Final restitution of the WORK workshop: 
Work and social organisation

Dignity and social recognition: work, education and a universal basic income

This text is the written version of Hugues Puel's speech at the plenary session of the European Continental Assembly of the Peles meeting in Romania (17-21 June 2001). The author was appointed by the WORK group to present this proposal within a deadline that has not permitted collecting feedback from the group for evaluation.

Our group had methodological problems that prevented it from exploiting the wealth of experience of its individual members to the full; likewise with the wealth of the work done in sub-groups. For example, the three following points were not developed as they should have been:

1- The question of the consumer's responsibility with respect to both food, which would have provided a link with the rural world group, and the saver-shareholder and thus corporate governance, which would have provided a link with the governance group. 

2- Company ethics was the subject of a very interesting contribution from a company boss on the ethical certification criteria chosen in the framework of each company and applicable to socialisation. If we had examined this point in more depth, we could have progressed quite far on the finalities of the company in an economic world with myriad economic activities in terms of type, size and relationship with their territory.

3- Regarding the social economy, a large number of experiences expressed by the members of our group could have led to more in-depth analysis, e.g., the co-operatives of Mondragon in the Basque Country, school workshops in the Paris region, social integration companies, intermediate organisations, and district associations in different parts of France, etc.

Furthermore, the work of clarifying concepts required time. This could have been done in the electronic forum. However, it did not function well for the WORK workshop. 

The distinction between activity, work and employment appeared important and pertinent for treating work related problems: 

- Activity is the expression of human beings living from their activities of transformation, but also with its internal aspects of meditation, reflection and aspiration to beauty and adoration. 

- Regarding work, it is the general activity of transformation of the relationships between human beings and nature and between human beings with each other. 

-  Employment is the specific form that work takes in our societies organised around employment systems with complex rules. These distinctions appeared important. They permit distinguishing, for example, between job flexibility, which increases insecurity and dependence, and work flexibility which can be positive insofar as it enriches tasks and improves competencies. 

The concept of activity was withdrawn from the title of our contribution. Although it describes the general meaning mentioned above, in certain languages at least, it has an economic meaning, and an intimate acceptance that many of us reject, i.e. participation in commercial production measured by the standards of national statistics.

We felt that discussion on concepts could allow us to discuss subjects in greater depth.

The results of our work are written down in the contributions of the three sub-groups, and only a very brief summary of these is given here. These contributions will be adjoined to the final text. 

1- The ambiguities of work of the concept of work in modern society.

The subgroup tried to emphasise the wealth of the concept of work as the construction of identities and as a process of social recognition. Thus a change of perception is needed so that recognition is given to work that is not remunerated but essential to community life, thereby contributing to a more transparent society. 

Some persons rejected the idea that work is a basic necessity, but that he or she who does not work should be able to eat nonetheless.

The subject of dignity was often mentioned: dignity by making visible hidden work, by the recognition of certain forms of employment and respect for work in which words are commitments, and also where the wealth generated permits giving to others. 

The ambiguities of science and technology were emphasised: the damage of progress and the loss of control on the one hand, and the improvement of certain conditions on the other. 

This subgroup made certain concrete proposals to improve the distribution of work and mobility in society.

2- Basic income: for and against

The group was divided on this issue and a subgroup attempted to clarify the two positions and express them. 

Basic Income is an income paid by the state to all citizens from the moment they live legally on its territory. Basic income is an entitlement of the citizen, a universal right, a debt owed by society and an unconditional right.

This income replaces a whole range of social aid in a more dignified and efficient way. Those who earn additional money must pay taxes, thus financing the basic income.

Doubtless, this reform cannot be applied immediately everywhere in the world, but it should be through time. Everything depends on the wealth of nations and the financial level of the income decided.

The adversaries of the basic income doubt its ethical value since it treats individuals as creditors vis-à-vis society, contrary to the traditional situation in which everyone is a debtor. This transformation is so radical that it deserves debate and reflection.

