Green Pass: Landini and its unsustainable inconsistency

Save the soldier Landini. By himself. In a letter to Repubblica, the leader of the CGIL replies to the criticisms that have reached him from all sides regarding his organization's line of conduct on the issue of the green pass, without being able - in my opinion - to clear up the political confusion in which pour. Landini, after having lined up all the merits acquired by the CGIL during the health crisis, reiterates that his union is aligned and is campaigning among workers in favor of vaccination and ''has never raised questions of principle on the green instrument pass''. On the contrary, Landini challenges the government - in the event that it deems compulsory vaccination essential - to present a bill to that effect, because (hear! hear!) this matter cannot simply be delegated to the social partners, who - moreover, rightly - boast of having agreed in the Protocols of April 2020 measures that allowed the factories to reopen in conditions of relative safety.

It certainly did not escape Landini that those provisions - even in the absence of the vaccine - also established ''discriminating'' constraints so that those who were not found in compliance; the employee went into solitary confinement and went home. Then, please, a little consistency! If a legal obligation were introduced where would the individual freedom that the CGIL - like Buridano's donkey - intends to safeguard together with the collective interest end up? What if vaccination was mandatory what sanctions would be foreseen for the ''renitents''? And what effects would this have on employment relationships? Real highways would open up for companies to suspend and fire those who evade a legal obligation established to protect public health. What does the secretary of the most important Italian trade union think about when he writes ''that there shouldn't be a sanctioning and punitive logic'' towards those who do not want to get vaccinated, for no justified reason (Monica Cirinnà has asked that trans people be exempt from the green pass because in the event of checks it would emerge that the subject belongs to the gender rejected but registered in the registry office)?

Which of the following assumptions would be correct? 1) the ''renitent'' goes to his workplace and the company sanctions that it takes care of having him near; 2) the employer sets up a ''confinement ward'' for the unvaccinated only (can we call it apartheid?); 3) the worker is sentenced to house arrest through forced smart working for an indefinite time; 4) the worker is suspended but with permanent salary; 5) in any case, it is not permitted to proceed with a change of duties, not even in the forms and with the causes established by law (the ''infame jobs act''). At the end of the letter, Landini addresses the issue of injuries, forgetting that the covid-19 infection contracted at work is also an injury that has caused 175 complaints and 600 deaths since the beginning of the pandemic. There is no doubt that the green pass or the swab test could also be used to reduce this tragic sequence of deaths at work.

But in one point the trade unionist demonstrates intellectual dishonesty – which he cannot be allowed to do – when he writes: ''the right to elect the workers' safety representative in all workplaces must be guaranteed''. And who has to give this guarantee? It can be seen that Landini has not read Legislative Decree No. 81 of 2008, the Consolidated Law on health and safety at work. There is an entire Section (the VII) where forms of consultation and participation of the representatives of the workers eligible in all companies, even if small, are envisaged. The election procedures are detailed and fully payable by the workers, without having to ask anyone's permission. Long story short, it's not about wallpapering. The powers of these delegates are effective; can have the time necessary to carry out their duties without losing pay and above all the representative ''can have recourse to the competent authorities if he believes that the risk prevention and protection measures adopted by the employer or managers and the means used to implement them are not suitable for guaranteeing safety and health at work''.

Above all, those called upon by other workers to perform this function ''cannot suffer any prejudice due to the performance of their activity and the same protections provided by law for trade union representatives apply to them''. In case of dismissal the delegate would certainly be reinstated by the judge. If the company then operates to prevent the election of the representative and to boycott his functions, the union could make use of the anti-discrimination action referred to in article 28 of the Statute. Finally, the Consolidated Law provides for another series of articles containing administrative and penal sanctions for the entrepreneur and his subordinates who do not comply with the established rules. Ofelè does el to mesté.