The CGIL Congress of these days and just before that of the Democratic Party have been and are a mirror of the path of the left after the resounding electoral defeat in September which opened the doors to the right-centre government of Giorgia Meloni. But have the CGIL and the Democratic Party learned their lesson and what is to be expected from the two major forces, one trade union and the other political, of the Italian left? Marco Bentivogli, who knows the secretary of the CGIL, Maurizio Landini very well, having been at the helm of the metalworkers of the Fim-Cisl for years before founding the Associazione Base Italia, is the ideal observer to decipher – with this interview with FIRSTonline – the reality of the two congresses. Landini's "less political lexicon" than usual, his open admission of the crisis of union representation and politics in the face of "the faster and more profound transformation of work" and the explicit reference to the innovative "project" unionism of Bruno Trentin are a "good premise", as is the enthusiasm generated by the new Schlein secretariat in the Democratic Party. But the difficult part comes now, when from the vagueness of words it is necessary to move on to the harsh reality of facts and try to make the change for real. The challenge that awaits both the CGIL and the Democratic Party is gigantic but there is only one possibility of winning it: that of initiating a radical renewal of the union and of politics and of "being more daring". Will they be able to? Only time will tell but it won't take long to evaluate their real direction of travel.
Bentivogli, you know Landini well having been together at the helm of the metalworkers: is the CGIL leaving Rimini as you expected or is there something new?
«Between the motion of the majority (97%) of the CGIL and Maurizio Landini's report there is an appreciable attempt at a less political lexicon. I'm not saying that we need to speak "as workers speak" but not too far from what a common citizen can understand. And if anything, you need to push your own language forward on the ground of innovation and never for old rhetorical re-enactments. Landini knows this well and also those who still hold assemblies every day in the workplace. If I may make a point, the report speaks too much to the government and too little to the "owners". It is true that the polarizations give visibility but as Landini clearly states in the final part, the union has another role. We are facing the fastest and most profound transformation of work, in the next 30 years we will have 8 million fewer Italians (of working age). Something must also be said to companies about the battle for the future of work ».
One may or may not agree with Landini's individual proposals but today's CGIL is very far from that of Di Vittorio, Lama and Trentin: how did it happen that it lost the vision of the general interest of the country to which to link the defense of workers, which is swept by winds of maximalism and populism and which is always in opposition to any reform?
«True, we have generally gone from a union that pushed and guided reforms (agriculture, education, health, taxation, etc.) to a union that opposes them and even renounces a conditioning role. Making workers see endless platforms that never become law in the long run increases frustration and disaffection. You have to say what you are able to do and answer less to the worker who says "where were you with the Fornero law", because that worker does not remember it because he did not go on strike. Otherwise he would remember: 3 hours in all categories and 8 in metalworkers. Strikes which, moreover, went very badly in terms of membership. However, Trentin's quotes in the report are significant, above all when one sets the goal of governing development in which he criticized the privatization process without criteria but never proposing the nationalization of the economy».
In the absence of an autonomous strategic vision, Landini's CGIL seems to be passionate about the Spanish model of the fight against precariousness and, contradictory, the general mobilization of the French unions against the pension reform which in Italy has already been commendably implemented also thanks to the support of the unions: confusion of ideas and desire to go back?
«In Spain the old Rajoy law has made the labor market much more precarious than in Italy. There have been 1-day futures contracts for a long time. The labor reform of the Sánchez government has introduced rules and incentives to reduce precariousness but has maintained the liberalization of dismissals of the old law. I've never been enthusiastic about "let's do how" because it's often a hoax. Landini attacks the jobs act which also in my opinion acts uselessly on layoffs and does not deal with training, but unfortunately leaves out the disasters that the "dignity decree" has wrought which, to combat fixed-term contracts over 12 months, reduced the duration contracts in the style of the old Rajoy law. In Italy we talk more about pensions than about work. It should be overlooked that the fundamental system of the social security law is the Dini law made in 1995 in agreement with CGIL CISL UIL. We are dealing with the next 2-3 years, but 2030 is only 5 years away, the date on which we will all go with the contributory (with longer years of work and lower pensions). In recent years we have represented the generation that wanted to retire early and then continue to work and not leave any space. In 2030 there will be a transition to generations who will retire at 70, 75 with lower pensions».