Furthermore, the economic and social consequences of this measure are unclear. Wouldn't it destroy the combat against poverty by emptying budgets devoted to it to the benefit of the basic income? Wouldn't it exacerbate inequalities?

Although this system requires further study and discussion, action is also needed to improve the system of employment, which is not suffering from a crisis as severe as some catastrophic analyses would have us believe regarding the reduction of the total number of jobs, the reduction of social aid to the level of charity and the failure of social policies.
The employment system can be improved in many ways. For example, the French Minimum Integration Income has made the administration more sensitive to different aspects of poverty. Since it is a universal income, it is unconditional. The beneficiary is entitled to it from the moment his or her income falls below a given threshold. However, there are strings attached to this unconditional dimension, since it maintains some links with the rest of society, whereas the basic income risks being a payment that, once made, cuts off the beneficiary from any links.

The subgroup made a large number of suggestions in the case where the employment system comes into contact with families and their needs: basic education and lifetime education, voluntary work and the mobilisation of the unemployed and pensioners, social policy and the multiple initiatives made in the social economy. 

3- Ethics for training and education 

The subgroup formulated philosophical and pedagogical principles. Here we mention only the assertion of the right to education in which priority is given to personal development. This conforms to the emphasis given by the group to the importance of personal dignity. Pedagogical principles were identified which value willingness to listen, awareness and curiosity, and respect between teachers and pupils and trainees. The relationship between teachers and society was of particular concern to the subgroup. One of the chief objectives of this view of education was the development of critical analysis in each person so that they become responsible citizens.

The subgroup explored (unequally) three areas of application for these principles: school education, lifetime education, and the learning society.

Certain subjects were recurrent: learning to learn, opening out to society, apprenticeship and alternation of production activities with teaching.

In all, this reflection was difficult and incomplete, though rich with perspectives for a European civil society.

Hugues Puel
26 June 2001

Ethic for Training and Education

The training subgroup of the Work group was made up of 11 persons from European countries both inside and outside the European Union, North Africa and the Middle East.  This subgroup attempted to identify the "philosophical" and "pedagogical" principles of education in relation with the subjects of the "Work" group. The subgroup was aware of the imprecision of the terms "philosophical" and "pedagogical" chosen in order to save time. In fact the content of the reflections was not far removed from the real meaning of these terms.

Following a lively and rich debate between the group's members, we decide to conclude by listing a series of proposals that corresponded to the philosophical aspects analysed and the concepts of the pedagogical aspects dealt with. 

I.	Proposals on philosophical aspects 

1.	Aware of the ambiguity of the word "work'" and the degradation of the expression "the right to work", the subgroup proposed that:
"All citizens have the right to education. Society has the obligation of providing citizens with the resources and circumstances permitting them to benefit from this right".

2.	Knowledge transmitted can be misleading or partial, thereby resulting in the contrary of what is sought. The group also proposes that:
"Society has the right to objective and plural forms of knowledge and must give itself the means of controlling it".

3.	The evolution of education must be linked with that desired for society. This means that dispensing education should no longer be limited to within the walls of premises. The subgroup proposes that:
"The whole of society and its environment should become the place where education is dispensed."

4.	In a society where different interests and stakes exist and merge, the subgroup proposes that:
"Personal development should be the priority of all education.”

5.	The task of teaching is complex and the teacher fails to find constructive complicity in his or her environment. However, society should not delegate the organisation and application of standards related to the provision of education to teachers. This must be done by both society and teachers, which must control education as mentioned above. To do this, the subgroup proposes that:
"Society must act with teachers to carry out, without complete delegation to the latter, the mission of education".
One person remarked that the proposal should include the expression, "society should put pressure on teachers". 

6.	In order to assure the quality of education, the subgroup proposes that:
 "Society should give itself the means, without delegation, of guaranteeing the spirit of critical analysis and openness of education".

