Working Longer—But... Under What Conditions? The Case of Garbage Collectors

The government’s pension reform, passed by the National Assembly after invoking Article 49.3 on March 16, continues to spark protests against it, particularly among garbage collectors. On Tuesday, March 21, the Paris City CGT Public Services union announced that the protest, which began about two weeks ago, would be extended until Monday, March 27. At the start of the week, nearly 10,000 metric tons of trash still littered the capital’s sidewalks, despite the mobilization of staff ordered by the Paris Prefecture.

Garbage collectors are, in fact, particularly vulnerable to the consequences of the substantial extension of the working life provided for in the bill, which raises the legal retirement age from 62 to 64. For these two additional years of work to become a reality, the issue of occupational health must first be addressed. This involves, in particular, shifting from a reactive approach to a proactive one in preventing work-related ailments. While the government’s proposal does include a section on arduous work, the measures presented so far do not move in that direction.

The long-term sustainability of work depends, in fact, on the balance between workers’ health and the performance of their jobs, which raises two questions: First, is a worker’s health compatible with his or her job at a given point in time? Second, does the job affect the worker’s health, and if so, how?

Beyond the case of garbage collectors, to enable employees to meet the legal requirements for retirement, managers will now have to—in collaboration with occupational health and safety specialists—ask themselves these questions throughout an employee’s career, starting from the very beginning, regardless of the employee’s age.

12,238 steps

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 completed with 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 travels a total 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 severe in this extremely demanding profession, which raises the question of the manager’s responsibility in terms of human resource management and occupational health.

The High Cardiac Cost of Monoripage

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; and 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 faced in today’s workplace: physical and time-related pressures, interactions with the public, the complexity of chains of responsibility regarding quality of life at work (QLW), etc.

Pre-written answers

However, a doctoral dissertation conducted in 2019, based on a study 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: careful assessment of employees’ career development goals, substantial resources for training, and a dialogue with employees to limit the internal use of single-person crews if garbage collectors 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 could ensure job stability, managers had developed a flexicurity initiative internally, and even on a regional level and across 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 to an end, not an end in itself.

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.

Reform—at what cost?

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 a growing number of 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 in terms of physical well-being and social well-being—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?

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.