Juan Sebastian Carbonell^[1]

Since the economic crisis of 2008, the automotive sector in France has seen an acceleration of restructuring plans, job cuts, and work reorganisation. In addition to job cuts, there are now ‘competitiveness agreements’, often presented as a way of avoiding economy-related redundancies. These agreements have their origins in the 2012 ‘competitiveness-employment’ agreements, the ‘employment maintenance agreements’ of the January 2013 National Interprofessional Agreement, and the ‘employment preservation or development agreements’ of the 2016 El Khomri law. Finally, the Macron ordinances of 22 September 2017 replaced the previous agreements with collective performance agreements. This type of agreement jeopardises the principle of favourableness, i.e., its content is opposed to the clauses of the employment contract. It can thus modify several aspects of working conditions, such as remuneration or working time, even if the agreement is less favourable than the employment contract^[2].

Several of these agreements were subscribed by various companies in the automotive sector —manufacturers and equipment suppliers— in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, such as Sevelnord in 2012, Française de Mécanique in 2013, PSA in 2013 and 2016, or Renault in 2013 and 2017. More recently, the 2020 economic crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has again encouraged the signing of this type of agreement, primarily in the most affected sectors, such as aeronautics. However, it should be remembered that, just like restructuring, these agreements have a strong rhetorical dimension (Hirsh and De Soucey, 2006), insofar as they are presented by the management of the groups as a way to remedy the crisis situation and ‘save jobs’. Indeed, these agreements are often accompanied by preambles that seek to justify the changes in working conditions owing to the company’s situation. This is how the organisation of working time in the automotive sector has been modified in exchange for maintaining jobs or a certain volume of production.

Various studies note a general trend towards a reduction in working time over the last two centuries. This is the case in France, where working time has been halved since the 19th century, from 3,000 hours per year to 1,600 hours at the turn of the millennium (Marchand and Thélot, 1997). The same phenomenon can be observed elsewhere in Europe. For example, in Switzerland, working hours fell from 65 hours per week in the late 19th century to 45 hours in the 1920s and 42 hours in the 1990s (Cianferoni, 2019). In general, Michael Huberman and Chris Minns (2007) show a general and steady trend of decreasing working time in rich countries (Western Europe, North America, and Australia).

However, for Pietro Basso (2003), the movement to reduce working time came to a halt in most countries from the 1970s onwards, at the same time as working time became increasingly intense and variable. He notes that in some countries, such as the United States, working time even increased by an average of half an hour per day between 1969 and 1989 (Basso, 2003, p. 15). Finally, for Jens Thoemmes (2000), the decline in working time is accompanied by an increase of working days and a ‘discontinuous intensification’ of working time, with employees becoming more subject to production time.

Some authors have begun to document these transformations in France based on sectoral or case studies (Clouet et al., 2019). For example, Fanny Vincent (2014) analyses the implementation of the ‘12-hour shift’ in hospitals and how nurses seek to appropriate it. Studies on industry emphasise in particular that new ‘time pressure logistics’ are being introduced, such as new forms of work automation, lean production and ‘just-in-time’ (Valeyre, 2001). However, there are few field studies on the industry.

Often conducted in the name of employment, collective bargaining on working time since the early 2000s has been marked by a liberalisation of the 35-hour week (Jobert, 2010) and a normalisation of Sunday working (Boulin and Lesnard, 2017). However, in this chapter I wish to show, on the basis of a case study, that the contemporary dynamics of working time cannot be reduced to a simple transaction between time and employment. I seek to show that the abovementioned transformations favour a more flexible and fragmented industrial time with negative effects on workers’ health and on their way of reconciling family and professional life, as has been demonstrated for Sunday work (ibid.).

