* Louis Blaze
On 30 July the government presented its "Three-Year Plan of Work." A General Plan
waiting to be translated into concrete legislation, and are already living, in part, in some of the latest legislative and contractual affairs of our country.
acquired the plans for a series of assumptions:
- Equality of bargaining power between worker and employer, and consequent lack of any collective bargaining function;
- Futility the legal regulation of relations Working in the presence of contractual agreements or resolutions and bilateral agreements between certification bodies Parties are not well identified in their effective representation and contract title;
- Cancellation of any hierarchy of sources, and indeed on the basis of a principle of subsidiarity very thorough , choices made at the level closest to the worker are the only valid, regardless of principles whose very essence is their continuous derogabilità;
- Substantial coincidence of interests between worker and employer in the global competition, which Parties are called to support;
- The World of work has changed dramatically in recent years and requires that the contractual-legislative choices to accompany the de-regulation making it become consensus.
We are in the presence of the gloss will to legislatively enshrine a profound decline in social relations, leaving the citizen-worker just before the unilateral decisions of enterprise. You want to apply a change that did occur, the balance of power, and it becomes the basis for a lasting inferiority of the generality of female and male workers. Less freedom in employment relationships and in society is the goal to capture the economic crisis. The central chapter
three-year plan called "Unleashing the individual and collective work by the conflict." This strategy rests on three pillars:
- "Offset regulatory centralism" and the deletion, in fact, of freedom of contract labor union, whose sole role is identified in the negotiation of the exceptions (to Laws and Contracts ), at every level of industry, enterprise, of the Territory. It 's the production situation and market of the Company to determine the status of workers, in terms of rights, wages, welfare state, stability of employment;
- bilateral bodies (to be supported and strengthened as a place where the parties not identified in their effective representation and representativeness, are at the service of companies and workers), articulated at several levels, so as to be "close" to the concrete details of the employment relationship, become the forum in which universal human rights, are modulated according to the needs of the enterprise market, differentiated by sector, size or Territory. E 'in bilateral bodies that establish and maintain: welfare, health, health and safety, training, employment, social security benefits (income support for inactivity), seasonal migration, use of vouchers (the "checks", including wage and contribution that should bring out the work "is not totally illegal"), the relationship with business associations to alert them to behave correctly.
- The welfare state no longer has a role in ensuring equality in performance, but is based on several pillars, in the case of Health and Welfare, which helps voluntary and / or mandatory (no longer speak of Health Retirement or "integration" of public service are all the same), the tax is to be moved by the progressive people or companies, to the levy on property or consumption; training, including high training, moves into the Enterprise, "in full production set" through the Apprenticeship; School and University become the meeting place between demand and supply of labor and as this meeting takes place, the more you define "success "the individual school or university.
A system that has as its implicit goal the perpetuation of inequality in a country like Italy, already characterized by very low social mobility.
Above all, there is the passing of the Statute for Labor Rights, replaced by the Workers' Statute, which disappear Rights. There are three assignments that pertain to each Employee:
a) The right to a safe working environment;
b) The right to a fair compensation, commensurate with the results of that undertaking,
c) The right to constantly improve their skills and knowledge, as the only means of employment stability.
course, each of these "rights" can not be imposed from above but "encouraged" by the social partners, and modulated, and waived, depending on the situation of firms, sectors and territories.
So this is a complex strategy, on different levels, and that involves the entire social structure of the country. Must be answered. But to answer, you need a break double pattern: one which, on the one hand, in the face of government decisions, indulges in exorcism ritual, and what the other thinks that the only viable strategy, it is impossible that the search for a "lesser evil" .
must note, among other things, that:
- There is a real crisis bargaining
- The job market is now only produces insecurity;
- In times of crisis, can have a consensus response "service" workers, replacing the Public Health Insurance with shear, promising some temporary work his son instead of unemployment, focusing particularly on the interests of the Company in the competition as the only certainty for job stability;
- A slice always bigger than the world of work (from temporary workers to small and micro enterprises ), has almost no connection with the trade unions;
- are many workers who come into our offices to look for individual responses to problems, from the research work that asks us to mediate.
We must have the courage to seek a contractual response to the contradictions of this phase. The answer to the crisis inevitably part of the struggle for a new model of development, but in this fight, there must be space to experience a collective bargaining within even individual needs, as he told Bruno Trentin.
I must stress here the importance of individual rights that we consider not available, or the value of collective bargaining, or how important it is for the Union to maintain freedom of contract. And I must stress the political importance of the CGIL general proposal concerning the reform of social safety nets. But I think we are facing, by contract, all matters that the Government wants to reduce the management derogation of bilateral bodies. All questions, without exception. And I think we reconstruct the 'ordinary'.
In Abruzzo, for example, we do not have a regional law on placement, and the apprenticeship was seen as unconstitutional by the Government. And we have a serious Abruzzo in active employment policy, acting on unemployment, particularly long-term and the feminine. The fight to stabilize the precarious job is too episodic and too often carried out directly by the interested parties who do not trust a mayor who appears to represent only the interests of those who are already guaranteed. As
action on illegal work is too random and disconnected from a serious economic policy that qualifies the fabric companies and pushes them to compete on quality rather than cost-effectiveness. There remain pockets of dramatic work irregular through bogus contractual frameworks only serve to prop up companies linked to government or private, who have found an elegant way to disguise exploitation.
If you do not want to intervene on these issues, and consistent with a strategy, be brought to life primarily as a practical daily commitment and generosity, we will be really isolated. Why not contract more of anything concrete material conditions of all those who daily come into a new world of work. Perhaps they'll meet to make a dispute, or offer them a service. Maybe. And only when they are released from their workplace.
E 'on these themes that questioned the CGIL sees its raison d'etre. It can not stay still.
0 comments:
Post a Comment