We receive and publish the intervention of Dario Fontana, researcher of Sociology of work at the University of Turin, on the contents of his research “Industrial digitization – an inquiry into working conditions and health” (Franco Angeli).
In recent years the digitization it has established itself as the strategic direction of social transformations, both in the sphere of consumption and in that of production. It is no coincidence that the management of this new technological development is one of the pillars of National recovery and resilience plan. The public debate has almost entirely focused on the possibilities employment consequences, aimed at the possible reduction of the workforce, but very little has been said about the quality of work of who will operate with this new technology. We tend to think, perhaps quite simply, that any trajectory of technological development is by itself positive. However, it is perhaps worth remembering that digitization is also a fact social and if science allows various experimental possibilities, only some will become reality. Industrial digitization is therefore an expression politics that goes governed, not accepted or rejected a priori. One should ask: who will have it direction politics? On the basis of what will the production processes to be digitized be chosen? The business interests do they always coincide with those of the workers?
Analyzing the working conditions is useful to understand if the direction of technological development is respecting its final ethical duty, that of collective improvement. This is the direction of the research entitled Industrial digitization – a survey on working conditions and health (edited by FrancoAngeli). An investigation – which involved more than a thousand workers and workers – carried out within eight companies operating in the productive sectors agri-food, engineering, ceramics, biomedical, logistics, banking.
Unfortunately, a somewhat picture emerges worrying. The first element that strongly imposes itself is the presence of a high intensification of work e standardization procedures. Within the intensification, the dominant variable is a high demand speed of the performance. Both dimensions therefore seem to be a structuring element to which digitization has not only adapted, but has risen from catalyst, in particular towards a increased workloads. The other side of the coin corresponds to a low decision-making space. The overall control over the organization of work (and over other fundamental aspects such as technology and production objectives), still seems bound – in its essence – to a company management that excludes workers from decision-making processes. Within the production process, on the other hand, there is a “scissor effect”, That is, the complexity of the work increases without it following a congruous increase in autonomy. Autonomy appears to be good confined to the only “problem solving” practices and more generally to the management of the job within the rigid boundaries decided by the company. In general, the higher the decision-making level, the lower the share of workers involved. Going specifically man-machine relationship (also understood as software), the majority of respondents believe they are determined in its action by the machine and not vice versa, experiencing little or no interaction with it, receiving only indications or at most by entering data through very strict constraints and prescriptions.
These central dimensions of work organization are accompanied by a perception of socio-organizational relationships not brilliant: low cooperation and strong work individualized, a unequal distribution of work and strong insecurity of it, understood as high fear of unemployment and precariousness, danger of substitution both by technology but also by one low-cost competition and great difficulty in recycling in the world of work.
However, the picture summarized up to now does not involve only a negative judgment in the organizational field, but also material effects that affect health. From the Italian and international statistics it emerges that i musculoskeletal disorders and pathologies related to work-related stress – both of which are showing a worrying rise – are now structural occupational diseases to the current mode of production. Pathologies which, as per scientific literature, are directly linked to the increase in the intensification of work and the decrease in decision-making space. In fact, a high stress risk profile emerges for the majority of workers and, in particular, those who work with digital machines are more than twice as likely to incur the risk of stress compared to “classic workers”. In cascade, even the mental health is worrying: specifically, poor mental health appears strongly associated to a high-risk context stress. Furthermore, in an intensified context, musculoskeletal disorders can only reach alarming levels. Of the workers interviewed only 18% do not report any disturbance e over 70% of the reported disorders (definitely out of standard) are statistically associated with work activity. This relationship between work and health appears clear to workers: those who declare poor working conditions not only judge their working environment as dangerous, but also tend to recognize the genesis of this degradation within a conception of inversely proportional exchange between work and health.
Much more emerges from this research, but this is at least enough to automatically deny a direction emancipating working conditions. There is no single organizational model possible and there is not even a single digital technology to obtain the same products or provide the same services. The crux lies in how you choose and who acts the power of those choices. The reference to a new trade union course consequently becomes more and more urgent, in the direction of acquiring new skills regarding the bargaining of the modern organization of work.