I draw here on a field survey carried out between 2013 and 2017 on the negotiation and implementation of two competitiveness agreements and their effects on the organisation of working time in a plant of the PSA group in Mulhouse. PSA-Mulhouse is a manufacturing and assembly plant for Peugeot, Citroën, and DS cars which employed around 6,100 people at the beginning of 2017. It is the second largest facility of the PSA group in France. Three teams work at PSA-Mulhouse: shift A and shift B alternate each week between morning hours (5:20 a.m.-1:06 p.m.) and afternoon hours (1:06 p.m.-8:32 p.m.), while shift C does night hours (8:37 p.m.-3:54 a.m.). Sometimes, weekend shifts (Friday to Sunday, Saturday and Sunday, Saturday to Monday, etc.) are set up when there is a surge of orders. The work rhythm of the A and B shift is not identical from one week to the next but remains fairly predictable. The workers on shift C work the same hours every week. Two agreements were signed by the PSA group and the representative trade unions, one in 2013 and the other in 2016, to deal with the crisis that the group was going through. I conducted around fifty in-depth interviews with workers in the terminal plant (ironwork, painting, and assembly), union members and non-union workers. I also collected a series of internal documents from the company (leaflets, social balance sheets, minutes of the Hygiene, Security and Working Conditions Committee and of the works council) during the period under study.

First, I would like to return to the double crisis of industrial time, its flexibilisation and fragmentation in the factory studied. In the second part, I will deal with the health effects of the transformations in the organisation of working time.

1. An organisation of time better adapted to the needs of the company

1.1. More flexible time

Working time is at the heart of the two competitiveness agreements signed by PSA and the representative trade unions in 2013 and 2016. The first agreement, entitled ‘New Social Contract’, puts in place several ‘industrial flexibility’ measures, including an overtime scheme and a more flexible collective modulation^[3]. These measures aim, among other things, to make working time more flexible and extensible.

PSA is far from being an exception. Overtime has been introduced in several other companies in the automotive sector in France, such as Toyota, Sevelnord, Renault, and Française de Mécanique. At Toyota, overtime has been practised since the plant was built in 2001. The plant management can require up to one hour of overtime at the end of a shift with a few days’ notice. At Sevelnord, the 2012 agreement authorises management to organise a ‘collective production catch-up on the same day and without paying a late notice premium’^[4]. At Française de Mécanique, the system was introduced in the 2013 agreement, aiming at the ‘flexibility’ of installations and to make up for production losses. The time extension can be between 30 minutes and one hour per shift. Here, the duration of the extension depends on the prior notice period. The announcement can be made the day before or the same day before the last break. Finally, the system is regulated: it cannot allow the production to exceed the programmed volume of engines or be implemented more than four days a week. At Renault, the 2017 agreement set up a compulsory extension of the working day. It can be one hour long, but it is highly regulated: it cannot take place on Friday evening if there is a work session on Saturday; it can only take place in the afternoon shift; an additional five-minute is granted; there can be no more than eight extensions per month and 50 per year; and the employees are given several days’ notice.

At PSA, overtime began to be applied at the beginning of 2014. However, the company had already experimented with longer working hours in April 2013 —that is, before the negotiation of the competitiveness agreement—, on the assembly line for Peugeot cars. This change corresponds to the commercial success of the Peugeot 2008, manufactured in Mulhouse, resulting in an order for 2,000 additional units for the second quarter of 2013. Instead of creating an additional half-shift on system 2, the management considered extending the working days by one hour (from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. from Monday to Thursday) and adding working Saturdays.

This mode of operation is endorsed in the 2013 competitiveness agreement. The management wants to introduce overtime (referred to in internal documents as the ‘daily production guarantee’), which makes it possible to extend the working day or shorten the snack break by 10 minutes for shifts A and B and by 20 minutes for shift C. We have shown elsewhere how this arrangement affects workers’ time at the factory (Carbonell, 2018). Firstly, it reduces the ‘gaps’ in their work, particularly during break times. Secondly, it makes it more difficult to appropriate working time, as margins of manoeuvre are reduced. Finally, it introduces uncertainty into working time from the point of view of the factory workers, provoking discontent and walkouts, in some cases^[5].

