• Le manque de main d’œuvre rend gentil : Ces dirigeants qui se mobilisent contre la précarité

    « Pour résoudre le problème, tout le monde se tournait vers le gouvernement. Nous estimions, tous deux, que les entreprises pouvaient apporter leur contribution, en matière d’emploi des jeunes et de lutte contre la précarité », raconte Thomas Buberl. Lui et Emmanuel Faber ont alors entrepris de convaincre une dizaine de grands groupes à agir : le Collectif d’entreprises pour une économie plus inclusive était né.
    À la mi-décembre 2018, ils avaient déjà entraîné leurs homologues d’Accor, BNP Paribas, Carrefour, Korian, Schneider Electric, Sodexo et Veolia. Depuis, ce petit groupe informel est devenu un réseau doté d’une gouvernance, avec deux présidents, Thomas Buberl et Sophie Boissard, directrice…



    • Citation rectificative :

      Alors que la crise menace nos profits, nous restons plus que jamais mobilisés autour des trois priorités de 2018.

      Nous sommes convaincus que l’enjeu majeur pour nos actionnaires comme pour le pouvoir du capital sur la société reste celui des travailleurs disponibles, alors que les marchés de l’exploitation sont soumis à des bouleversements inédits depuis la crise sanitaire.

      Il nous faut amplifier l’effort en direction des jeunes exploités non diplômés, au plus près des bassins de pauvres (industriels ou pas).

      Il nous faut aussi relever le défi de l’exploitation des vieux, et plus largement contribuer à l’émergence d’un système favorisant leur résistance jusqu’à leur extinction naturelle.

      C’est pourquoi nous voulons aujourd’hui aller plus loin en matière de d’adaptation qualifiante de notre personnel, en nous fixant, d’ici 2025, un objectif global en ce qui concerne la malléabilité des exploités, sans distinction d’âge ou de statut.

      Ces trois dernières années ont permis de construire les fondations d’un collectif engagé, innovant, au service d’une reproduction du capital plus inclusive.

      Nous sommes convaincus que notre démarche est plus que jamais adaptée et payante, et va ravir le monde des employeurs.

  • Steven Levy : The problem with Big Tech’s wartime push against Putin

    The Plain View

    In 1942, smokers of one of the leading cigarette brands noticed a change in the packaging. The green background on Lucky Strike boxes was now white. The American Tobacco Company’s official explanation was that copper, used to produce the green pigment, was at a premium during wartime. To support the Allied troops, the cigarette maker “sacrificed” by abandoning the green dye. In what might be called midcentury virtue signaling, the firm rolled out a massive ad campaign with the slogan, “Lucky Strike Green Has Gone to War.”

    The current Russian invasion of Ukraine has offered a similar opportunity for a contemporary industry that has occasionally been compared to the tobacco cartel—Big Tech. Multiple times a day, we read about how technology companies ranging from trillionaire giants to startups are prioritizing wartime responsibilities and denying services to Russia or aiding Ukraine. Some of these moves have directly impacted the battlefield, if you extend the war theater to digital cyberstructure as well as the global fight for hearts and minds. The decisions of Meta, Twitter, Google, and Microsoft to block or constrain the Russian news agencies Sputnik and RT, for instance, represents an attempt to preemptively mitigate disinformation. Other measures fall in the category of an overall boycott of a country brutally attacking another without provocation, or offering aid to the disenfranchised. Apple, for instance, closed its stores in Moscow. Airbnb is offering free lodging to refugees. SpaceX is sending Starlink internet terminals to Ukraine. And just as the American Tobacco Company did in 1942, those launching such initiatives are making sure we know about it.

    It’s heartening to see how almost all the Western world, except maybe Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump, is united in condemning Putin’s invasion, and that corporations by and large are making moves to back that up. Yet some of those decisions aren’t so clear cut in who they benefit, and what precedents they might establish. In some cases, their responses are state-requested, originating from the US, EU, or Ukraine itself. Those are hard to turn down. But companies like Meta, Twitter, and Google have spent years devising policies to guide their actions, and those rules were intended to be applied regardless of where political winds are blowing. I am reminded of the exuberance inside the company then called Facebook when its products helped power the Arab Spring. In the excitement of aligning with a liberation movement, Facebook’s leaders failed to see how the same protocols could later empower deadly misinformation in Myanmar and at the US Capitol.

    Our big tech companies are so powerful that even actions that seem morally clear-cut can bite back later on. Take the question of how Facebook operates inside of Russia. Meta is defying Putin’s objections to fact-checking, and has blocked state-backed ads. In response, Russia itself is slowing down access to the platform. If Meta decided to pull Facebook from Russia altogether, would it be a punishment or a reward to Putin? Removal might signify a Zuckerbergian solidarity with the emerging corporate boycott, and also provide a means to fully shut down disinformation circulating on Cyrillic News Feeds. (Whoops, change that to “Feeds.”) But it would also preclude the possibility that Russians unhappy with Putin’s actions might organize protests, share stories of young soldiers at risk, or at least complain about the effects of sanctions.

    Responding to a question I asked in a press call this week, Meta’s policy czar Nick Clegg shared how the company views such contradictions. “We are a private sector company, which runs apps or services, which happen to be relied upon by millions of people in Russia and Ukraine, at a moment of great distress and military conflict,” he said. “And also, we’re having demands made of us by governments in numerous different jurisdictions. That is quite a difficult balancing trick for us to strike.”

    Maybe the best example of this conundrum in the tech world are the demands on the crypto community to deny services to Russians. If it doesn’t, the argument goes, cryptocurrencies will be the loophole by which Putin’s oligarchs will shelter their ill-gotten fortunes. But one of the pillars of crypto technology is that no state action can constrain the much-touted decentralized digital commerce. On one hand, it seems like a great idea to freeze the wallets of Russian kleptocrats, just as banks are doing with their offshore accounts. But doing the “right thing” in this case would be like pulling a weight-bearing Jenga piece out of a delicately balanced crypto architecture. If crypto is not amoral, is it really crypto? (So far, some crypto exchanges are holding out.)

    While there may be no right answers for a lot of these questions, one truth shines through: These platforms are scarily intertwined in the body politic and the global economic machinery. And actions taken now, even with the best of intentions, might wind up repeated to our disadvantage. Cooperation with state-issued requests that skirt established corporate policies could set a troubling precedent.

    In general, consumers should be wary of corporate actions taken in the guise of righteousness. Take Lucky Strike. Post-armistice, it came out that the tobacco company’s vaunted switch from copper pigment had actually been planned long before Pearl Harbor. Surveys had shown that its female customers didn’t like green. The war provided cover for something the company was intending to do anyway. So, as I page through the press releases of tech companies mobilized against Putin, my first question is, “Got a light?”

    #Guerre #Ethique_et_numérique #Ethique_washing #Russie

  • CLODO : Comité pour la liquidation ou la destruction des ordinateurs

    découvert via les cartes du tarot de l’artiste Suzanne Treister

    CLODO Speaks (1983)

    Sporadic acts of #sabotage against companies involved in nuclear plant construction began to take place in the region of #Toulouse, France in mid-1979.

    les cartes sont là @thibnton

    et @sabineblanc aime bien celle de H.P. Lovecraft :