The declarations of the grillino Luigi Di Maio on the union (“Change or we will take care of changing you”) have raised, as expected, a sea of criticism. But, judging Di Maio in the same way that he judges himself a politician is a mistake, because Di Maio is not. He is a "robot", devoid of independent thought and which, since he was selected as leader of the Five Stars (with 35.000 clicks!) says only what, from time to time, the Rousseau algorithm (managed by Casaleggio associates) suggests that he say and that, usually, corresponds to what the belly of the country wants to hear.
It was like this with the Jus Soli and with the referendum on the Euro, first threatened and then withdrawn, and it is like this now with the Union. The man-robot should therefore not be taken too seriously, but the issue that the algorithm has raised, on the other hand, yes, because, effectively, the union is in crisis, because it is struggling to fulfill its function and, above all, because it appears perched in the defense of the existing and of the small and large privileges of the employed and retired to whom he seems willing to sacrifice the future of young people.
How could this happen? It happened because the union, faced with the crisis, abandoned the battlefield for development. In other words, it has ceased to make economic growth, rising wages and productivity, innovation and reforms its battle horse. Save for praiseworthy exceptions, the union has not promoted initiatives that encourage technological innovation, recognition of merit or increased productivity.
On the contrary, for many, too many trade unionists, especially in services and in the public sector, innovation and productivity represent a threat from which to defend with rearguard battles. Other than banners of development.
This is a notable regression, even compared to just a few years ago when the trade union, perhaps wrongly, placed the issues of work organization at the center of its claiming action (overcoming the assembly line, 150 hours of training, etc. ..) and the request for social reforms and investments in the south. Perhaps all that glittered was not gold, but it almost seems to today's union that growth is no longer of interest.
He seems much more inclined to take up the complaints about modernity and development than to claim them. It is this hostile attitude to innovation and reforms that has meant that today the union finds itself in potential conflict with the new generations and it is on this immanent contrast with the young that the 5 Stars leverage to win the vote of the young. If the union does not change its attitude and does not face openly, with a battle that is also cultural, the problem of development, it really risks succumbing.
First of all, the union must fight for economic growth, innovation, increased productivity and recognition of merit and professionalism. Must claim a radical reform of education and affirm the principle of continuing education and a new relationship between school and work. (in practice, the exact opposite of what the unions of the school have done in recent years).
He must make a clear choice in favor of the articulated negotiation from which he must start again factory by factory, office by office, to negotiate innovation, productivity and professionalism. It must start again from the workplace to help create a new system of industrial relations, no longer based on conflict or even on simple confrontation but on a common assumption of responsibility.
Articulated bargaining is also the main way to affirm the principle of continuous training on the job and to contribute from below to the reform of the welfare state, tying a part of the productivity salary to corporate welfare. From there, moreover, a serious battle can also start again for a reform of the labor market which affirms the principle that the worker who is looking for his first job or who, having lost it, looks for a new one must have the support of agencies, public or private, truly capable of helping him in this search and must be able to count on income protection until he has found this job.
If the union wants to recover a relationship with young people, it must have a vision of the future that young people can share and which they lack today. The 5 Stars in their cultural and political misery think they can use the discontent of young people to turn them against the parties, against the unions and against representative democracy. But their attempt is doomed to fail because their movement has always been against development, modernity and innovation.
That of the Five Stars is a movement that is suspicious of science, which fears magnetic waves, which is against vaccines and which gives credence to the theory of chemtrails. It is a movement that expresses fear for development, not faith in a better future. It is therefore not a movement that can permanently win over young people. Who would actually like to live in a smart society, open to innovation, change and mobility. They don't want an egalitarian society (à la Grillo) but a society based on merit and competence.
A society that offers young people not only a subsidy (citizenship income) but opportunities, a chance. This type of young people is the exact opposite of the militant Five Stars (one is worth one) and it is exactly these young people that the union should address today, defending their value in the company and helping them to promote themselves on the job market.
To do this, the union must change. Di Di Maio may very well be disinterested. But he cannot ignore the young people he must know how to involve in his battle which, today as yesterday, can only be one for development and work.
