"The Government has asked for and obtained the company's commitment to comply with the provisions of the 2013 Indesit agreement and will do everything to safeguard the jobs of the Whirlpool group in Italy“. This was stated by the Minister of Economic Development Federica Guidi after the presentation of the industrial plan by the company, which foresees 1.350 redundancies, more than four hundred more than those indicated at the time by the Italian management. That is, before corporate control was acquired by the multinational. As always, first read the cards.
Generally, when seeking a possible agreement on an industrial dispute, before the opening of the confrontation, the company side turns the premises vicious, the union reacts sulkily, the government opens a table, listens patiently, elaborates a balanced solution and plans its own interventions to support both the company's investments and on the subject of social shock absorbers, the competent Region undertakes to explore alternative solutions, the distrustful company waits for the union to accept a reduction in the workforce that is less than what is threatened, but greater than what the workers hoped for, the mayor of the town where he the factory bypasses everyone on the left in the straight and threatens to screw up the hypothesis of an agreement.
So it's late at night and at dawn, exhausted, hungry, everyone signs, waits for a photocopy of the agreement penned by a thousand initials, goes to the bar next to the ministry which is reopening its doors, and go home. In the following months, satisfied, and distracted by other emergencies, the government is the first not to keep the signed commitments, the Region does the same and, when the company resumes its layoffs, everyone cries at the betrayal of the commitments, forgetting their own.
In the case of Indesit, the hypothesis of an agreement (so it is said) was reached on December 3, 2013, reigning Enrico Letta. Undersecretary Claudio De Vincenti, who held those powers, signed for the Ministry of Economic Development. De Vincenti undertook "to evaluate the use of suitable tools (Development Contracts and/or other)... aimed at supporting the investments envisaged in the industrial plan... This in order to consolidate production and employment...". The Marche Region undertook to "formulate proposals... concerning the areas affected by the Indesit crisis". The Campania Region also undertook training and professional retraining projects.
A year later Whirlpool bought Indesit. In terms of labor law, nothing could change, because it is always the company that is committed, not the partners. Of course, the industrial plan yes, that could not be expected to remain in plaster. Meanwhile, the so-called plan is an abstraction when it is made not for strategic business decisions but to be fed to the stakeholders. Secondly, if the entrepreneurial leadership changes, the strategies cannot fail to be adjusted. But, I repeat, union commitments remain untouchable.
In this dialectic, the public hand is strong if it has the cards in order, if the Ministry and the Regions have complied with their commitments. In the Indesit-Whirlpool case, the government is not that of 2013 but, exceptionally, the undersecretary is the same, indeed today it is even more important, he is undersecretary to the Prime Minister. This is an aspect that has escaped the debate. In my opinion, this is where we should start again. Did De Vincenti do what he was committed to?
