Our Blog

MOOCs: a revolution in learning or just another try?

MOOC stands for Massive Online Open Course. It’s a way of providing learning content to the “masses” through the internet. The access one has to recent high level content seems to be without boundaries. MOOCs have the potential of slashing social and geographical barriers. People can learn whatever they want on whatever topic. They can learn whenever they want. And they can adapt the pace of learning. It only takes access to the internet. This might be an issue in some parts of the world.
In order to have some idea of what I am writing about, check this list.
It’s not the first time that initiatives like this have been undertaken. Not many of these were a big success. Maybe the easy access of MOOCS combined with participative learning through social media will  change the odds. Another disadvantage is that the courses do not provide academic credit. This is related to the aberrant insistance on diplomas instead of experience and learning. MOOCs can open up the world to many people, but it will not open up the job market in many countries. For that, you still need to register and pay.

Paradise after the Storm

The current state of the world is often compared with turbulence in the atmosphere, a storm. The Flemish political philosopher has written an essay, or should I say a pamphlet, with the title “A paradise blows from the storm” (Een paradijs waait uit de storm). The title refers to a phrase by the German social critic Walter Benjamin, describing Angelus Novus, a painting by Paul Klee:
The face of the angel of history is turned toward the past. Where we perceived a chain of events, he sees a single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. This storm irresistably propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. The storm is what we call progress.
File:Klee, Angelus novus.png
Paul Klee, Angelus Novus, 1920
Oil transfer and watercolor on paper
Decreus argues that only resistance is truly democratic. The current organisation of democracy is to him an elective aristocracy because access to mandates is reserved to an elite and elections usually lead to re-elections of the same elites. But the question is against what one should resist. Decreus argues that the predominance of the market ideology is in itself totalitarian. Moreover it is based on selfishness and assumes that this individual selfishness will be benificary to the group as it allows individuals to experience pleasure and entrepreneurs to make a profit. Competitiveness leads to optimal solutions and creativity. But the market is not perfect and not egalitarian. And in this state, the market creates elites.
Decreus’ criticism on the free markets is not new. And he is right that the free market needs corrections. He is also right when he states that the inequality that has been created is harming the general interest. But these arguments are hardly new. Decreus returns to the foundations of democracy and quotes from the writings of Plato and Aristoteles and describes the Polis or political system as a way to go beyond selfishness and allow people to achieve a higher level of being. For that, inequality cannot be too big. This adagium has been repeated by many in the past 2000 years. John Rawls (1990) defines justice as fairness, which is an even access to resources and corrective measures if this access is not general. Joseph Stiglitz (2012) makes a brilliant analysis of the price of inequality and he comes with a plan.
Decreus does not come with a plan. He says that a philosopher should not solve problems, but reframe them or create new ones. This is quite apalling as a statement from someone who criticizes the current situation and belittles recent initiatives to strive for a more participative or deliberative democracy.
So after reading this essay, the question remains. How to realize progress? How to learn from the current storm(s) ? Resistance against what exactly? In Europe there is a corrected market ideology. There are redistributive systems. In many countries there is a minimum wage (I am still puzzled by the fact that Germany has no minimum wage). Unions exist and collective bargaining is part of the organization of the labour market. Employers increasingly focus on the human side of enterprise and strive to create societal value.
The current storm to me is not a storm of a crumbling ideology, a failure of the free market. It’s a leadership crisis. It’s based on greed. And Decreus argues that the ideology of the free market gets out the worst in people. This is not necessarily true. If there are bad human characteristics, they will be present in all ideologies and human systems. Horrible things have happened in the name of any ideology or religion: crusades in the name of Catholicism, genocide in the name of racial suppremacy (fascism), organised famins in the planned economy of the Soviet Union (Communism), … Any human organisation is not free of “sin” and in all systems elites have abused their power but in all systems elites have been around.
This is just an observation. Maybe an elite is a human characteristic, whatever the nature of the elite (religious, economic, political, …). But there is no reason for an elite to not accept something like the general interest. So the economy is a part of society and should not be treated seperately. So I agree with Decreus that state and economy are not to be divided. But I see no answer in Decreus’ pamphlet.
So far there hasn’t been any civilization that has reached a moral equilibrium that has eradicated immoral behaviour. Only cooperation and leadership could solve that. And I guess the trip towards interdependence and moral equilibrium will be eternal. So the paradise after the storm will remain utopian, but nevertheless desirable.
So even when I agree that crisis (storm) is the basis for progress (after the great flood of 1953 the Netherlands build dams to avoid this kind of disaster), I find Decreus’ analysis quite reductory. As if only resistance is the key to progress. The base of progress is leadership and cooperation. This leadership and cooperation can be anywhere, at any level. And acts of leadership or cooperation do not have to be against something, can be found in various cohabitating ideological systems or can be neutral. And I do see a new world of we arriving (cfr previous blog), in which everyone can play a part, even philosophers, through cooperation and leadership.
Decreus, Thomas (2013). Een Paradijs waait uit de Storm. Over markt, democratie en verzet. Berchem, Epo.
Rawls, John (1990). A theory of Justice.
Stiglitz, Joseph (2012). The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future. W.W. Norton & Company.
Source of the picture:,_Angelus_novus.png

