Advertisement

Work and Health and Contemporary Capitalism: Economics as a Social Disease

  • Francisco de Paula Antunes Lima
  • Ana Valéria Carneiro Dias
Chapter

Abstract

Work nowadays faces changes that bring important impacts on workers’ health, such as accidents, large disasters, and diseases related to stress. These anomalies have been associated with raising tensions that resulted from globalization and the increase of inter-capitalist dispute. In this context emerges the phenomenon of financialization of the economy that leads organizations to want short-term results. Work management forms assume aggressive and even violent nature that stimulates competition between workers and teams by imposing ever-growing goals and loads. This context presents challenges to interventions that aim to change management models in order to make the work more humane and sustainable. The chapter addresses the following questions: What are the central contradictions in today’s productive processes? How can one create a need among managers and other players for more sustained transformation of production models? What kind of demands do these changes require for intervention and surveillance activities in the context of workers’ health?

Keywords

New forms of work organization Financialization Workers' health Performance evaluation Economics models and health 

References

  1. Amalberti, R. (2016). Gestão da segurança: teorias e práticas sobre as decisões e soluções de compromisso necessárias. Botucatu: FMP-UNEP.Google Scholar
  2. Augusto, L. G. S., Carneiro. F. F., Pignati, W., Rigotto, R. M., Friedrich, K., Faria, N. M.X., et al. (2012). Dossiê ABRASCO – Um alerta sobre os impactos dos agrotóxicos na saúde. Rio de Janeiro: ABRASCO; 2ª Parte.Google Scholar
  3. Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., & Howcroft, D. (2013). ‘The future’s bright, the future’s mobile’: A study of Apple and Google mobile application developers. Work, Employment and Society, 27(6), 964–981.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017012474709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bharadwaj, S., & Menon, A. (2000). Making innovation happen in organizations: Individual creativity mechanisms, organizational creativity mechanisms or both? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(6), 424–434.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(00)00057-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyer, R., & Freyssenet, M. (2000). Les modèles productifs. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  6. Burawoy, M. (2014). Marxismo sociológico. Alameda: São Paulo.Google Scholar
  7. Carneiro, F. F., Pignati, W., Rigotto, R. M., Augusto, L. G. S., Rizzolo, A., Faria, N. M. X., et al. (2012). Dossiê ABRASCO – Um alerta sobre os impactos dos agrotóxicos na saúde. Parte 1 - Agrotóxicos, segurança alimentar e nutricional e saúde. Rio de Janeiro: ABRASCO.Google Scholar
  8. Carneiro, F. F., Augusto, L. G. S., Rigotto, R. M., Friedrich, K., & Búrigo, A. C. (2015). Dossiê ABRASCO: Um alerta sobre os impactos dos agrotóxicos na saúde. Rio de Janeiro: EPSJV; São Paulo: Expressão Popular.Google Scholar
  9. Cavechini, C., & Barros, C. J. (2011). Carne e osso. O trabalho em frigoríficos [documentary]. Repórter Brasil.Google Scholar
  10. Cecosesola. (2003). Buscando una convivenciaarmónica. Barquisimento: Digesa Lara.Google Scholar
  11. Cecosesola. (2007). Construyendo aqui y ahorael mundo que queremos. Barquisimento: Digesa Lara.Google Scholar
  12. Cecosesola. (2009). Hacia un cérebro colectivo? De reuniones... a espacios de encuentro. Barquisimento: Editora C.A.Google Scholar
  13. Cherns, A. (1987). Principles of sociotechnical design revisited. Human Relations; Studies Towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 40(3), 153–161.Google Scholar
  14. Chiapello, E. (2015). Financialisation of valuation. Human Studies, 38(1), 13–35.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-014-9337-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clot, Y., & Gollac, M. (2014). Le travail peut-il devenir supportable? Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  16. Coriat, B. (2000). The ‘abominable Ohno production system’. Competences, monitoring, and routines in Japanese production systems. In G. Dosi, R. Nelson, & S. Winter (Eds.), The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Coutrot, T. (2018). Libérer le travail. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  18. Cushen, J. (2013). Financialization in the workplace: Hegemonic narratives, performative interventions and the angry knowledge worker. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(4), 314–331.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2009). La nouvelle raison du monde. In Essai sur la société néoliberale. Paris: La Decouverte.Google Scholar
  20. Dejours, C. (2015). Le choix. Souffrir au travail n’est pas une fatalité. Paris: Bayard.Google Scholar
  21. Diniz, E. P. H., Assunção, A. A., & Lima, F. P. A. (2005). Prevenção de acidentes: o reconhecimento das estratégias operatórias dos motociclistas profissionais como base para a negociação de acordo coletivo. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 10(4), 905–916.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232005000400014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Diniz, E. P. H., Pinheiro, L. C., & Proietti, F. A. (2015). Quando e onde se acidentam e morrem os motociclistas em Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brasil. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 31(12), 2621–2634.  https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00112814.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Dougherty, D. (2008). Bridging social constraint and social action to design organizations for innovation. Organization Studies, 9(3), 415–434.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607088021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Du Tertre, C. (2012). Lean production et modèle de valeur. Une approche régulationniste par le travail. Activités, 9(2), 168–178.  https://doi.org/10.4000/activites.462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dujarier, M.-A. (2015). Le management desincarnée. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  26. Eijnatten, F. M. (1993). The paradigm that changed the workplace. Stockholm: Arbetslivscentrum - The Swedish Center for Working Life.Google Scholar
