Mismatch on the labour market

What does the labour market of today and tomorrow look like and how can we make it as optimal as possible for all? Approximately 170 policy staff and researchers came together to exchange ideas on this subject during a symposium organised by the Gak Institute Foundation. According to them, the biggest challenge in the labour market in ten years’ time will be inequality, closely followed by dichotomy and mismatch. The reflections done by Rutger Bregman (historian, founder De Correspondent), Steven dHondt (senior researcher at TNO, guest professor at KU Leuven) and the practical case of the Amfors group at a social work company each shed some light on the multifaceted issue of the future of work for all.

The future of work is constantly changing due to (inter)national demographic, economic, technological, social and policy developments. With the spectrum of issues this entails, this is always a double-edged sword. Technological progress and internationalisation offer opportunities, but also lead to concerns with regard to job displacement and disappearances of job oppertunities. The labour market is picking up, increasing its demand for labour, yet employers face a challenge in looking for staff; the knowledge and skills of potential employees often do not match the skills required. Individuals with disabilities, older unemployed and migrants are left behind and find it difficult to find and retain their place in the labour market. Making work more flexible ensures free and open market forces, but also raises questions on the influence of job security and flexible working on mental health. Consequently, burn-outs are increasingly common, especially among young people. The big question thus is: what does the labour market of today and tomorrow look like and how can we make it as optimal as possible for everyone?

A different view on labour

Historian Rutger Bregman wonders whether we have the right perspective on work. According to Bregman, we need to reflect on the meaning of work and ask ourselves which jobs actually adds value. Although jobs often look great on CV and LinkedIn, more and more people find their job ‘not socially useful’.

Bregman refers to the so-called ‘bullshit job’, a job of which the person who is performing it says is actually redundant. When anthropologist David Graeber introduced tise term a few years ago, it triggered a lot of discussion. A poll of public showed that some 80 percent of the policy staff and researchers present considers their jobs to be useful to society. This is nice of course, but it also raises the question of why the other 20 percent cannot go along with this.

According to Graeber, the effect of such bullshit jobs is harmful. According to him, carrying out work that we do not believe to be useful leads to a scar on our collective soul. The anthropologist believes that people prefer to contribute something to society and that consequently, this is what makes us the happiest possible. Fortunately, according to the European Working Conditions Survey (2015), it is not as bad in the Netherlands: about five percent of those working in the Netherlands say they ‘always’ or ‘usually’ doubt the importance of their work. This is a much lower percentage than workers in other European countries, such as Austria, where about 13% of workers have such doubts.

People may not see the point of their job if they believe that their work could just as well – or even better – be performed by a robot. Although this may sound like music to some people’s ears, the disappearance of jobs due to robotisation and technology is usually labelled as negative. At the meeting it appeared that the time has come to think differently about this matter. From different angles, this cliché was put in a different light.

Technology is more than automation

In one of the workshops, TNO senior researcher Steven dHondt explained more about the influence that technology has on labour and the labour market. According to dHondt, there is a technology distortion: exaggerated attention to the potential of the various technologies, without a fresh look at reality. Take for example the expectations about additive manufacturing (3D printing): the rise of this technology is not nearly as fast as people can dream. The time when factories and shops become redundant because we can manufacture everything at home with a 3D printer, is still a long way away ahead. In addition, almost all studies on technologization are about automation and its consequences, with the destruction of jobs by the rise of robotization being the subject of public debate.

Often forgotten is that more is covered by the broad concept of ‘technologicalisation’: in addition to automation (such as robotisation), information technology (such as search systems), communication technology (supports and accelerates communication between people), management systems (prevents errors in processes and thus creates zero error organizations) and so-called operating support systems (more about this later) also fall under this definition. As such, the consequences of these other forms of technology have so far often not been included in the discussion. Because these techniques also have an impact on labour and the labour market, which can certainly be seen as positive, this exclusion is a pity. In this way, communication technology makes it easier to exchange assignments and feedback between different layers within an organisation. Consequently, this makes it easier to centralise business operations. Information technology does the opposite. For example, the use of search engines can, in more and more cases, completely bypass communication. With the help of such systems, we arrive at answers faster and more efficiently that would otherwise have had to be obtained through communication. Because of this, according to dHondt, we are increasingly turning into an homo universalis, an all-rounder.

In other words, a focus on automation does not do justice to the scale of the various technologies and their influence on labour and the labour market. In addition, dHondt points out the gap between the technological potential and the actual realization and application of technology. In between lies a large field of ‘technological strategy’, where time and money must be invested by companies if the impact of technology is to materialize. The companies and sectors within the TNO study currently invest the most in communication technology, and the expected direct consequence of technology on the shop floor is therefore mainly centralisation and work specialisation.

More work pleasure and productivity thanks to technology

The positive and direct impact that technology can have becomes even more apparent when Ronald de Koning and Roald Klumpenaar of the Amfors group present the application of an Operator Support System (OSS) in a social work company. Operator support technology offers people physical or mental support during their work. This makes work easier and more enjoyable and enables employees to do more and more complex work, an obvious win-win situation. In the social work company in Amersfoort, employees are supported by a smart beamer with motion detection to assemble complex products, such as an LED streetlight or an electrical cabinet. The work instructions are projected at the workplace and provide employees with a step by step guidance through the assembly process (see the video). As a result, there is more job satisfaction and higher productivity. This is a good example to illustrate that technology does not have to lead to the disappearance of jobs at all, on the contrary, it cqan lead to more job satisfaction – also for people who are distanced from the labour market.

The day was concluded on s positive note by economist Mathijs Bouman, who reassured the audience once again about the consequences of robotisation and dreaded automation that many people are afraid of. Between 2006 and 2018, several studies have been carried out on the impact of robotisation on employment and the results differ widely. According to one study, available work will be almost halved in the near future by about 47% (Frey and Obsorn, 2013). The other study foresees a much lower impact with a prediction of 9% (Arntz, Zierhan and Gregory, OECD, 2016). However, according to Bouman, we don not have to worry: although jobs are disappearing, work continues to exist. The sector figures between 1807-2016 (CBS, see below) illustrate that the amount of work remains the same, and that it only shifts to other sectors. For example, from industrial to business services, a sector which was virtually non-existent in mid-1950, but in 2018 employs a large proportion of our working population.

We of course hope that these jobs are not all bullshit jobs, but luckily we are on that ourselves!