How do you explain that the CGIL, despite the weakness and contradictory nature of its line, manages to seduce the UIL and, to a lesser extent, the CISL?
«They are different strategic choices. The Uil after Luigi Angeletti thought that behind the CGIL it could have more space. The Cisl tries to recover its natural tradition which always wants it to be open to discussion. Landini centered the general theme by admitting the general problem of the union and of politics: the crisis of representation. I must say that his drive to "do" what is written in the documents (approved unanimously), increase attendance at congresses, precisely "do" as well as declaim should be appreciated. Recognizing that out of 5 million members, only 1,4 million have been involved in Congress is an act of truth that concerns the whole union, the parties, the associations. Recognizing limits and bias is always a good premise. In general, no big deals have been made for years, which is bad in general. But look, it's better than making fake deals. There are inter-confederation agreements that have not changed the condition of workers for the better or for the worse. Agreements must be binding on everyone to be true. An eg? The 2011 agreement on productivity did not push even 1 euro on investment. We've had years of low inflation where national contract minimums weren't exciting but with this inflation, without regretting the sliding scale, wage increases are well below inflation. A good trade unionist and also a worker who knows how to read pay slips knows that increases, if they are not related to the comparison of inflation, are only nominalistic. In Germany in the metalworkers there was a good one-off increase for the expensive energy and a structural increase in wages ».
What do you think of the Schlein secretariat in the Democratic Party? Where can the major party of the Italian left go now?
«It's a moment of enthusiasm in the Democratic Party and that's fine. But the problem of representation is gigantic. Even a new thrust is shattered if it is surrounded by an old nomenclature enriched by the same "young bonsai". Schlein has well interpreted the nausea that voters (and former voters) feel towards the leadership group but, like the previous secretaries, there is a parliamentary group "appointed" by the old leadership group and an enlarged direction between the old leadership group and loyalists. We need to be much more daring. Zingaretti and Letta have built their entire strategy on alliances and openness to Art.1. A piece of the nomenclature involved in the various splits has been brought back. It is not enough, now the art. 2 operation would be needed, to recover people, male and female workers, social Italy which is very large and far from the social bureaucracy ».
Landini seems to find support in the new secretariat of the Democratic Party but, if his vague ideas against inequalities and precariousness beyond a growth horizon, his desire for capital and nationalization and his ambiguity about Ukraine and peace should they infect the Democratic Party, it will become very difficult to build a convincing alternative to the Meloni government: don't you think?
«Not only that: in your words, the admission of a crisis of representation is evident, the effort not to withdraw into the 'isms' in which the left often indulges, also because Landini knows well that a part of the members voted Meloni and that the role of the union cannot be that of the parties and least of all of opposition or collateralism but, quoting Trentin (and I add Carniti), "by project". He realizes that the left, on some issues that also concern the CGIL, see the minimum wage or the reduction of working hours, trivializes. Landini must renew the CGIL, not only in terms of age, but by building a more effective organizational model to intercept people and needs. And above all, ideas capable of driving innovation. The trade union organizational model is a tepid update of that of the 70s. We must aim at refounding, radical and regenerative internal reforms. This year we celebrate the European year of skills and the centenary of the birth of Don Lorenzo Milani. Access to knowledge is the foundation of freedom, democracy and social mobility. It is the knot that needs to be untied to break the mechanism by which in Italy, more than elsewhere, the condition of wealth and poverty is inherited. Landini maintains that the mother of all battles is the taxman. True, the taxman is unfair and tax evasion is gigantic. And at the same time those who pay all taxes (even the self-employed) pay too many. Out of 42 million Irpef declarations, 30 million pay less than 185 euros. Taxes are very high and few pay them. Why? Because it's more popular to pet the tricks of tax evaders. In 1997, the De Mita government over the tax authorities went into crisis. The union had the courage (complete with stickers) to launch the campaign "I pay taxes and you?"). The Meloni government speaks of "fiscal peace", "avoidance of necessity" and does not implement a real and drastic reduction in taxes on labour. Who knows, maybe he won't be able to mobilize citizens and workers and wake up politics on the tax issue and rebuild some unity of action on this?».