The annual working time is made more flexible by adding working sessions on Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays. At Sevelnord, the 2012 agreement is based on the agreement signed at the time of the introduction of the 35-hour working week, as it allows collective working hours to vary according to the circumstantial needs of production. The new agreement makes it possible to organise additional sessions that are not paid extra but accounted for each worker individually. At Française de Mécanique, the daily working time is seven hours and 15 minutes. These 15 minutes are added to an account, which is then converted into days off. However, the 2013 agreement removes these 15 minutes in favour of compulsory Saturday morning or afternoon work sessions. At Renault, the 2017 agreement specifies the conditions for the use of additional sessions while setting some limits, by establishing a quarterly calendar and a notice period of at least 15 days.

As in other companies in the automotive sector, the management of PSA relies on the 1999 agreement on working time, which introduced the 35-hour working week in the group’s factories. At that time, the company wanted to take advantage of the current to find an organisation of working time that was more appropriate to the operation of its factories, annualising employees’ working time. This is in fact the agreement that enables six-day working weeks. Indeed, the agreement states that ‘work, within the framework of full-time cycles, may be organised over 3, 4, 5 or 6 days per week’^[6] and that ‘the company may vary the collective timetable upwards to cope with an increase in demand or downwards to adjust to circumstantial decreases in requirements’^[7].

The agreements negotiated in 2013 and 2016 take this logic even further, with six-day work weeks, Monday to Saturday, every other week and without extra pay, and the having the Saturday hours entered into an individual account. This makes it possible to ‘accumulate’ worked days or to owe days of work to the company when work sessions are cancelled. One of the main changes introduced by the agreements concerns the payment for Saturdays worked. While these used to be paid with a 50% increase, the 2013 agreement effectively removed such increase and entered this worked session into the account. This is why the French General Confederation of Labour has popularised the expression ‘free Saturday’ to refer to modulatory working sessions. However, the trade unions (especially the CFDT) have negotiated a 25% increase for one out of three Saturdays worked.

The workers on shift C, the night shift, are also affected by schemes of variation and flexibility in working hours. Night shifts are atypical schedules (Boisard and Fermanian, 1999; Boulin and Lesnard, 2017) which, however, employees have appropriated over the years. They mention several advantages of working at night, including an 18% pay rise, less variable schedules, greater autonomy, and a better team atmosphere. Yet, since 2013, management has introduced different ways of varying night hours, such as overtime, which can amount to 20 minutes, or ‘on demand work’, i.e., the possibility of extending working hours from 3:54 a.m. to 5 a.m. under modulation. Also, unlike shift work (shifts A and B), night employees’ working sessions can be shorter. They may go home earlier after working only five hours because of breakdowns or interruptions from suppliers.

As certain surveys show (Valeyre, 2006 and 2007), just-in-time organisations are those where working hours are most flexible, with a predominance of work on Saturdays and Sundays, as is the case today at PSA-Mulhouse. As Tommaso Pardi (2009) also points out, manufacturers’ managements systematically plan production volumes that exceed production capacities. Then, there are two ways of satisfying these production programmes: increasing the employees’ productivity or making them work longer. Thus, overtime at atypical working hours is normalised by company managements, becoming one of the means to produce more. This is confirmed by several of our respondents in the case of overtime. They state that while overtime was presented as exceptional —used only in case of production losses— soon it came to be scheduled for every day of the week. Similarly, the trade unions often state in works councils that the use of overtime is not exceptional, having become the norm.

Reports of the works council also show that, while there are production losses due to ‘industrial hazards’ (breakdowns, supply disruptions, etc.), these losses are not only recovered, but almost always exceeded thanks to overtime and modulation. For example, in January 2013, the Citroën manufacturing line lost 374 vehicles due to computer breakdowns but produced 692 more vehicles than planned. Similarly, in June 2014, Peugeot manufacturing line lost 85 units but produced 247 more cars than programmed, partly thanks to overtime. We can therefore see that overtime and modulation make workers’ working time flexible and extensible, allowing more cars to be produced. In this way, they contribute to the crisis of the Fordist temporal regime characterised by the regularity and predictability of working hours (Bouffartigue, 2012). Moreover, this crisis of industrial time is favoured by the fragmentation of working time in the plant.