HRM is a process, not a function

HRM is een proces
Het eerste wat we voor ogen moeten houden is dat HRM helemaal geen functie hoort te zijn, maar een proces. De specifieke functies die gealloceerd zijn in een traditionele HR-afdeling, hebben enkel als doel dat proces te faciliteren. Te vaak wil HR een bastion zijn, waar de macht gebaseerd is op compliance en systemen. Beter is te focussen op de toegevoegde waarde en het mensbeleid te integreren in de business. Dit geldt trouwens ook voor andere functies zoals marketing, finance, IT.
Soms noem ik dat de “verkaveling” van HRM: het delen van de verantwoordelijkheid voor het mensbeleid met de volledige business. Alleen zo kun je de doelstellingen van een mensbeleid realiseren.
Is een Afdeling nog nodig?
Als HRM een proces is, is de vraag of een HRM-afdeling nog nodig is niet ver weg. De kritiek op de HRBP-functie is duidelijk: een onduidelijke rol. De kritiek van Bersin is terecht. HRBPs worden vaak gebruikt als manusje-van-alles. Voor mij is een HRBP de expert op people matters binnen de business met als doel ervoor te zorgen dat de factor mens zodanig beheerd wordt dat de doelstellingen van de organisatie – en ook die van de mensen – beheerd worden.
Een HRBP integreert people reflexes in de organisatie. Als het goed loopt zal de HRBP eerder een coach zijn, dan een puur inhoudelijk expert. De technische expertise moet elders in (of buiten) de organisatie aanwezig zijn. Dat loopt niet steeds goed en dat heeft vaak ook te maken met een tekort aan competentie bij de leiding gevenden.
Soms zeg ik wel eens dat HRBPs er zijn als prothese, om de ontbrekende skills te compenseren. Is het dan voldoende om leiding gevenden de nodige skills te geven. Zal de HRBP dan overbodig worden? Misschien. In elk geval heb ik een groot respect voor de vele HRBPs die het mensbeleid bij hun interne klanten opbouwen en vaak geconfronteerd worden met een (te) grote diversiteit aan vragen.
Vandaag geloof ik zeer sterk in een tandem tussen CEO en CPO. De core van HRM wordt meer en meer leadership. HR heeft als doel het leiderschap binnen organisaties te verstevigen. Om een mensbeleid te voeren is men ook afhankelijk van de sterkte van de leiding gevenden. Leiderschap kan zeer breed gedefinieerd worden. Daar valt dan ook Talent onder. Hoeveel leiding gevenden houden zich actief met Talent Management bezig?
Ik definiëer leiderschap aan de hand van vijf eenvoudige maar pertinente principes.
1. Bouw vertrouwen
2. Creëer zinvolheid
3. Help mensen groeien
4. Zorg voor een context waar engagement mogelijk is
5. Zorg voor jezelf.
Ik noem dit duurzaam leiderschap, gebaseerd op karakter. Het HR-beleid moet zich richten op de realisatie van een leiderschapsmodel. Meer nog, het business model van HRM is leadership en organizational development.
Vergeet de administratie niet
We mogen niet vergeten dat aan de factor mens ook een (te) zware administratieve last hangt. Deze helaasheid is een realiteit en teveel tijd wordt opgeëist door deze administratieve last. Er bestaan landen waar de sociaal-juridische context veel eenvoudiger is dan in België. We moeten hiermee leven. Dankzij slimme tools, geoliede processen en het stimuleren van de zelfredzaamheid van managers en medewerkers kan deze administratieve last verminderd en gedeeld worden. Vergeet niet dat als de basis niet goed is, de rest bezwaarlijk ingang zal vinden.
Maatschappelijke waarde
Wat ik volledig mis in de beschouwingen van Bersin, is het streven naar een maatschappelijke rol van HRM. In het kader van duurzaam ondernemen is de factor “mens” één van de centrale aandachtspunten. Bedrijven zijn ook een actief bestanddeel van de arbeidsmarkt en kunnen door hun mensbeleid een actieve bijdrage leveren tot de werking van de arbeidsmarkt en de ontwikkeling van een duurzame inzetbaarheid van de eigen medewerkers. Met de maatschappelijke rol, naast de administratieve, de procesmatige, de strategische rol, bereikt HRM het summum van maturiteit.
Met heel wat aanbevelingen van Bersin kan ik leven. Zijn kritiek is evenwel de kritiek van iemand die aan de zijlijn staat. De ideale HR-structuur en -werking is iets wat we wel kunnen nastreven, maar nog even niet bereikt hebben. Er is dus nog werk(zekerheid) voor HRM.
Eventjes mijn aanbevelingen op een rijtje:
1. Zie HRM niet als een functie, maar als een organisatie-proces.
2. Focus niet op de afdeling, maar op de resultaten en toegevoegde waarde
3. Koppel het HRM-beleid aan het leiderschapsmodel
4. Zet de mens centraal en probeer niet andere management-functies te imiteren. Zie de factor mens als jouw expertise en zoek op basis daarvan een duidelijke toegevoegde waarde. Maak dingen mogelijk.
5. Beheer en reduceer de administratieve workload
6. Verwaarloos de ontwikkeling van de eigen HRM-medewerkers niet.
7. Laat de naam “Human Resources” – HRM vallen. Het is mensbeleid. Groei naar een maatschappelijk relevante rol.
Lesley Arens trok mijn aandacht op een artikel op P&O-actueel over wat allemaal moet veranderen bij HRM ( Het betreft een vertaling van een blog van Bersin ( Bedankt Lesley voor de uitnodiging om even over mijn beroep na te denken.

