Share

Displaced persons are not all the same: one party is entitled to a pension and others a new job

Too much hypocrisy on the exodus, a story that arises from the delays in reforming the labor market as almost all of Europe has done - The case offers us 3 reflections: 1) reforms that are too deferred become the most socially costly; 2) historical achievements are only those that hold up in the long term; 3) there are no free lunches.

Displaced persons are not all the same: one party is entitled to a pension and others a new job

We will have to live with the "exodus" traffic jam for a certain number of years. Better then that we equip ourselves rather than feed the illusion of a solution "for everyone and immediately" which, in any case, no one could guarantee.

The origin of the traffic jam (or bubble, as Ichino says) is clear. Not being able to count on a network of Job Centers, like the British, nor on training centers aimed at re-employment, like the Germans, nor on effective policies for matching labor supply and demand, like the Danes and the Dutch , Italian workers have increasingly entrusted the defense of their workplace to Art. 18 and to a dense network of social shock absorbers (Cassa Integrazione Extraordinaria, Cassa per Cessazione, Cassa per Crisi and Cassa in Derogazione) which, used in sequence, could lead them to retirement within a maximum of 4 6/7 years (Alitalia case) . Rather than being relocated, the Italian worker expected and expects, in short, to be retired.

On the other hand, how can you blame him? Active labor policies entrusted to specialized employment centers or highly professionalized public and private agencies in Italy only began to be talked about after the European Community forced us to do so (1997!!). Until then the trade unions and the main forces of the left have defended the principle of the public monopoly of employment to the bitter end considering everything that was not intermediated by the State in the same way as illegal hiring. Outplacements, training aimed at re-employment, apprenticeships, temporary work and internships before 97 could not even be talked about and, in any case, the workers were wary of them. It is mostly hence, from this delay in reforming the labor market and from this political prejudice, which originates the lack of tools adequate to manage the relocation of workers that the crisis expels from the production cycle. In spite of the rhetoric about work, which abounds in Italy (from the Republic founded on work, to work as a right) the Italian worker is actually the loneliest among European workers and it is precisely when he would most need help, that is, when he looks for his first job and when, having lost it, he looks for a new one.

The Fornero reform obliges everyone to deal with this problem and it makes no sense to ask for guarantees on an unspecified and in any case very high number of expatriates. Instead, it is necessary to distinguish between those who, having already completed the period of mobility, risk being left without any income and who are therefore retired and those who can count on layoffs or mobility for a few years. These should not be guaranteed, now for then, the pension but it would rather go ensured a strong commitment (even with incentives) from the institutions and employment agencies to reintegrate them into the production cycle. At the age of 50/60 a person should still be able to find a useful activity to do. In any case, it is in the direction of a decisive strengthening of the re-employment tools that we must go if we want to have an efficient labor market, especially since we will soon have to manage something similar also in the public sector.

The Italian political forces (at least the reformist ones) should in any case draw at least three lessons from the "exodus" affair. The first is that reforms that are delayed for too long are socially more costly. The second is that the "historical achievements" are such only if they hold up in the medium-long term and this was not the case for the single point of the sliding scale, for the linking of pensions to 80% of the salary, for old-age pensions and for the art. 18. The third lesson is that, as Friedman (but also Marx) said, there are no free lunches and sooner or later someone has to pay the bill. If to delude themselves and to delude themselves that things are not like this are the forces that most represent work, unfortunately the workers will pay the most for the consequences. As Gramsci wrote from prison: the first victim of demagoguery is the demagogue. This is a warning that we should always keep in mind, everyone.

comments