II.	After reflection on the pedagogical principles to be applied to education, the subgroup expressed five initial functional concepts: 

1.	In order to respect the philosophical principles listed above, society and, within society:
 "Teachers should encourage the spirit of discovery that leads to the freedom to learn".

2.	Stemming from the previous point:
"Teachers should encourage and defend:
- the spirit of listening 
- the spirit of awareness 
- the spirit of curiosity 
- respect between teachers and people being taught and, by consequence, between teachers and the society to which they belong."

III.	A few examples of applications were mentioned in response to the philosophical and pedagogical principles.

1.	The subgroup proposes that:
 "Less attention should be given to teaching concrete concepts and more attention should be given to teaching to learn. This guarantees the spirit of discovery".

2.	The subgroup proposes that:
 "Education opens out to the exterior. In this perspective, learning languages corresponds to the criteria of knowledge and understanding between cultures, thus of different identities".

3.	 Concerned with freeing the individual and ensuring that he/she is endowed with a globally critical mind, the subgroup proposes that:
 "The teaching of the humanities should be encouraged, especially in the teaching of technical subjects".

4.	It is advisable to individualise the occasions for communicating a subject. In this perspective, the subgroup proposes that:
 "Learning should be enhanced and given more importance"

Traditional learning, which used to take place in a more convivial society, should restore dignity to the individual who receives no recognition for his/her work. 

********************

One of the members of the group proposed that a training allowance of 12 years, if necessary, and discontinuously, be guaranteed to each citizen. Mention was made of the consequences of interrupting educating when young, which can lead to destabilisation.

The ambiguities of work in the modern societyThe ambiguities of work in the modern society

As a practical active working animal man goes from life to death gaining knowledge; shaping the society formulating several forms of recognition and procedures for social exclusions. Through work we transform our inner and outer nature. We develop technologies and new skills in a dynamic process. The society imposes also norms upon the individual. Our concrete historical nature is double: We are shaped, but also shaping, and we have several choices to make within limits, often trying to expand life crossing the existing boarder lines.

The concept of work is much broader and richer than the concept of wage labour. The concept of work must be given new life, given new and vivid dimensions, pointing towards a new dignified existence for mankind. Work and “selfgovernance” must be tied close to each other. Work must be connected to and be given the old meaning it had in the enlightenment period and in the days when there was a critical and progressive labour movement in society. The concept of work needs new interpretations every day. Work must secure the individual existence and we could try to take some of the negative connotations away from the new concept. Different uses of the concepts « work », « labour », « wage labour », « activity », « travail », « Arbeit » etc. in different languages need to be debated and interpreted in the civil societies and in the international public sphere of mutual communication.

The concept of economy should not only concern the instrumental processes of producing profit and to let the enterprises grow, but should be a mean of qualifying the society and creating a world to live in for all citizens of the world. The fruits of the wage-labour ought to be for everybody, and the work must be emancipated and expanded. 

Even though work is one of most important the means to get something to eat and a place to stay (supporting reproduction of man), work now seems to be a primary need of man and a central sphere for processes of recognition and identity building. Work is a duty imposed upon the individual for instrumental reasons, but work is also a way in which the individual gets a social face and tries to express him- or her self in a free and imaginative way, if it is possible. 

But we must not forget, that work is not just a need of man but also something that has to be reduced in time (i.e. the wage labour and the necessary time used for pure survival and existence purposes); providing the individual and the society with potential free time. An important notion and principle is, that a non-working man also have the right to get something to eat and a home. The good life is not only connected, neither has it only it’s outcome or expression in the working field. But it must not be forgotten, that existential security is important for man and utmost dependant on the way society produces its goods as fruits of collective work.

It took a long time to discipline man to "love" wage labour and fixated working hours. Historical and etymological the word work is closely connected to the word slavery. In old Ancient Greece only the slaves were forced to work, while the rich and free men were active in their lives, doing politics, writing philosophy and enjoying life and the work result of others. These inequalities are not to be idealised.