Happiness and love. Why employers should not touch them!



Happiness. looking at water is relaxing.

Everyone wants to be happy.
Everyone deserves to be happy. We all agree on that since the earliest philosophers have contemplated about the meaning of life. So there’s no rocket science in that. And for centuries people have looked for a certain kind happiness. But on the way – somewhere in the 18th century – we have derailed. We have made happiness into a quest and the more we seek it, the more we seem to lose it. Today we live in a POSH-society. People have to be Perfect, Original, Successful and Happy. There is an obligation to be happy. And we try to define happiness too often in a hedonic sense. We look for pleasure and have no longer boundaries. We want it all and we want it now. And we have not become happier because of that. On the contrary.
Employers have discovered happiness as well. Happiness is important because happy people perform better. Imagine that I would say to my wife that I want her to be happy because she would cook better (for me). A slap in my face is what I would deserve. I want my wife to be happy because I love her, not because I want her to perform better. Probably it’s the other way around. Cooking for my family makes me happy (I hope they like the food).
Employers should not touch happiness for many reasons. Happiness belongs to the personal experiences of life. People have the right to be unhappy. People do things that make them unhappy. People find happiness elsewhere (too). People derive happiness from a sense of meaning, less from single experiences. And work is not the single most important source of happiness.
Richard Layard (2011) describes the 7 factors affecting happiness: family relationships, financial situation, work, community and friends, health, personal freedom and personal values. The funny thing is that work is not the most important generator of happiness, it’s family. Even when we know that becoming unemployed will lower your level of happiness (the most important aspect of work, is to have it), the effect seems to be lower than when one is separated (rather than being married) and it has the same impact as a small deterioration of personal health.
Who is responsible?
But if health and family are the most important aspects of happiness, who is responsible for that? It’s the individual of course. So an employer cannot do much about happiness, but to provide possibilities for people to combine work and private life, personal health, … and at the end the choice is with the employee.
People are unhappy during parts of their life: losing a spouse, divorce, economic crisis, health issues, … and still they keep working. Not working would make them worse off, financially and socially. And luckily for the employers, some people seem to cope well with unhappiness. Not everyone ends up in a depression even when they might have feelings of depression during difficult phases of life.
It’s not only about critical life incidents. People are also unhappy because they compare with someone who has or earns more. This is the pitfall of social comparison. We work hard to earn a lot of money to be able to buy stuff to impress people we don’t even like. Having a big car in the driveway is for someone a sign of achievement. And to have that car, they do foolish things that make them utterly unhappy. Why does Peter’s principle exist? Because people ignore their limits and are driven by things outside of themselves. But is the employer responsible for the inner drives of all employees? Should we as employers intervene when we see an employee is leading a life that might lead to unhappiness? Or should employers exploit those drives in order to maximize output, which I am sure happens. The answer to the latter 3 questions is negative.
Happiness is a state that is the result of many variables. Employers cannot be normative about what happiness is for each and everyone. Employers might think that working hard and achieving is the single most important source of happiness. They might think that engagement is not enough, but that they need people who see their work as a life’s mission (workaholics are good to the company). They might feel contempt for people who give work a minor role in their life (work just enough to earn a living that will feed the kids and allow me to go fishing every weekend). Employers might try and save people from their dull existence and have them develop their full potential. They might want to rescue people who have lost their ambition or who in spite of their potential go for the quiet job.
Oh yes. Employers can contribute to one’s personal happiness by providing decent and meaningful work. By making sure that work does not make people sick. By providing choices (also so called bad ones). And a leader will make sure that the people in his or her team will be able to stay in balance. All of this is a lot and it’s enough. The focus should not be happiness, but sustainable employability which includes health, engagement and talent. Because this is what employers do: they employ people. If they are good at that, they might contribute to overall happiness in life. But again, the employer is not responsible for the happiness as such of the employees.
Happiness comes as it is. It’s a hidden quality of life. It’s a quality that disappears when you focus too much on it. If we want to be happy, we need to stop talking about it and take every day as it comes, with a high appreciation of what it brings: the sun on your face, the smile of a child, the gratitude of colleague, the sense of having done something worth while, … Let’s not engineer happiness.
And what about love?
After employers have conquered the field of motivation and inner drive, they went for engagement. Engagement is interesting because it brings benefits to the company and by being engaged people might even improve their mental health (isn’t happiness a state of mental health?). And after that they went for passion. And after that they went for happiness. And now they seem to go for love. And after that it’s spirituality.
Like the fact that anyone of us wants to be happy, all of us wants to be loved as well.
A husband wants his wife to be happy because he loves her. Does an employer want his employees to be happy because he loves them? Basically any (normal) person wants any other human being to be happy because he is human. We are empathic. An employer respects his employees, appreciates them, wants to help them, … but he does not necessarily want or need to love them.
Trying to conquer love is a logical step after having tried to conquer happiness, but it’s not a position an employer needs or wants to hold. Vice versa, people can say they love the company they work for (remember Steve Balmer but that’s not love. It’s identification. It’s sharing goals and values. It’s part of a psychological contract. There’s even a “prenuptial”. He was basically paid to jump on stage.
Love is unconditional. That is why people can love people that do bad things, are failures in life, … Will an employer love his employees when they do bad things, or when they make too many mistakes? Employers don’t want to, and they should not,  because the relationship is different, conditional, even instrumental.
And please do not accuse me of being cold. An employer that tells this to his employees cannot keep the promise of love. It’s already difficult to be kind, even though I am convinced that kindness is an essential part of leadership. Love isn’t. Not love but empathy will make a difference.
I plead not to go into the realm of personal happiness and of love as an employer but to focus on creating a context in which people can pursue whatever they want to pursue, with the condition that they contribute to the results of the company. Let’s not hide possible issues under the cloak of happiness and love. These two aspects of human life are way too important to be hijacked by employers who inevitably will link the concepts to economic profits.
Layard, R. (2011) Happiness. Lessons from a new science. London, Penguin Books.
Originally posted at

Pension Reform: let's live now.