  27. Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  28. Ezzamel, M., Willmott, H., & Worthington, F. (2008). Manufacturing shareholder value: The role of accounting in organizational transformation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(2), 107–140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Falzon, P. (2014). Constructive ergonomics. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fligstein, N. (2001). The architecture of markets: An economic sociology of twenty-first-century capitalist societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Froud, J., Johal, S., Leaver, A., & Williams, K. (2006). Financialization and strategy: Narrative and numbers. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2011). Complexity arrangements for sustained innovation: Lessons from 3M Corporation. Organization Studies, 32(6), 737–767.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611410810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Garud, R., Gehman, J., Kumaraswamy, A., & Tuertscher, P. (2017). From the process of innovation to innovation as process. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of process organization studies. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  34. Gaulejac, V. (2005). La société malade de la gestion. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  35. Gaulejac, V., & Hanique, F. (2015). Le capitalisme paradoxant. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  36. Hodgson, D., & Briand, L. (2013). Controlling the uncontrollable: ‘Agile’ teams and illusions of autonomy in creative work. Work, Employment and Society, 27(2), 308–325.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017012460315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuorinka, I., Forcier, L., Hagberg, M., Silverstein, B., Wells, R., Smith, M., et al. (1995). Lésions attribuables au travail repétitif. Québec: Multimondes.Google Scholar
  38. Lampel, J., Honig, B., & Drori, I. (2014). Organizational ingenuity: Concept, processes and strategies. Organization Studies, 35(4), 465–482.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614525321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laurell, A. C., & Noriega, M. (1989). Processo de produção e saúde. São Paulo: Hucitec.Google Scholar
  40. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lazonick, W., & Mazzucato, M. (2013). The risk-reward nexus in the innovation-inequality relationship: Who takes the risks? Who gets the rewards? Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(4), 1093–1128.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtt019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lazonick, W., & O’Sullivan, M. (2000). Maximizing shareholder value: A new ideology for corporate governance. Economy and Society, 29(1), 13–35.  https://doi.org/10.1080/030851400360541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lazonick, W. (2005). The innovative firm. In J. Fagerberg & D. Mowery (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 29–55). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lima, M. E. A. (2010). Dependência química e trabalho: uso funcional e disfuncional de drogas nos contextos laborais. Revista Brasileira de Saúde Ocupacional, 35(122), 260–268.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0303-76572010000200008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lima, M. E. A., Araújo, J. N., & Lima, F. P. A. (1997). LER: Determinantes econômicos e psicossociais. Belo Horizonte: Health.Google Scholar
  46. Lima, F. P. A., Rabelo, L. B. C., & CASTRO, M. L. G. L. (2015). Conectando Saberes: Dispositivos sociais de prevenção de acidentes e doenças no trabalho. Belo Horizonte: Fabrefactum.Google Scholar
  47. Linhart, D. (2009). Travailler sans les autres. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  48. Marx, K. (1983). O Capital. São Paulo: Abril Cultural.Google Scholar
  49. Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  50. Moraes Neto, B. (1989). Marx, Taylor e Ford. Brasiliense: São Paulo.Google Scholar
  51. Rocha, R., Mollo, V., & Daniellou, F. (2015). Work debate spaces: A tool for developing a participatory safety management. Applied Ergonomics, 46(A), 107–114.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.07.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Rosso, B. D. (2014). Creativity and constraints: Exploring the role of constraints in the creative processes of research and development teams. Organization Studies, 35(4), 551–585.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613517600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Santos, M. C. O., Lima, F. P. A., Murta, A. E. P., & Motta, G. M. V. (2009). Desregulamentação do trabalho e desregulação da atividade: o caso da terceirização da limpeza urbana e o trabalho dos garis. PRO, 19(1), 202–213.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-65132009000100013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Savoia, A., & Copeland, P. (2011). Entrepreneurial innovation at Google. The Computer Journal, 44(4), 56–61.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2011.62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Silva, P. H. N. V. (2012). Epidemiologia dos acidentes de trânsito com foco na mortalidadede motociclistas no estado de Pernambuco: uma exacerbação da violência social [these]. Recife; Fundação Oswaldo Cruz.Google Scholar
  56. Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2009). Managing innovation. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  57. Van der Zwan, N. (2014). Making sense of financialization. Socio-Economic Review, 12(1), 99–129.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwt020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Veltz, P. (2000). Le nouveau monde industriel. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  59. Veltz, P., & Zarifian, P. (1992). Modèle systémique et flexibilité. In De Terssac G. Les nouvelles rationalisations de la production (pp. 43–61). Toulouse: Cépaduès.Google Scholar
  60. Vidaillet, B. (2013). Évaluez-moi! Évaluation au travail: les ressorts d’une fascination. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  61. Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. S. (2013). The Change Laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Waters, S. (2017). Suicide voices: Testimonies of trauma in the French workplace. Medical Humanities, 43(1), 24–29.  https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2016-011013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. WHO – World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2015. 2015. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2015/en/. Accessed 1 Oct 2017.
  64. Zarifian, P. (1999). Objectif compétence. Pour une nouvelle logique. Paris: Editions Liaisons.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco de Paula Antunes Lima
    • 1
  • Ana Valéria Carneiro Dias
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Production EngineeringSchool of Engineering, Federal University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations