The government’s pension reform —which sparked a record-breaking mobilization during the January 31 strike—calls for raising the retirement age to 64 and requiring 43 years of contributions. However, the plan—which aims, in particular, to bring the system into financial balance—risks failing if the issue of occupational health is not addressed in a new way.
For the substantial extension of working life to become a reality, it is particularly important to shift from an approach focused on compensation to one focused on preventing work-related health problems. While the government’s proposal does include a section on arduous work, the measures presented so far do not move in that direction.
Human resources management (HRM) in both private and public organizations must therefore fully address this challenge: health-related issues must be integrated into “standard” HRM frameworks, which the legislature could, in fact, support, facilitate, and encourage.
The long-term sustainability of work depends on the balance between workers’ health and the performance of their jobs, which raises two questions: First, is a worker’s health compatible with their job at a given point in time? Second, does the job affect the worker’s health, and if so, in what way?
To enable employees to meet the legal requirements for retirement, in collaboration with occupational health and safety specialists, managers will now need to ask themselves these questions throughout an employee’s career, starting from the very beginning, regardless of the employee’s age.
In an article recently published in the journal *Gérer et Comprendre*, we analyze the health status of “ripeurs”—that is, garbage collectors who collect household waste from the back of collection trucks.
Our study shows that a garbage collector, when the collection route is covered by two people in the back of the truck, collects waste for an average of 401 minutes (nearly 7 hours), takes a 33-minute break, collects 4.7 metric tons of waste, takes 12,238 steps, and covers a total distance of 44.6 km in the back of the truck.
The cardiac cost—that is, the difference between the heart rate during work and at rest—is 28.8 beats per minute. However, the upper threshold indicating excessive physical exertion is 30 beats.
It is easy to see that physical wear and tear is very high in this extremely demanding profession, which raises the question of the manager’s responsibility in terms of human resource management and occupational health.
This also raises the question of the responsibility of the contracting authorities—which are often municipalities or associations of municipalities—for waste collection. This responsibility is all the greater when the operator or contracting authority, under competitive pressure, considers implementing a “single-driver” system, that is, assigning a single driver per truck.
All the averages cited for two garbage collectors then increase: 434 minutes of collection, with a standard deviation of 90 minutes; 26 minutes of breaks; 9.6 metric tons of waste collected; 16,599 steps taken; an average of 58.3 km per route! The heart rate soars past the upper threshold, reaching 38.8 beats per minute.
The job of a garbage collector is probably one of the most demanding professions, as it combines many of the challenges of modern-day work: physical and time-related pressures, interactions with the public, the complexity of chains of responsibility regarding quality of life at work (QLW), and so on.
However, a doctoral study conducted in 2019, based on an analysis of several waste collection companies, showed that some employers had already developed solutions that allowed employees to continue working in their jobs until retirement age while experiencing significantly less wear and tear. We identified two HRM models that provide two different answers to a single question: How long should—or can—an employee remain in a physically demanding job?
At the first company studied, the employer believed that the employee should be able to continue working in his or her profession “for life,” and did everything possible to make that possible, adapting its day-to-day human resources management to the employee’s health condition. In practice, this approach resulted in the introduction of flexibility in two major areas.
First, in all aspects of human resources management: evaluations that take career development aspirations into account, substantial resources for training, and labor-management dialogue to limit the internal use of single-person crews if sanitation workers do not wish to or are unable to work in them, etc. Second, in all aspects of daily life: support for waste collectors facing difficulties, organization of teams and work schedules to accommodate any temporary limitations resulting from life events or health issues… As a result, the metrics at this company were strong: low absenteeism, very few cases of unfitness for work, high employee satisfaction, and very low turnover.
At the second company, however, the employer believed that a garbage collector should work in that role for as short a time as possible. Believing that instability in the job itself could ensure job stability, managers had developed a flexicurity initiative—both internally and on a regional level, involving multiple employers.
Thus, the hiring process deliberately favored candidates who were overqualified for the position of garbage collector but motivated by a career in the civil service. The employer explained to them upon hiring that the position of garbage collector could only be a stepping stone in their career—a means, not an end.
By recruiting them, he gave them access to civil service exams, which he then strongly encouraged them to take by providing substantial resources (in terms of time and money) so they could prepare for and pass them. Unfortunately, we were unable to assess the results of this policy, as the project was just getting underway at the time of our study.
While not always as demanding as that of garbage collectors, all occupations have an impact on health—both physical and mental. At a time when many professions are seeing an increase in cases of burnout and suicide, as well as growing questions about work and its meaning, debates over the retirement age are bringing to the forefront questions about how long one can realistically expect to continue working. Our research conducted among “frontline workers” such as garbage collectors may prove to be a source of inspiration.
Indeed, this discussion should serve as an opportunity to recall that work can also have positive effects on health—both physically and socially—which, beyond the economic goals and objectives of the reform, also justifies doing everything possible to help older workers remain in the workforce.
In conclusion, we can say that attempting to keep older employees in the workforce without considering the sustainability of their work and without aligning human resource management with this issue exposes them to the risks of exclusion, sick leave, unemployment, disability, and even death: this is costly for both individuals and society. Is such a reform worth the price?