These are difficult times for unions in Belgium. The government has (finally) decided to go ahead with a pension reform and is doing so with an unprecedented speed. The political agreement and the deadline for its implementation, leaves little room for dialogue between the social partners and the government. It is generally accepted by the public that pension reform is needed so the time seems to be right. But this is not how the unions see it. They see three problems:

  1. They have not sufficiently been involved in the debate about the pension reform (“erosion of social dialogue”);
  2. They see individual rights threatened (“broken promisses”) not only in terms of pension rights but also in terms of unemployment protection;
  3. They see the rights of entrepreneurs and companies broadly untouched (“injustice through unfairness”).

The first problem might be the most important one. Belgium has a strong tradition of social dialogue and a high trade union density. Unions owe it to themselves to react. That explains the harsh language and the announced strikes. Unions do what they do and the rituals are needed to get through this without loss of face. In the past these actions have always led to compromises. But today something peculiar is going on. The minister responsible for pension reform – Vincent Van Quickenborne – announces that he will go through with it, even when this means he will never get re-elected. This is unheard and a new political courage. The socialist party – who has provided the prime minister – confirms that these reforms will go through. The unions are not at ease with this fait accompli and this determinationI can imagine that they are getting nervous.
Union leaders claim now that they have tried their best to keep things calm so far, but they can no longer guarantee that emotions will not lead to wild strikes. They have called for a national strike end of January to channel those emotions (to be honest, the strike was pre-emptive as it was announced before the government was formed). The strike comes after the deadline that the government has given itself. Unions are taken by surprise by the speed in which the reform will be presented to Parliament. They are surprised by the no-way-back and there-is-no-alternative (a style that they know very well themselves). So the national strike might come too late.
Even when unions have a point when they say that the tradition of social dialogue has not been maintained, unions are not informing their members correctly. So let’s put forward some elements.

  1. Belgium has one of the lowest activity rates for elderly people. There are other countries that combine later retirement with low unemployment, and high quality of labour with high employment. We need to look at other countries like the Netherlands or the Scandinavian countries to see that it’s possible. So why not in Belgium?
  2. The pension system as we know it, is underfinanced and future generations will not be able to support the retired if nothing happens. There are no reserves. The real pension age has been too low for decades through systems of early retirement. Subsidized systems of work time reduction or sabbaticals have become so popular that not only they are costly but they have also contributed to the deficit of the system. All this in combination with the increased life expectancy has undermined the financial stability of the pension system.
  3. The economic crisis has created a budget deficiency, which requires budgetary action. This is most probably the main cause for the wrath of unions, but saying that the banks should pay instead of the workers is populism. A pension reform was needed also before 2008, when the financial and economic crisis started.
  4. Belgium is one of the last countries in Western Europe to go ahead with a pension reform. It’s a matter of competitiveness and of image.
  5. The pension reform cannot be a surprise. The debate has been going on for years and there was a modest prelude in 2005. That year the generation pact has been voted. The effect of this generation pact has been modest not to say insufficient.
  6. Social Expenditure in general in Belgium has gone up. This is an indication that there is no erosion of social protection. (see a recent publication of the social security agency We need to heed the efficiency of the system (but working costs have not gone up dramatically) and it’s a sign of good governance that a government wants to prevent a derailment of the system. There should be no doubt about that.
  7. All in all, the reforms are even not that dramatic. The legal age for retirement has not increased. Compared to our neighbouring countries many things have been kept intact. This probably means that the reforms will not be sufficient and more reforms will be needed. It took Germany 15 years to reform their pension scheme. In the coming reforms we need to make sure that people acquire during their working life sufficient reserves to maintain the quality of life after retirement.

A different way of thinking is needed
The elements above are of a technical nature. What we need to do is to change the way we look at work. Work is not something that prevents us from living. It’s a part of our life and it gives life a purpose. It’s a pity to value retirement as the ultimate reward of work, as the main deferred benefit. Let’s live now.

Greedom or Freed (about Greed and Freedom)

The smell of Revolution

The smell of revolution is hanging in the air. The so-called Indignados are taking to the streets to protest against a system that they see as disruptive but that is apparently kept alive by massive financial injections. People are on the streets in Brussels, Madrid, New York and other cities in protest. So are they just rabble, anarchists, a minority, melancholic communists? Are these people protesting because they are unable to integrate in a societal system that is omnipresent and has been so since the times of industrialisation?
Or is there something more to it? Are people rejecting the system?
Naomi Klein asks the question why it took so long before people took to the streets. The answer is simple: it took so long because people indeed have benefitted from the system. The system appeals to one of the main drivers of human behaviour : greed. She describes the current system in her latest book on the shock doctrine (2007).