1.2. A fragmented time

These two mechanisms (overtime and modulation) therefore contribute to making working time flexible and extensible, often allowing production schedules to be exceeded. In addition, this new organisation favours the fragmentation of working time due to the desynchronisation of the different sectors of the plant. Classical works on labour have insisted on the fourfold unity of working time in nascent industrial capitalism: a single commodity was produced in the same place, under the direction of a boss and at the same time (Marx, 1867). However, the transformations of production and its interconnectedness mean that in contemporary productive organisations the flow becomes an organiser of work (Célérier, 1994). The coordination of activities between the sales department and the terminal facility, where the cars are assembled, becomes central in order to meet the production programmes. In this configuration, each workshop, or even each elementary production unit^[8], has its own temporality, which is particularly evident in the introduction of overtime and the new working time modulation.

It can be seen that this desynchronisation is multifaceted. First, it concerns the different workshops in the plant. Thus, assembly and ironwork can work at different paces following breaks in the flow, such as breakdowns or supply disruptions. For example, at the beginning of 2016, a breakdown caused a disparity between assembly and ironwork in the number of Saturdays worked. February 4th was the second Saturday of the year worked in fitting, but only the first Saturday worked in assembly. This has important consequences for the payment of worked hours, as the 25% Saturday bonus only applies for the third Saturday worked.

Second, the desynchronisation affects the relationship between the different shifts. For example, two extra sessions were organised for shift A on the Peugeot manufacturing line in January 2014, and two extra sessions in February. During the same period, shift B worked only one Saturday per month.

Finally, the work sessions of certain workshops or shifts may be cancelled, with the aforementioned consequences on the payment of days worked in modulation. For example, on January 2nd, the session for all shifts at the terminal plant (ironwork, painting, assembly) was cancelled, while on March 8th and 9th, only the ironwork and painting sessions for shift A were cancelled. Similarly, on Friday 20th and Saturday 21st, January, the assembly shift A did not work due to a lack of parts. These non-worked sessions are rare in the terminal plant, whereas they are frequent in other sectors, such as the tooling centre or the mechanical workshop.

The fragmentation of the unity of working time can be taken even further. Working time is organised collectively, but some employees can choose to put off a day if they have enough hours on account. They may then have a different time frame from that of their colleagues in the various production units. Thus, whether one works in assembly or ironwork, on shift A or shift B, the working hours and payment for Saturdays may be different. It can therefore be seen that working time ultimately retains relatively little unity on the site.

As we shall see in the next section, this new organisation of working time is not without consequences for employees’ health. In particular, having six-day work cycles, from Monday to Saturday, every other week, and overtime several days a week causes an overwhelming feeling of fatigue among the respondents.

2. Employees put to the test

2.1. Coping with ‘bad fatigue’

Fatigue has often been ignored by the sociology of work in favour of other forms of expression of ill-being at work, such as stress, emotional exhaustion syndrome or burnout. In the same way, according to a widespread idea, the reduction in working hours mentioned above, as well as the mechanisation of certain arduous tasks, should have contributed to eliminating fatigue as a constitutive characteristic of the contemporary worker’s condition. This is not the case, which is why the sociology of working conditions has insisted on the persistence of drudgery at work. As far as industrial work is concerned, modernisation and automation have not necessarily led to an improvement in working conditions. On the contrary, as Michel Gollac and Serge Volkoff (2007) point out, one of the most important consequences of the mechanisation of an increasing proportion of tasks is the economic valorisation of a costly capital, which then translates into an extension or intensification of working hours. These different factors explain why, in the course of our survey, work fatigue came up again and again as a consequence of overtime, collective modulation and, more generally, the time regime at PSA described in the previous section.