Today it's hard not to see and experience, that recognition binds society together. Without recognition the individual dies or becomes invisible. In modern societies the most important form of recognition seems to be the work. Our identity and ways of expressing self esteem are strictly connected to work and tied to the way society recognizes work. You ask someone: "What are you doing?". And normally you won't get the answers: "Playing soccer", "Loving to make love", "Dreaming of a water melon", but instead: "I'm a carpenter", "I'm a teacher", "I'm not working" etc.

* Many problems arise in this context:

		the reduction of the individual worker to a commodity used and consumed in time
		the reduction of the content and the value of work to the instrumental and exploitive needs of others
		the reduction of living human subjects to exchangeable objects
		the reduction of art, education and ethics to time-restricted, instrumental and measured utility phenomenons
		the exclusion of other forms of recognition and societal processes independent of wage-labour
		the priority of the product over the process
		the inequalities and new forms of destructive divisions of wage labour within and between the nations
		the transformation of potential free time into empty  leisure time  and/or  into new forms of exploitation

A dilemma in high-tech modernity is that we tend to be caught in a process in which the work no longer has an upper limit (the computer, the e-mail and the Internet make it possible to work 24 hours every day), and in a process in which we express our selves and our feeling of freedom. The ability and ambitions to play with and to fulfil all our talents at work often conflicts with other spheres of our existence (the needs of the family, the societal obligations, the right to say STOP etc.). 

We have to work and we love to work at the same time. Work is more than a duty. Work is also "hard fun" in many elaborated and high-skilled professions. Often the most privileges people chose to work and not to be together with the family. The computer does not demand attention, devotion or love – and it does not smell or protest. In the rich Western world many people think that work is a hobby and staying at home is a prison and an obligation.

Flexible work expands the working hours and new disciplinary forms arise as well as new forms of freedom and progressive advantages for the individual self-autonomy.

Work and dignity are intimate related and connected to each other. Dignity has two faces in work processes. From within the individual experience expresses his or her dignity, when it is being exposured in the eyes of the other fellow human beings, and at the same time does the society give you recognition, so you feel the dignity. Dignity is an inside-out and an outside-in concept, and it must be secured and developed at all levels. Either you're wage labouring or not you can gain and produce social knowledge and the possibility to live an active life must be seen as a worldwide right.
  
Working people at all levels (from the unskilled to the professor) must fight for the opportunity to experience the proudness and the dignity of the work, when the uncontrollable events open their world for new, never ending experiments of life. The will to self-realization and the ability to improvise and to be able to express yourself without fear in all situations must be a goal to achieve for the self reflexive modern (wo)man.

Everybody must have the right and the possibility to ask some fundamental questions about the meaning in the concrete work and the actual wage-labour. Why am I working? What is the purpose? 

The right to be lazy must also be protected, and the right not to accept destructive and not interesting work. It ought to be possible for the individual to stand up for this right to be aware and critical. In "luxury" Western societies of today we see that it's hard to attract young people to do the jobs which are not attractive. If an individual has the possibility and the strength to choose (s)he will only do wage labour, if it brings something to live. But many workers around the world are forced to "forget" this simple fact. 

* To create recognition of the individual in all aspects of social life demands that we inherit and transform:

		the concepts of work, wage labour and activity
		the invisible work forms (women's work in the families; helping and benevolent actions in the civil society, solidarity work at all levels; and liberating the wage less work. New ways of showing respect and give valuation must be developed 
		the ways of thinking the society and it's bonds, providing approaches for the individuals to be open towards processes of becoming. Human identities are and must never be fixated, and cultures are and must never be closed, blind and self-loving entities
		the spheres of human life when we are not working (i.e. making love, dancing, playing music etc.)

There will always be conflicts of how to define and “substantialize” the concepts of work and how to decide how much time and life energy the individual and the society should spend on this basic anthropological dimension. The "vita activa" will always be a vivid and concrete element in the explorative and adventurous "vita speculativa". 