Three psychological mechanisms are behind greed. The first mechanism is adaptation. We adapt to new situations. So if we reach a new and higher level of comfort we adapt to it and more we do not appreciate it. Once there, we assume that this level is acquired for ever. A second mechanism is social comparison. People compare their situation with the situation of relevant others. Those relevant others are usually people that are perceived to be better off. The third mechanism is the mechanism of choice. We can choose whom we compare with. We can choose to aspire other things. We can choose what to do and what not to do.
John Whitmore (1997) describes three choices: you can live in a state of need, a state of greed or a state of freedom. These three levels are also called dependence, independence and interdependence. When we make choices based on dependence, we are not taking any responsibility for what happens to us. If we base our choices on independence we are focussing on personal interest and personal interest only. Finally in interdependence we try to reconcile both the personal interests and the the interests of the other. Few people are on the third level, in spite of the fact that we know that people who can function on that level usually experience a high level of meaningfulness and happiness in life.
Zizek (2011) describes the four drivers behind the fact that the current system is no longer sustainable: (1) the worldwide ecological crisis, (2) imbalances within the economic system, (3) the biogenetic revolution and (4) exploding social divisions and ruptures. Drivers 1, 2 and 4 are clear in the protests.


A couple of months ago I was in Barcelona and walked through the Catalunya Square where thousands of indignati were gathered and I noticed the multitude of themes they were addressing (see an earlier blog, Spanish Revolution). Indeed, people have a feeling of Unbehagen about the world they live in, even though that the spark that ignites the protests is often unemployment and lack of personal perspectives.
So is this an issue of Zeitgeist, a late fin-de-siècle, an apocalyptic feeling? Well let’s face the brutal facts and then we can only be worried. Putting your head in the sand and ignoring the signs will not get us anywhere.
But solving the problem is not simple if people reside in states of dependence or independence. As long as we derive our identity from what we have and consume and not from what and who we really are (e.g. defined by the trace we leave on the planet, our legacy). It will not work if we cling onto personal objectives. It will not work if we think that earning more, consuming more, … is a definition of success. Leaving all that behind is difficult, because we have been brought up that way. proves that it is possible. Their motto is “don’t be rich, live rich”. (

Let’s not be passive

We should not be passive about what is happening around us. If there are changes ahead we should shape them. Today there is protest, but we need real action.
And all of the solutions are available, at least in theory. On a personal level one could strive to be content with what is and not discontent with what is not. Suppressing greed is an act of balance. One could decide to compare oneself with those who are worse off than oneself and look at that other one with compassion instead of judgment. You could design your life based on health and sustainability.
Companies could work actively to install systems of justice based on fairness (cfr Rawls’ Theory of Justice) and reducing the gap between the highest and lowest incomes. Companies could strive for policies that are based on the principle of freedom and interdependence. Shareholders could postpone immediate profit and invest in sustainable operations.
Unions could stop focussing on purchasing power increases and work on sustainable progress. They could focus on employability instead of on income in those countries and companies where decent work is a given. Producers could refrain from exploiting labour forces in other continents.
Governments could regulate and discourage speculations that are in the interest of a few but against general interest. They can build systems that decrease the span between the highest and the lowest incomes. The redistributive function of taxation could be stressed. This requires courageous politicians that are willing and able to take the necessary action. The question is whether or not these politicians will get elected.
On different levels, many issues are possible. But to be honest, I am quite pessimistic that this change is likely to occur. People define the current state as freedom, but it is “greedom“. Our current feeling of being free is a false one. We are very much depending on a system that seems to be facing a meltdown and which is addictive. Current solutions are old school and departing from the current system. Billions of Euros and Dollars are pumped into a leaking system, and it’s not bringing any change about.
I’m sure if someone reads this blog, he or she might think this is a radical leftist opinion. It’s not. I ask not to judge on any ideological system, but to look for answers to the huge problems of ecology, economy and society. Let’s put individual responsibility in the center of collective action. Let’s work towards a state of “freed” instead of “greedom”, that’s what those people on the streets want and that’s what people would benefit from. And that’s what our children en their children would benefit from.
And even if there are now only a couple of thousands of them, there will be more. There should be more.
Klein, N. (2007). The Shock Doctrine, the rise of disaster capitalism. Alfred Knopf Editors.
Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Whitmore, J. (1997). Need, Greed or Freedom: Business Changes and Personal Choices. London, Element Books, pp. 224

Zizek, S. (2010). Living in the end Times. London, Verso. 