Nevertheless, fatigue remains something difficult to define, so we prefer to speak, following Marc Loriol (2003), of a feeling of physical fatigue and of fatigue as a specific category. All the more so because, as it can be seen from the respondents’ answers, fatigue has not only a physiological dimension, but also a social one (Friedmann, 1946, p. 70), which entails that the workers’ fatigue ultimately impacts, just as in service professions, the subjective dimension of work and their relationship with others.

How, then, can we interpret the feeling of fatigue of the surveyed workers? To illustrate our point, let us take the example of Mohamed, a forty-year-old worker at Peugeot’s vehicle assembly line who was elected for the works council as representative of the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) and staff delegate:

During the week we work in the mornings, from Monday to Saturday, everything’s fine… The problem comes when we return the following Monday. On Monday and Tuesday, people don’t talk, they don’t communicate, they don’t smile or anything! […] What scares me is physical well-being, because when you arrive on Tuesday you’re drained, absolutely drained. I’m lucky enough to be delegate, so yesterday I was on duty, but my head is still in the clouds… [he sighs].

This excerpt hints at a fatigue that corresponds to physical wear and tear and a fatigue which, characteristically, has no recovery. The fatigue is felt the following week, on Monday and Tuesday. It can be related to what Georges Friedmann calls ‘residual fatigue’, i.e., fatigue accumulated over time and difficult to mitigate with a night’s or even a weekend’s rest: ‘The repose provided by rest during the day and the night is not sufficient. Time is not enough for the balance to be re-established in the worker before the next work session comes to exert its action again’ (Friedmann, 1946, p. 79). The first consequence of this fatigue is then ‘the man’s slow wear and tear —organic and nervous— due to his work’. We can also speak of a ‘bad fatigue’, i.e., a lasting fatigue, which is not eliminated by sleep, the result of an external, unchosen constraint, as opposed to a ‘good fatigue’, which is freely chosen and can be overcome by ‘normal’ rest (Loriol, 2000).

Physical fatigue is a type of fatigue that is certainly easier to verbalise, as physical strength is framed by natural limits. But this physical fatigue is coupled with a ‘moral’ fatigue. During the following week, a five-day working week, the ‘mood’ and morale of the employees are at their lowest. In this sense, the fatigue caused by the working hours regime at PSA mentioned by Mohamed cannot be understood only through its material aspects, as a depletion of physical strength that cannot be recovered. As has been said, this fatigue is similar to that experienced in the service professions, which is reflected in the following extract of the interview with Mohamed:

On Saturdays, when you arrive home in the afternoon, after having worked all the morning, you’re exhausted, worn out. Your day becomes short. When you work on Friday morning, you can enjoy the afternoon taking your children to the park, doing what you want. If you have older children, that’s a different matter, on Saturdays you do activities, you go shopping… There’s a balance. But when your children start telling you: ‘Daddy, we never do anything, daddy, you’re tired’… For me, last year was like that during a period when we were doing overtime. […] But it really disrupts everything: eating, clearing your mind. On Friday evenings, some people still allow themselves to go for a drink at a friend’s house, but I don’t do that anymore.

Finally, we see here that family life is also affected by six-day work cycles. In the interview, Mohamed reports that the end of the school year is a time when social and family life becomes more intense, but also when the workload is greater, often having to work on Saturdays and public holidays. Then, the amount of extra working time demanded by PSA encroaches on the workers’ private lives, and as the number of non-working Saturdays decreases, full weekends, which used to be the norm, become an exception.

2.2. ‘There are those who can hold on and those who can’t’

If Mohamed’s example is evocative of the consequences of the new organisation of working time on the workers’ feeling of fatigue and on their private lives, what about other categories of workers, especially those who are older and in poorer health?