The asymmetrical dimensions of work (different power positions, educational levels, ages, sexes, ambitions etc.) must be transformed into processes containing much more reciprocity. I.e. if you're working in the social and educational spheres of society your goals will have to be to see the other person blossom and to set the other human being free to express his or her talents in a dynamic and progressive way. Some examples might be exposed: Poor people, patients in hospitals and institutions, children, pupils and students must be trained and given the opportunities to be critical and autonomous - even though it might irritate the clinical doctors, the teachers in grammar schools and the university professors.   

We are destined to be in a process of becoming. No fixated solutions can save us, and no restricted proposals can handle all the problems and remove all the ambiguities from the modern society at one time or with the help of one magic(al) strike.

Some concrete proposals :

1. Due to the flexible organization of the wage labour processes it must be possible to have the possibility to work at home, even though we have to take into consideration that the lack of colleagues and the lacking possibility to get away from home might be a problem the society and the individual will have to tackle. Considering flexibility there are many severe differences between the West and the East and between the North and the South. But historical experience can tell that what we see in the privileged Western society of today soon can be tomorrow's reality for the whole world. Therefore it's very important to try to gain the advantages of the rise in flexibility at all levels in the society for the employees. Flexibility shouldn't just be imposed on the workers and the society as a weapon in the hands of the strategic capitalist management.

2. The transformation of the invisible people into visible people must be supported; Women who used to be in the darkness shall have the chance to blossom in the midst of all. The self esteem and dignity elements must be stressed. The society and the individual have many former unknown and strong potentials. We must not forget the unemployed, the people not being able to work, the old people, the retired people and the disabled. They all deserve recognition and all of them must have the chance to give something to the society and to share its benefits

3. We must teach the kids to learn and examine the dilemmas of work and wage-labour life and not to forget: to be able to cope with them. Self-criticism and open mindedness must be human goals to achieve

4. We must support work processes in which the individual gains knowledge (i.e. education; mutual understanding and exchange, foreign politics etc.): The product and the instrumental rationality should not be the sole centre of society

5. We must demand that a highly skilled worker shouldn't accept to be going to be work for an injustice state or a company "consuming" and swallowing the working people. The highly skilled ought not to take the work from the less skilled. 
     
6. Even though the right to mobility and to cross all boarders, in principle, must be protected in an open society for all world citizens, a problem is that the well educated leave the less developed countries and travel to the more developed countries to work there. In this way the don’t use their qualifications in their homeland. The reverse side of medal - the freedom to travel to earn money & the "brain drain" and other structural problems must be closely examined.

The work and the family

We are human beings. We are Homo Sapiens (not Homo Erectus ???)
Because of that we can shoes do we need to work, what to do and how to do it.
Nowadays, a large number of people can choose to work, or to have a family.
As it has been mentioned work is one of the most important aspects of human life (existence). But, also, a human being cannot live without a family as well. Why do we need a good job and money, if we do not have the opportunity to invest it? Many of us invest their money into family, which means, that a family, procreation, is just another reason for our existence on the Earth.
However, we can loose one goal to achieve the other. In this way, we neglect family because of our work. Young people prefer not having a family. 
On the other hand, it is not rue, that the youth are interested exclusively in their careers. We have to create an opportunity for them to fulfil themselves in different fields, so that they could be able to have family and children, continue their education and go to work. 
However, if we can choose how to work, maybe we could work at home, using computers, the Net, spending time with the family. 
The thesis is the opportunity to work at home.
Of course, you may say - such work can prolong ate up to 20 hours a day.
Doesn’t a human being have a right to choose, if we help him to create such an alternative. In this way we can solve several problems:
-	unemployment prevention;
-	creation of new places of work;
-	own business start up programs.
Employers should take into consideration the employee’s wishes.

