"Firing to save employment": this is the title that leaves no room for ambiguity of an article by a great Italian economist, Paolo Sylos Labini, published in 1985 on the front page of la Repubblica, then directed by Eugenio Scalfari. In that article Sylos Labini, who has always been considered close to the left, supported the need to modify the art. 18 to reduce the guarantees, without canceling them, leaving the workplace, because in this way the obstacles to permanent hiring by companies would have been removed. It is a lesson which at the time remained completely unheard of both by the political forces and by the trade unions. And that only aroused the attention of the Red Brigades, so much so that that piece was found in numerous hideouts of the various subversive formations which at the time aimed especially to hit the reformists such as Tarantelli and later Biagi.
Even today, the all-Italian tendency to discuss economic issues, especially those concerning the labor market, in ideological or generically political terms, i.e. making them a symbol around which to build one's power, often leads to completely neglecting the merits of the issues not to evaluate the concrete effects of certain norms, even when it is clear that they lead to results opposite to those intended to be pursued. And in the social sciences it is not infrequent that the consequences are lower or even opposite to those expected. A pragmatic approach to reality would lead reasonable people to sit around a table and try to find different paths that could have better results. But without prejudicial taboos and without veto powers deriving only from an old conception of the balance of power.
When the Monti government raised the need to reform the labor market, the general secretary of the CGIL, Susanna Camusso, immediately raised ideological barriers, starting to say that art. 18 was a "law of civilization", forgetting to remember that all workers of companies under 15 employees are not covered and that not all European countries cannot be considered uncivilized, not to mention the United States, where a similar law does not exists. With these premises it was obvious that the negotiations between the Government and the trade unions could have had a positive outcome only if the changes had been so modest as not to substantially change anything. Now the break has come. The CGIL has proclaimed a general strike. And perhaps when the reform comes into effect, it is preparing to promote an abrogative referendum as it did with the contingency points twenty-five years ago, receiving a resounding rejection from the electorate. Now Camusso maintains that article 18 is a deterrent against mass layoffs and that today, right in the midst of a serious economic crisis, this freedom cannot be given to companies. In short, this would be a reform to be implemented in periods of economic expansion when it is easy for workers to move from one job to another, but not today when there is no work. It neglects to consider that in reality Article 18 certainly does not defend workers with respect to the closure of companies as demonstrated by the significant increase in unemployment recorded in recent months, while it is instead evident that the malfunctioning of the labor market is one of the elements that keep investors away from Italy. And if we are unable to reform all these brake factors which have compressed the country's competitiveness for a long time, we will hardly be able to hope for an economic recovery robust enough to create new jobs.
Beyond the Cigl, it is perhaps worth wondering whether the new regulations proposed by the Government (even if the text of the article is not yet known) really manage to create a different relationship between company and workers, helping to build that more favorable environment for those who want to start or expand a business. The incoming flexibility has certainly been restricted. And this is also positive for eliminating those anomalous forms of entry into work that are clearly currently used to circumvent the lack of flexibility in leaving. But this must not involve an excessive cost and above all a bureaucratic burden which, given the lack of confidence of Italians in the public administration, would frustrate the objectives that are proposed. The generalization of the shock absorbers to all the unemployed and their stricter regulation with the aim of encouraging the search for a new job also by the worker is good. But even here it is important that the employment offices and training be reorganized. The fact that it will be necessary to involve the Regions (often more inefficient than the State) leaves some doubts. Finally, the modification of article 18 as regards disciplinary dismissals on the one hand provides for a minimum indemnity of 15 months which for small companies can be too burdensome, and on the other hand entrusts the magistrate with excessive discretion if the case of reinstatement.
Italy's central problem is that to get out of this crisis it will be necessary to grow more. To do this we need reforms capable of raising our growth potential in recent years compressed by too many regulations and excessive public spending due to too high taxation. Today everyone is called not so much and not only to make sacrifices, but to show willingness to renounce some privileges which, moreover, no longer serve to protect us from the impetuous change in the world situation. They are mental laziness and old habits that we must leave behind. The measures adopted in recent months distribute the burden somewhat over all social categories. What is still missing is a decisive action to cut public spending and reduce debt through a privatization policy in order to accumulate resources to make some public investments and start a visible reduction in taxation without which our hopes of recovery they cannot materialize. On Friday, in addition to the labor market reform, the Government should approve the fiscal delegation. There we will see if there will be concrete prospects of reaching a lowering of the tax burden by the end of this year.
