INSTITUTIONAL FORMS & URBAN LOGICS

Projects
Articles
Salons + Definitions
Workshops
Field Trips
Biographies + Acknowledgements

The way we work has undergone a dramatical change since the 1980s when economies started to outsource workforce in order to re-emerge in a lean more profitable form1. Worker unions were constructed around the image of the firm, the fixed workplace and the nine to five, five days working week. Today these stable conditions apply only to a minority of workers and the unions remain as weak relicts of a vanishing past. The new type is the precarious worker who is employed on short term contracts or works as a freelancer under highly flexible conditions. This is both a blessing and a curse, these conditions free the people and suit the pursuit of self-determination as they leave them outside a regulatory system that guarantees sufficient securities.

The phenomenon of the precarious worker is increasing in size and spreading all occupational categories. It comprises unskilled workers as highly educated people. All have in common that they are not protected by long-term contracts and are easily replaceable on a labour market that is characterised by a surplus of workforce. Opposed to the classical working class these workers are highly individualised and not under the protection of an element that organises their movement and fosters their voice. A growing percentage of our societies is under threat of an increasing flexibilisation of work. Working under zero-hour contracts erase securities like health coverage, unemployment insurance, retirement savings, paid vacations and maternity leave while demanding to be always available to work2.

In 2003 when the French government announced plans to cut unemployment insurance benefits for a wide range of workers in the audiovisual industries and live performance sectors the movement “Coordination des Intermittents et Précarias” formed itself to foster the voice of the workers throughout the country and to fight against systems of exploitation. From the classical musician to the camera operator and circus performer, the workers organised themselves in a movement that should extend the scope of action of a classical union by far, discovering new ways of organisation and protest.

The movement fought for their social right to income continuity in light of employment discontinuity to which they are systematically subject. Working in the fields of audiovisual production and performance comes with a specific nature of employment that is heavily based on temporary collaboration. Their mode of work is highly non-standard and questions the adequacy of employment time as a measure of productivity. There is a vanishing border between the conception and the conduction of work and the gaps between employment periods are indispensable for auditioning, rehearsing and conceiving projects to mobilise other intermittent workers in paid employment. The unemployment insurance benefits planned to be erased recognised this wealth created outside the time spent in employment.

The impact of the movement derived from the characteristic set of skills predominant among the workers in the audiovisual industries and performance as well as its proximity to media channels that set them into a strategic position in gaining media attention. Workers in this field heavily rely on their social networks to conduct work and receive jobs and maintain them as an integral part of their occupation. These networks and the knowledge of how to effectively use them in collaboration played a crucial role in the strength of the groundswell. The structure of the movement is a scalable network of autonomous commissions which has a sovereign body, the general assembly, but individuals and collectives are free to auto-initiate a sub-group or intervention. It has flexible and participatory qualities complemented to their working methods based on their experience with temporary collaborations and non-standard working conditions.

The movement was conducting actions on two levels. On one hand it collaborated with its union to challenge the reform on legal grounds, on the other side the movement extended the scope of the union by participating in direct actions to set their employers under pressure. Protest was conducted in form of disobedience, strikes and sabotage that affected broadcasting channels, prestigious art festivals and cultural institutions that deployed exploitive mechanisms while hiring workers under precarious conditions.

n 2006, three years after the initial formation the movement lost its fight against the implementation of the reforms. Since than the organisation remains outside a scale and impact that it had during the time of the revolt. It can be seen as a failed attempt to improve the situation of the precarious worker on a large scale. As a source of inspiration for upcoming groundswells this is a crucial reference both in structural composition and in the scope it extended our traditional understanding of the worker union.

Guy Standing, an agent of the precarious movement, predicted that the initial voice will come from the educated and wired part of the precariat, exploiting the potential of the electronic communications. So far the situation of the precarious workers are not recognised in its urgency by politics and the public. When the number of the precariat grows and their organisation advances this voice can not be neglected anymore. The key to the success of the movement of the precarious workers lies in the coordination and synchrony of their action. The fragmentation and individualisation of our work environment