The unions also reject the Maneuver. After the harsh criticisms of Brussels, economists and rating agencies, even the main Italian trade union associations are railing against it the provisions of the Lega-M5s government.
According to CGIL, CISL and UIL, the budget law "while representing an initial trend reversal, shows elements of inadequacy and lacks a vision of the country". The workhorses of the parties led by Deputy Prime Ministers Luigi Di Maio and Matteo Salvini end up in the viewfinder: the basic income does not create work, while amnesty and flat tax are "unfair and wrong". Criticisms also for the lack of resources for investments and for the cuts foreseen by the text.
This is the summary of the thinking of the CGIL, CISL and UIL from which the document at the center of the unitary executive meetings held today, October 22, starts, and which also contains the main proposals of the trade unions for the budget law: from growth and employment to tax reform, pensions and public administration.
On these bases, the three main trade unions in the country ask a meeting with the Executive and they say they are ready to support their initiatives also "with the forms and tools typical of the trade union experience".
Going into detail, according to the trade unions, a maneuver financed with 22 billion in deficit expenditure should have the primary objective of creating jobs and improving their quality, putting young people and women at the centre. We must then focus on redistribution and cohesion processes in the South.
The manoeuvre, on the other hand, is heading towards a different path: "there are no resources for investments, further cuts and measures are introduced that do not lead to job creation but they risk representing mere assistance policies”.
The document does not speak directly of basic income, but the reference is clear. Fighting poverty, explain the CGIL, CISL and UIL is "undoubtedly a priority for the country, but poverty cannot be fought if there is no work and the great public networks of the country are not strengthened: health, education and childcare services and assistance”. The references to innovation in the Public Administration and to the renewal of existing and future contracts are also completely absent.
Speaking of the pensions finally, the opening of a comparison base on 100 is judged "positive, but there is no reference to the guarantee pension for young people, interventions in favor of women, early workers and heavy work and the separation between social security and assistance ”.
As far as measures of a fiscal nature are concerned, however, the judgment is merciless: the measures are "unfair and wrong". With the amnesty, the Government "rewards the tax evaders, while "the tax wedge for workers and pensioners will not be reduced, neither a greater progressiveness of taxes and interventions on the assets of the richest are foreseen and no decisive fight against tax evasion is planned".
