There is a rather bizarre lawsuit in France that is likely to reaffirm the view of many that the French labor force is noncompetitive due to long-standing expectations of employees about mandatory work conditions, vacations, and protections. Frederic Desnard wants 360,000 euros (£300,000) under a claim of a “bore out” or boredom’s equivalent of burnout.
Desnard says that he is being “killed professionally through boredom” by his 80,000-euro-a-year job. He is an executive in a perfume business. Frankly, as the grandson of a coal miner on my Italian side and a cooper on my Irish side, I find the notion of a protected right to be engaged and excited by work to be rather precious. We should all strive for such fulfillment and you can quit to secure more engaging employment. However, to sue your employer because you are bored is rather presumptuous in my view. Many people are struggling to find employment today and only dream of a job with this type of compensation.
Yet, experts say that bored employees represent a serious health crisis and one expert,Dr Sandi Mann (referred to as a “Boredom expert” in these articles),says that workers likely die earlier to the boring conditions.
I do not question the health impact of such work, but I cannot imagine a legal basis for such a claim — or a way to rationally distinguish between jobs that are mildly engaging and jobs that are legally boring.
What do you think?