Patrick Chaskiel CERTOP-CNRS and C’Nano GSO Université de Toulouse France

1. Patrick ChaskielCERTOP-CNRS and C’Nano GSOUniversité de Toulouse France Nanotechnologies and “Safety/Security at Work”: A new Challenge to Industrial Relations … and Society (Research funded by ANR/NanoInnov and Minister of Ecology program) Imagine Nano (bio med) Bilbao, April 2011

2. New trends • “Safety at work” (possibly called “security at work”) has become a more and more important topic in economic activity and society as a whole • From compensation (silicosis) … • … and prevention (specially after asbestos experience) • To precaution • Evolution of society makes economic reasons (notably employment) are no more sufficient to justify the “raison d’être” of an industrial (risky) activity • Example : unions against a coal power plant in N-W of France (despite 50 jobs possible creation) • Nanotechnologies are widely concerned

3. New trends • Activities have to pass a legitimization / societal / ecological test • Not only E.U. Reach procedures • Workers support is necessary • (1970’s) Strong development of nuclear power in France has relied on notably workers support against anti-nuclear protests • (2010’s) CGT chemical workers claim for a moratorium on nanoproducts, that is a Reach radical version fitting NGOs’ claims • So: getting risks under control appears to be one condition (among others) to maintain industrial activities or develop new ones • Here we talk about social control • i.e. industrial relations (between employers, workers and state) and capability to get nanotechnologies / nanoproduction under control • Thus: are nanotechnologies (and upstream: nanosciences) going to pass the “safety at work” legitimization test? • Necessity to examine carefully what is happening

4. From past … • Up to date, “safety at work” relations were fundamentally based on the combination of: • Relations on the shop floor (very close to industrial facilities) • Frameworks: • company-wide or (each) industry-wide (chemical, nuclear, …) collective agreements (not numerous) • State (National or European) regulations • Since “safety at work” relations are based on collective bargaining (as well as on regulations) • This model of relations doesn’t fit nanotechnologies development

5. … to present • Indeed, safety collective bargaining is, de facto, “PROCESS BASED” as it mainly refers to a single kind of activity (chemical, or nuclear, or oil refinement) • While industrialization development of nanos is “PRODUCT BASED” • From manufacturing to waste treatment (i.e.: complete life cycle of products) • So: • Legitimization test would suppose a transversal approach of “safety at work” by industrial relations • because any approach without worker’s unions participation will not engender support from workers Unions

6. A transversal approach of “safety at work” by industrial relations? • Examining (nano) cases reveals (very briefly said after 25 interviews of industrialists, unionists, scientists, public authorities officers, and examination of documents): • Safety is essentially an “experts” business • Effective linkage between industrialists or experts, or sometimes, but rarely, unionists working in a research structure • From industrial lab to plant (case of the implementation of a nanotubes plant) • Transfer of precaution practices? • “Safety at work” practices progressively shaped • Not that easy (plant management are not necessarily prepared to )

7. Not that transversal • No “transfer of precaution practices between “Health, Hygiene and Working Conditions committees” (CHSCT) or between unions, • Even between committees in plants belonging to the same company and located very close to each other (3 kilometers) • Sometimes vertical transfers • From the leadership of unions to colleagues but working in research structures rather than in (industrial) plants • “Safety Data Sheet” (in case of applying Reach procedure) seems to be a minor tool of control as regards to complication of nanos definition • Further researches would be necessary on that point

8. Are nanos going to pass the legitimacy test or not? • European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC): “no data, no market” and “no data, no exposure” (that is: Reach regulation) • Industrial companies can’t clash • Neither with ETUC (and national unions) • Despite different views, ETUC have succeeded in coordinating many “national” stances • Lack of support from workers as regards to French (past) nuclear power policy • Nor with civil society (public opinion) • No conflicts between Unions and NGOs • On contrary: unions and NGOs are working together on questions raised by nanos before industrialization

9. What about future? • A“new social divide” is accelerated by nanos • Old social industrial model was: industrialists + workers + state vs environmental protests • But this is over • New coalitions are built: • New societal divide • New answers are called for, as regards to past • Notably new modes of organizing industrial relations taking in account the complete life cycle of products