Basic Income

In this working group we had a very fruitful, interesting but controversial debate about the question if work, or, to be more exact, labour, that means the standardized and remunerated form of activity will be or should be the ongoing mechanism of social organization in our societies. The two antagonistic points of view were presented by Daniel Raventós, Prof. of the University of Barcelona and member of the European network on basic income and Hugues Puel, member of “Économie and humanisme”, Lyon France. 
There arguments are the following:

A. Proposal for a Basic Income

I. 
The Basic Income is an income paid by the government (or state, if one prefers) to each member of full right (or permanent resident) even 1) if he/she doesn’t want to work in an remunerated way, 2) without taking in consideration if he/she is rich or poor, or said in another way, independently of their other possible rent sources, and 3) without caring with whom he/she cohabits.

That is to say Basic Income is not comparable with conventional measures of social aid, unemployment benefit, etc. . All these type of aids are related to special social conditions, like unemployment, poverty, handicapped persons etc. The Basic Income is not, it’s unconditional. 

II.
The debate on BI started about 18 years ago as an academic debate but actually has already passed these borders. Today this debate is going on among trade unions, social associations, politicians etc. but with different intensity in different continents and countries.

The substratum of the BI can be summarized in two steps: 
First step: The most powerful national economies generate a lot of wealth and those not so opulent engender less, but both are causing at the same time abundance of poverty. This is not the consequence of any natural law to which it would not be reasonable to oppose (as it would be, for example,  to deny the evidence of the law of gravity). The existing poverty in our societies is consequence of a social option. As, for example, to manufacture weapons, to raise the interest-rates or to assign a part of the state budget for a royal family. And even in the wealthy nations poverty is a much more important problem than less informed people would be willing to admit at first sight. 
Second step: Neither the indirect traditional measures (economic growth, flexibilisation of the labour market, reduction of working hours etc.), nor the direct ones against the poverty (characteristic traditional subsidies of the welfare state) are able to solve the problem in the current dimensions. 

III.
An implicit idea of the BI is that work is a broader conception than the one of a remunerated activity. It is parting from the idea of three different types of work (although their might be different understandings among different authors): remunerated work, domestic work and voluntary work. 

IV.
Some of the advantages of BI are the following:

The BI does not have the problems of the traditional subsidies related with the poverty trap.

It would give a more powerful position to the more feeble members of our societies (it would allow them not to have to accept any kind of labour in any kind of condition, like today).

It would offer to an important part of the society the real freedom to choose.

It would enable especially women who dependant on their husbands (often at the same time their aggressors) to be more independent.

It would avoid the humiliating administrative controls of the traditional conditioned subsidies. That means it would avoid the stigmatization related with those.

V.
BI will surely not avoid all types of problems but to assure to everybody the right of existence would permit at the same time the realization of some of the big issues we debated during these days like empowerment of the civil society, a more democratic and direct participation of the citizens in decision making processes, separate the social recognition and personal identity from labour and others

VI.
The idea of the BI might sound utopian today like it was yesterday the idea of general elections independent from social status, income, gender, education etc. Today nobody would understand freedom and democracy without this universal right to vote. Probably in the future freedom and democracy will not be understood without this social and economic right and guarantee of existence for all the members of society for the simple reason of being one.

B. Improve our employment systems

The proposal of BI is radical, since it introduces a new political right: a recognised minimum income as a basic right of all citizens. It is a debt that society must pay to each and everyone. The amount of this debt depends on the wealth of the country and the level of the income decided. However, it would cause an upheaval in the budgets of political authorities, the tax system, social policies and the structure of salaries and remunerations. 

This proposal supposes a major political decision that would not be made without debate, not only between experts, but on a wide basis in the population concerned. It will not occur rapidly in the EU and, even more improbably, in the United States or in other countries of the world.

Also, the Alliance must make proposals that can be realised as immediately as possible, at the levels of social and employment policies, and measures to fight poverty.

The proposal made here is to imagine a series of measures aimed at improving the employment system without awaiting the arrival via political events for a decision to shake up existing circumstances. The complexity of our societies and their plurality pleads in favour of this position.

Our employment system is linked to four other systems and the proposal aims to make this system more sensitive to these other systems.

