|
Many reactions to the article "Suicides at work: the bank just to break the silence". Among them, the testimony of Leonard.
Despite the great interest that I bring to this article and all due respect to its author, I think it still under-estimate, and many, the harshness of the conditions of work.
There are several arguments:
The low unionization rate implies that the suffering in the world of work is a given that remains strictly individual, "compartmentalized". Psychologists can talk and discourse at length on the subject: the bottom line is social, not psychological. As long as rights are acquired by multinationals to be denied to men and women of flesh and blood, the problem has not advanced an inch towards its resolution.
The term commonly used "stress at work" is a recovery management schools.
Virtually any study of management and psychology on the subject is a Trojan horse for the followers of management.
Any argument management is reworked to mask a reality vertical doubt: the fact that bank employees rotate every two or three years is of course stupid under the nullity of human relationships with their customers. That is obvious. We prefer to know our interlocutor and vice versa.
And yet, as it shows very well the article, this reality is blithely denied. On behalf of what? Otherwise the name of increased profit criteria established by his "superiors". In terms of management, they say "renew the work."Let us go further: there is no a priori limit to what may be the management, my friends. And for that I will give a recent example. I am a scientist by profession. I was contacted by a big company that sells management systems for large corporations. I said that I've never worked for such multinationals.
I work on theories of physics and theoretical mathematics, called topological quantum theory of fields. They are
complex theories are themselves special cases of theories even more complex (not topological).
But they have an interest to physicists as the energies involved in such models are beyond anything that happens now and in a fairly distant future, so theories topological, independent of the metric, which correspond to mathematical theories calculable in principle, become interesting. You might think this is very far removed from considerations of a multinational. Well think again.
I was first approached by people telling me that such theories could be useful to manage extremely complex systems, for example, a network of hospitals, which manages a large number of beds should be able to assess and risks, including when it relies on questions of life and death, why not do better than the existing statistical methods?
This is the first example that you gave me. It was not shocked a priori. We must properly manage very complex systems, including or even precisely when it comes to life and death, I thought to myself remembering have attended centres treating cancer, for example.
The question of having a bed or may not be decisive, management service resuscitation is not the same as that of hospital care, and so on. So it was not shocked a priori.
The idea, for simplicity, was that some large systems can be evaluated when topologically numerical methods fail to predict something useful. Then I discovered what the big issues of the box working, a very complex problem: Suppose that you are CEO of a multinational and that for various reasons, you want to know what would be the reactions of your employees and managers if you are imposing an overall increase-like performance target or a decrease of a certain percentage of their salary.For an SME, this is not very difficult in general, because the issue is essentially local. But for a multinational, can you predict what will happen? A very complex issue indeed, which affects, by multiple consequences, the economies of several countries, that the statistical models describe only very imperfectly.
Ultimately: can you do better with the theories of quantum topological fields?
In conclusion, the art of 1% of the real owners, it is indeed to succeed to fight the remaining 99% between them. The liability of 10% that surround and protect the haves (this includes not only executives but also policies to their service, intellectuals and academics) is even more crucial.
|