Jean-Pierre is a 52-year-old worker with 25 years’ seniority who works in ironwork, a workshop he describes as ‘rough, very dirty, very noisy, very dangerous’. He has medical conditions that led to a seven-month sick leave in 2016-2017. The study of his career shows that the retention of ‘senior’ and/or sick employees, as well as the intensification of work resulting from successive competitiveness agreements, contributes to making workers with medical conditions constitute a separate group within the plant, with their careers developing apart from those of other employees who are in good health or capable of maintaining their positions. As he said himself: ‘I’m 52 years old, so there you go. It wears you out. The work I do wears you out, mentally and physically’. This highlights the particularities of his relationship with the new organisation of working time and the fatigue he expressed:

Next week I’ll do a morning shift. I’m already starting with a Saturday modulation. That means, listen carefully, that I’ll be working six days out of seven. Physically, I’m not in full shape, obviously. I’m going home at 8 p.m. on Saturday, and I’ll doze off. I’ll sit on the sofa and I’ll fall asleep right away. Because the fatigue is such that you can’t recover. And if I have a beer that’s it, I’m dead! You’d better do something immediately when you get home. Because if you go to the sofa and watch the news, it’s over, you pass out.

For Jean-Pierre, in addition to physical exhaustion, there is also the irregularity of the production rhythm: if he works six days in a row, the following week he may probably have several days of technical stoppage. Moreover, at PSA-Mulhouse, the days of technical stoppage are very frequent at the end of the year, whereas in the first half of the year, the employees work on two Saturdays each month, and even on some public holidays. We can thus see here that one of the consequences of the new organisation of working time in the contemporary car industry consists in the succession of periods of underutilisation of the workforce and periods of unrestrained use of physical forces. These periods remain unpredictable for workers who are not aware of the state of the car market or the manufacturers’ commercial strategies.

Jean-Pierre’s case also illustrates how the new requirements in terms of time availability place older employees and/or those with medical conditions in the situation of no longer fitting the profile of the model worker demanded by PSA. He then expresses the anguish of being too old to ‘hold on’, but not old enough to benefit from the early retirement scheme from the age of 57. The risk he faces is not being able to hold his post and so considered unfit for any post, which opens the door to dismissal. This was also expressed by Marco, a 50-year-old assembly worker with serious medical conditions and a CGT member:

There are those who can hold on and those who can’t. Those who can’t are sold a pig in a poke: ‘Listen, we can help you find a job elsewhere, try something new’, crap like that. Some people keep working, some people leave, some people have a breakdown.

The expression of a feeling of fatigue is not a simple physiological fact but takes on its full meaning in the context of the transformations of industrial work after the 2008 economic crisis and particularly following the 2013 and 2016 agreements. Of course, each worker expresses it in his or her own way, depending on their career and social characteristics, or, to put it another way, each respondent invests this feeling with a personal meaning. However, these comments are also structured by the common experience of work transformations, in this case in the form of a deterioration in working conditions and an increase in the demands of the worker’s job.

Conclusion

In this text, I have tried to show, based on a case study, what are the main changes in the organisation of working time in the automotive industry after the 2008 economic crisis. I have also tried to show the consequences of these changes on the health of the company’s employees. The transformations introduced since the 35-hour week was adopted, deepened by the competitiveness agreements negotiated after the economic crisis in the sector, are moving towards a crisis in the cyclical regularity and unity of working time in the factories. Working days are becoming more flexible and fragmented thanks to the introduction of time-organising mechanisms, such as overtime or a new modulation. We can therefore see that in the automotive industry ‘flexible and extensible times of variable amplitude and intensity are replacing homogeneous, collective and standardised times’ (Bouquin, 2006, p. 131). These transformations are not without consequences for the workers’ health , provoking the expression of a feeling of fatigue among the surveyed employees. This is a ‘bad fatigue’, i.e., a fatigue without recovery that accumulates over the weeks and which, at the same time, disrupts social rhythms and the relationship with others, both inside and outside of work. Finally, this fatigue is expressed differently according to the social characteristics of the respondents. It has a more tragic dimension among ‘senior’ workers and/or those with medical conditions.

