Cet article étudie les choix des concepteurs de jeux vidéo en matière de représentation de leurs intérêts à la lumière de la théorie de la mobilisation de Kelly (1998), cela dans le but de mesurer leur disposition à l’action collective. Si le modèle de Kelly permet en principe d’asseoir des projections concernant la syndicalisation d’un secteur, tel n’est pas le cas ici. Notre étude nous amène plutôt à mesurer l’ampleur de la transformation du marché de l’emploi depuis l’élaboration de ce modèle et la distance qui sépare les besoins des travailleurs du savoir, d’une part, et les options que leur propose l’action syndicale traditionnelle telle que présentée par le modèle de Kelly, d’autre part. Le régime général d’accréditation fondé sur l’entreprise-employeur pose plusieurs problèmes concrets aux concepteurs de jeux. Par ailleurs, leurs formes d’action collective sont inspirantes. ---------------------ENGLISH ---------------------Using Kelly’s mobilisation theory (1998) to assess their propensity to collective action, this article examines where videogame developers stand regarding the representation of their interests. These workers are good examples of knowledge work in project-based organisations. If Kelly’s model allows in general for projections of unionisation in a given sector, we find this is not the case here. Rather, our study leads us to observe how much the labour market has changed since the elaboration of Kelly’s model, and how much these workers’ needs differ from the options laid out by traditional unions’ action as presented by Kelly. udThis group fulfills two conditions leading to collective action: it has identified shared working problems across the industry and it primarily attributes the responsibility of these to the management. udStill, three important conditions hinder any coalition movement under Kelly’s model. For one, the group is divided on whether to define its interest in collective or individual terms. It is also divided regarding the degree of injustice or illegitimacy of the situations that they face. Moreover, when these workers make a cost/benefit analysis regarding collective action, any traditional enterprise-based certification and unionisation project poses many challenges. Therefore, Kelly’s model would not predict mobilization. However, in place of unionization, videogame developers practice their own types of collective action that allow them to come to terms with the constraints of their environment. This brings us to conclude that Kelly’s mobilization theory needs to be re-examined such that collective action is not limited to traditional union action.
展开▼