Other Blogs

Youth Unemployment: The Spanish Revolution

Youth Unemployment: The Spanish revolution

On Friday may 27 2011, I witnessed how the Spanish Police in battle-dress evacuated the Plaça Catalunya in Barcelona. Youngsters had gathered on this famous square – probably inspired by the events in the Middle East and Northern Africa – to protest against the skyrocketing youth unemployment and the apparent lack of remedy. The atmosphere was that of a political rally mixed with a musical festival. Young people were debating about many topics, but most discussions were dealing with their future, given the high unemployment rate.
Youth unemployment in Spain was at 42,8% at the end of 2010. For the sake of comparison: Morocco was at 18,8%, Portugal had 23% and Greece was at 36,9%. (Source
The (weak) economic recovery seems to create jobs, also for youngsters. But the ILO warns that youngsters could get discouraged and stop participating to the labour market. This could be the case in those countries where statistics are not a high priority for governments and where registration as unemployed is no obligation , where there is hidden unemployment or subsidized employment, where there is no unemployment allowance, where participation of women in the labour market is low, … They stay at home or even end up in criminal activity, …
In Spain people talk about the lost generation. Unemployed young people cannot start with their lives; they cannot afford living on their own let alone buying a house. They are confronted with a grim future. Many of them have studied and realize they cannot find decent work. They end up in precarious employment situations, low paying jobs.
According to the ILO we need a government approach that generates sustainable job recovery and sufficient high quality jobs for youngsters. Having a meaningful job is of the greatest importance for people as it is a basis for mental wellbeing. A job generates income; it provides meaningfulness to one’s existence. One can make a difference, contribute, and acquire societal status through employment. Research shows that the lack of a job or losing it has a negative impact on mental health. For someone at the start of his or her career it means a very uncertain future.

What can we do about youth unemployment?

There is no miracle cure. But this is what governments should do:

  1. Make youth unemployment a priority;
  2. Make sure having a job is worthwhile. Reduce fiscal pressure on income through labour.
  3. Provide early work experiences for youngsters by combining education and work. Review your educational system to maximize these experiences.
  4. Make sure that people leave school with a degree and provide ways for catching up for those without degree.
  5. Make sure that companies are open for diversity and look at potential instead of at degrees or the match with rigid job-demands.
  6. Encourage companies to hire people that have no professional experience, even though they are less productive at the start or you risk losing them after a short time. Companies should consider this as a way of corporate social responsibility. Governments can give incentives.
  7. Provide early guidance towards the labour market for youngsters, starting at school. This should cover study choice, curriculum building, internship management, …
  8. If you have no opportunities for your young generation, then help them to emigrate and hope that they will return tou your country once things are getting better. They might remember that you’ve helped them. But deal with your brain drain.

<h3>Back to Spain</h3>
The Plaça Catalunya has been evacuated because there was a soccer match between Barça and Manchester United. It’s cynical that a soccer game – the fear for riots – comes before the protesting youngsters. Barça won and I think that the crowd on the square would have celebrated together with the fans. The square was empty at 8h30 but was filled again with young angry people by noon. People I talked to – both with and without a job – disapproved the approach of the government.
But the situation is indeed cumbersome. The government led by Zapatero has no miracle cure and is faced with many challenges. What is then left for the current generation of the PIGS-countries? Do they have the choice between unemployment and emigration? Will Spain sacrifice this generation and focus on the budgetary deficit. Will Spain create a future for its future generation? A social emergency plan is needed.
David Ducheyne
Read also : ILO, Global Employment Trends 2011: The challenge of a jobs recovery

Privacy Settings
We use cookies to enhance your experience while using our website. If you are using our Services via a browser you can restrict, block or remove cookies through your web browser settings. We also use content and scripts from third parties that may use tracking technologies. You can selectively provide your consent below to allow such third party embeds. For complete information about the cookies we use, data we collect and how we process them, please check our Privacy Policy
Consent to display content from Youtube
Consent to display content from Vimeo
Google Maps
Consent to display content from Google