Once again the State Attorney's Office chooses a wrong defensive line in the constitutionality judgment regarding the non-renewal of public contracts. Claiming that a condemnation by the state would aggravate public finances by around thirty billion is neither proven nor demonstrable. On the basis of which parameters does the Avvocatura arrive at determining such a figure, since there is no objective criterion, much less any rule of law (except, perhaps, as regards the contractual holiday allowance) that can be taken as a reference for the renewal of a common law contract (as is also the public employment contract)?
There is no provision of constitutional rank which requires the periodic renewal of employment contracts. The appeal will be discussed by the ''judges of the laws'' on 23 June. Once again – almost as if it were an open challenge to the criticisms of sentence n.70/2015 on the equalization of pensions – the rapporteur will be Silvana Sciarra. Given the current times, we can expect anything, including a further case of "creative jurisprudence", devastating for public finances, so much so as to suggest that, in the texts of the Charter present in the libraries of the Palazzo della Consulta, it has disappeared ( due to a printing error?) Article 81.
But not even a Mandrake in a toga could argue and demonstrate that the freeze on bargaining, even if prolonged, violates any constitutional provision. The art. 36 of the Constitution (paragraph 1) establishes that the worker ''has the right to a remuneration proportional to the quantity and quality of his work and in any case sufficient to ensure a free and dignified existence for himself and his family''. It is true: the judges, called upon to define this treatment, have constantly referred to the basic salary (the so-called minimum wages) envisaged by the national collective agreements of the category or production sector (the so-called indirect extension mechanism of the national agreement). Thus, the wages identified in relation to the tables established in the national collective agreements signed by the comparatively most representative trade union organizations constitute, in court, the minimum binding level for all employment relationships in that category or that sector. And in Italy there is a national contractual network that practically leaves no worker uncovered.
In essence, with the jurisprudential interpretation of article 36 of the Constitution, we have come to the recognition of a form of guaranteed minimum wage. The jurisprudential canon of ''minimum salary'' has therefore historically consolidated, becoming of general application. But where is it expected that this remuneration should evolve according to timescales? We believe that the thesis that, rebus sic stantibus, current salaries in the public sector are proportional to the quantity and quality of the work performed and above all sufficient to ensure ''a dignified existence'', seems perfectly tenable. It would be enough to ask Istat to find out that the wages of the public sector are still, on average, higher than those of private employees.
The point is precisely this: it is necessary to block in the bud a judicial invasion in the field of social rights, which are not absolute, but strongly conditioned by the available resources. These are assessments that cannot be made in absolute terms, but necessarily relative and therefore in parallel with the more overall structure of wages (which in the public sector remain higher even after the blockades) and other conditions of employees. How much is the stability of employment worth - also in terms of the adequacy of salaries - in years in which billions of hours of layoffs were granted to private employees? Then, let's not forget, the questionable bonus of 80 euros per month was also recognized to travets, in a single solution, albeit within the expected income levels.
Then, there is another consideration to address. Has the Constitutional Court decided to continue bombing the HQ? Maybe it didn't realize that the country has gone through a long period of crisis from which it is struggling to emerge and that it doesn't need to be pushed back because of a fundamentalist idea of the law? It would therefore be appropriate for the ''judges of the laws'', on 23 June, to be satisfied with inviting the Government to take steps as soon as possible to get out of an objectively emergency and anomalous situation, perhaps by providing for the indemnity contractual holiday. After all, they could not do otherwise. In the matter of the revaluation of pensions, there was an applicable calculation mechanism in the background. But can a government be condemned – with an immediately binding sentence – to enter into a contract as an employer? By what rules? With what charges and references? We're not kidding. Do we want to go back, paradoxically, to the Judiciary of Labor, which, during Fascism, also had the competence to resolve economic disputes?
