The modern worker in many cases must be mobile

You, the consequences of the crisis on the social field

After is pretty reflection, I called my new book "The rise of uncertainties". Because we have lost the ability to control the future, unlike the long post-war period where we could say that tomorrow would be better than today ' today. After the crisis, it will no longer say that the regulations and social protection are tacky. Some believe that it would suffice to regulate the financial capital, to control that there is more scams or people who are scandalous fortunes to resolve this crisis. But international financial capitalism is just the Advanced tip of post-industrial capitalism, that I call thus to differentiate it from that of the post-war period where there have been a genuine culture of the social. It is the latter which is threatened by the developments over the last thirty years. And that is why it must think this crisis in a systemic manner.

Do you believe that the trend can now be reversed

The current crisis is part of a dynamic which began in the 1970s. Until then, we had known that I have appointed a continuous construction of social property. Becoming owner of a number of social rights, such as unemployment or the right to retirement, the world of work it was gradually extracted material misery and unworthiness to social. It was from the contract of the beginnings of industrialization, in other words the law of the strongest, employment status. Allowing the worker to project itself in the long term (predominantly of the IFA) to receive a decent salary, protected by the law of labour and of social protection. With the oil crisis began a change of regime of capitalism. On behalf of the free market deployment, priority was given to productivity and the race competitive. The social properties were now presented as a sort of archaic residue of the thirty Glorieuses, that could no longer guarantee a State itself too expensive. From this point of view, if it cannot be said that the current crisis is a happy event, it is revealing. It discovers that a market that is is not "domesticated", to the end of Karl Polanyi, is packaged and has abandoned its sheer scale. It is not inside that he can reform itself, it must impose national and transnational regulatory bodies outside.

You insist on the rise of informalization in the new capitalism, but did not become essential for cushioning

The casualization of labour is part of the dynamics of the new capitalism. Not only the latter is not capable of creating full employment, but is there not need the statutory form I alluded above. His new Word, it is the full activity. The dominant discourse today is to say that everyone should work. But that is not necessarily, in forms less protected, less well paid. Access to the status of employment, designed as before, with protections and social rights are attached, is more difficult. The modern worker in many cases must be mobile. I share the opinion of Alain Supiot argues for a status of the mobile worker. It should be that it can keep, same "flexible", strong rights, what Supiot calls social drawing rights. This could be the social compromise of new capitalism between the legitimate but often conflicting interests of the market and companies, on the one hand, and those of the world of work, on the other hand. Of course, this is easier said than done.

Reform of unemployment insurance, training efforts, development of partial unemployment as an alternative to dismissal... Do you think that the new social compromise that you discuss begins to emerge

I think that any measure of this type is good to take. But these measures are not on the scale of the problem. They do not prevent the rise of precariousness, and some, such as RSA, are ambiguous and could even contribute. It is feared that institutionalization of forms of underemployment installs more the precariat in our societies. There is therefore also a risk that the cure is worse than the disease.

Today, the line of conduct of the Government is systematically entrust the social partners the task to negotiate social reforms. What do you think

Historically, it is by registration in collectives that the worker is out of his situation of total subordination to the employer, as the described Marx at the end of the 19th century. By the collective action that it is passed, with the labour law, collective agreements and the social protection, a new wage report through which the salary ceased to be a one-time compensation task and gave access to a number of benefits out of work. The power of trade unions was able, for a period of time, balance the competing interests of the market. But the new dynamics of capitalism has led to a case and a réindividualisation of labour relations. Weak unions have lost their role of counter-power. Social negotiation can base social policy fairer, but on the condition that be restored a balance in the report of forces between the social partners. It is a fact, however, mass unemployment and the casualization of employment are not for employees. If bargaining between the social partners did not lead to a minimum of balance and social justice, it is for the State, which is roughly the collective of collectives and is the guarantor of social cohesion, to take over.

The way of a more cohesive social passes by a better distribution of the benefits to benefit employees

The participation of the employees for the benefit of the company is an old Gaullist speech which remained a speech. Leaving the dynamics of the system to do, why share It comes back to the question of the regulations. But, in any event, I don't know if it is useful to speculate on something that is only a possibility so far. Labour remains the dominant form almost hegemonic of the Organization of work under capitalism. This does not mean that other issues are not interesting, but, for now, the social fate of the vast majority of workers plays to the status of salaried employment.