Bibliography

Basso P., 2003, Modern Times, Ancient Hours. Working Lives in the Twenty-first Century, New York, Verso Books.

Besser T. L., 1996, Team Toyota. Transplanting the Toyota culture to the Camry plant in Kentucky, New York, University of New York Press.

Boisard P. et Fermanian J.-D., 1999, “Les rythmes de travail hors normes”, Économie et Statistique, n° 321-322, 111-131.

Bouffartigue P. (avec la collaboration de Boutellier J.), 2012, Temps de travail et temps de vie. Les nouveaux visages de la disponibilité temporelle, Paris, PUF.

Boulin J.-Y. et Lesnard L., 2017, Les batailles du dimanche. L’extension du travail dominical et ses conséquences sociales, Paris, PUF.

Bouquin S., 2006, La Valse des écrous. Travail, capital et action collective dans l’industrie automobile, Paris, Syllepse.

Carbonell J. S., 2018, “‘Dix minutes, c’est rien’”, La nouvelle revue du travail [En ligne], n°12.

Carbonell J. S., 2019, “Négocier et contester la nouvelle organisation du temps de travail dans une usine automobile”, Socio-économie du travail, n° 6, 91-118.

Célérier S., 1994, “Le travail du flux. L’activité de gestion d’un flux de fabrication automobile”, Formation emploi, n° 47, 39-58.

Cianferoni N., 2019, Travailler dans la grande distribution. La journée de travail va-t-elle redevenir une question sociale ?, Zürich, Seismo Éditions.

Clouet H., Grimaud P., Mias A. et Pélisse J., 2019, “Tant de capital, temps de travail ? Conflits, compromis et transactions autour du temps d’emploi. Introduction”, Socio-économie du travail, n° 6, 15-26.

Friedmann G., 1946, Problèmes humains du machinisme industriel, Paris, Gallimard.

Gollac M. et Volkoff S., 2007, Les Conditions de travail, Paris, La Découverte.

Graham L., 1995, On the Line at Subaru-Isuzu. The Japanese Model and the American Worker, Oxford, IRL Press.

Hirsh P. M. et De Soucey M., 2006, “Oranizational Restructuring and Its Consequences: Rhetorical and Structural”, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 32, 171-189.

Huberman M. et Minns C., 2007, “The times they are not changin’: Days and hours of work in Old and New Worlds, 1870-2000”, Explorations in Economic History, n° 44, 538-567.

Jobert A., 2010, “La négociation collective du temps de travail en France depuis 1982”, Droit social, n° 688, 367-373.

Kamata S., 2008 [1976], Toyota : l’usine du désespoir, Paris, Démopolis.

Loriol M., 2000, Le temps de la fatigue : la gestion sociale du mal-être au travail, Paris, Anthropos.

Loriol M., 2003, “Donner un sens à la plainte de fatigue au travail”, L’Année sociologique, vol. 53, n° 2, 459-485.

Marchand O. et Thélot C., 1997, Le travail en France (1800-2000), Paris, Nathan.

Marx K., 2016 [1867], Le Capital. Livre 1, Paris, Les Éditions sociales.

Pardi T., 2009, “Travailler chez Toyota : de l’emploi à vie à la course à la survie”, La Revue de l’Ires, n° 62, 39-70.

Thoemmes J., 2000, Vers la fin du temps de travail ?, Paris, PUF.

Valeyre A., 2001, “Le travail industriel sous la pression du temps”, Travail et Emploi, n° 86, 127-149.

Valeyre A., 2006, Conditions de travail et santé au travail des salariés de l’Union européenne : situations contrastées selon les formes d’organisation, Centre d’études de l’emploi, n° 73.

Valeyre A., 2007, “Les conditions de travail des salariés dans l’Union européenne à quinze selon les formes d’organisation”, Travail et Emploi, n° 112, 35-47.

Vincent F., 2014, “Travailler pour son “temps de repos” ?”, Temporalités [En ligne], n° 20.

---