for dissatisfaction. Even if the French have the impression of facing an increased workload, they are therefore ready to work more, especially low and medium wages, to earn more.
In your study, you challenge a received idea. There would be no link between working time and the “psychic load” felt by employees. How to explain it?
The “psychic load” is not explained by a longer working time, but by a greater intensity, by the fact of working on weekends, by management problems, or even work organization . You can burn out by working 35 hours, or even part-time! Moreover, the self-employed, who say they work more, nevertheless consider their psychological load to be lower. Probably because they have more autonomy. Even if they work 50 hours a week, they don’t spend 50 hours tied to a chair.
Has the telework revolution been positive for employees?
In any case, they acclaim it! They say they are more efficient and productive working from home. On the other hand, their opinion is more negative concerning social interactions and their effectiveness. There is also an optimum, which corresponds to 2 or 3 days. Teleworking has become a factor of attractiveness for companies. The other side of the coin is that it is a major source of irritation for those who do not have access to it: for 52% of positions, teleworking is technically impossible. For these jobs, it will probably be necessary to provide compensation, to be negotiated at company level. For example in terms of pay. Or consider the 4 day week. But this is not necessarily a panacea, because it could lead to a perverse effect: the intensification of work.
