Le revenu universel de base n’est pas la panacée, et le Labour ne doit pas soutenir cette idée

Une tri­bune (en anglais) de Sonia Sodha dans le Guardian cri­tique l’idée du reve­nu de base et invite le Labour bri­tan­nique à se pro­non­cer contre cette idée qui fait actuel­le­ment débat en interne.

The ans­wer can­not be to accept this sor­ry state of affairs and try to patch things up with a basic income. It must be to address the fun­da­men­tal power imba­lances that allow employers to shift risk on to their employees by for­cing them to become self‐employed contrac­tors, or refu­sing to pay them for breaks. And to deve­lop long‐term solu­tions for impro­ving the qua­li­ty of work.

You can see the attrac­tions of a basic income for Silicon Valley. Firms such as Uber, whose dri­vers are clas­si­fied as self‐employed “part­ners” rely on this risk‐shift model. Even as Facebook’s foun­der, Mark Zuckerberg, heaps praise on a basic income, the tech giant does all in its legal power to avoid tax and dodge paying its fair share towards the social infra­struc­ture it relies on. The left must not allow itself to be sedu­ced. A basic income is a dis­trac­tion from these core issues of eco­no­mic power ; a radical‐sounding excuse to look the other way from the less gla­mo­rous, more com­plex ques­tion of how to ensure labour mar­ket rights are pro­per­ly enfor­ced. Accepting a dete­rio­ra­tion in employ­ment rights and wor­king condi­tions in exchange for a basic income could be dan­ge­rous­ly coun­ter­pro­duc­tive.


Illustration : © Nathalie Lees.

Laisser un commentaire

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur comment les données de vos commentaires sont utilisées.