These four systems are:
The domestic system; the education system; the unemployment system; the retirement system.

The domestic system: Should family and housewife allowances be given (for demographic and social reasons and that of reducing unemployment)? Should more jobs be given to women by setting up nurseries and other forms of child minding or, on the contrary, should aid be given to households so that mothers or fathers can remain at home?

The education system
Should the time children stay at school be extended or, on the contrary, should it be reduced to facilitate earlier integration in the employment system? (Some adolescents no longer tolerate the school system). Facilitate training courses in companies for teachers to improve their understanding of the productive system. Give professionals the possibility of giving courses, for example, in schools and universities, so as to provide information and elements motivating the desire to work. 

The unemployment system 
Unemployment benefit is granted to facilitate seeking new jobs or attending additional training. It supposes that guidance be given in view to helping the person to adapt to new working conditions. The minimum social security benefit and different social minima in a country such as France, permit ensuring that each person obtains a minimum allowance of FFR3,000. This should be combined with more efficient measures either oriented towards social integration, or to employment.

The retirement system
Demographic evolution shows that women and men live longer and in better health. Pensions should be modulated to facilitate the transition between generations and insure against the loss of memorised know-how. Thus our retirement systems should be subject to a large number of modifications.

There is no shortage of ideas to make our employment systems more sensitive to the needs of active human life worthy of our fellow citizens. We know that all social policy measures can have perverse and unpredictable effects. This implies that our systems should be constantly adapted and modified. This cannot be done outside of a vigorous civil society peopled by organisations and grassroots movements as well as a representative system open to proposals from society.

Some synthezising remarks by Hans Harms

As the reader has realized both approaches are well argued and seem to be reasonable. Obviously the first is radical, even revolutionary and would mean a an important change in our societies, whereas the second is more conventional and that means more easily digestible. 

The problem is that we suffer almost thirty years of increasing structural unemployment and we had innumerable and ongoing attempts to “améliorer nos systèmes de l’emploi” so that after all these years it should be allowed to reflect on alternatives without being catalogued as fatalists or pessimists who have lost the confidence in the capacity of the free market to solve these problems. Although the situation on the labour markets has been relatively positive – with important differences between European countries, the events of the last months with the announcement of massive dismissals of numerous multinational companies have restrained the hope that this evolution will continue. In addition, as relevant investigations realized by german universities demonstrate, the impact of the new technologies on the labour market, especially in administration and banking system is still to come and will cause the dismissial of millions of people - only in Germany.

In order to say it with Ulrich Beck: “We have to reflect on the way in which democracy and social integration are possible beyond work. This is one of the fundamental questions which has multitude of possibilities if one pays attention to the discussions of the past, but which until today has not been considered with the sufficient urgency and for which there is no longer a valid answer in the old dichotomy of left and right“. (Reformulation of a left position beyond left and right, in: Archipelago, no. 45/2001, p. 68). 

This point is, from my point of view, the essential one to favorize the radical approach of the basic income in oppsition to Hugues aproach. 

And there in another important argument:  The alternative measures to the creation of new jobs through growth, compitition, social dumping etc., as, for example, the reduction of the working hours as well as other forms of distribution of work or the idea of the basic income and others have an important advantage in comparison with the vain –and since thirty years no kept- promise to create sufficient job for all: these alternative measures are reversible, the social consequences of the traditional approach not. Will say, for people who work in a schedule of reduced working hours (Volkswagen 28 hours, for example), or on part-time, or enjoy a sabatical year thanks to a basic income, it would be no problem to work more hours or to return to the labor market if this would be necessary for market reasons, but what is absolutely not reversible is to exclude people for long phases from this market. As studies on the subject demonstrate to this respect, if people are unemployed during a long time the return to the labor life gets more and more improbable, even if the demanded professional qualifications exist, because of  psycho-social reasons. This phenomenon is known in the corresponding literature as “hysteresis”. This way milliones of people have been burned during in these last 30 mentioned years because we refused to accept to reflect on possible alternatives.