Unfinished labor market reforms breed monsters. We should have repealed the art. 18 but we didn't. As is the art. 18 can be interpreted in any way: it depends on the judge and his sensibility e culture. Let's go well! In Bologna, an employee heavily insults his managers, albeit via e-mail, and is fired. The judge says that it is a minor fault (after all, the insults weren't for him) and orders his reinstatement. With the due differences, it would be as if the judge had ordered the President of Sampdoria, Garrone, to reinstate Cassano after he had called him "an old man of m...", albeit in an off-air broadcast with open microphones.
We should have reviewed the levels of bargaining, giving priority to corporate and territorial ones to reconnect wages to productivity and the cost of living. They were all in agreement, yet nothing has been done about it yet. The CGIL, oblivious to its own history which in 1955, after the defeat at Fiat, saw it first take the path of articulated bargaining, today opposes it. Why? ideological mystery. Meanwhile, the wages of Italian workers fall to the lowest levels in Europe and productivity languishes.
We should have tackled the issue of trade union representation: gods Rights and Duties, that is, of those who represent the workers, of their legitimacy to do so and, above all, of the ways in which they must do it, but we haven't even begun to talk about it. In the meantime, the judiciary entered the regulatory vacuum and did so with a double sentence that prof. Ichino, who is a gentleman, defined it as "inappropriate", but which to me seems frankly wrong and dangerous. A judge in Rome has ordered Fiat to hire 145 Fiom-registered workers at its Pomigliano plant. Reason? They would have been discriminated against. All 145? No. The truly discriminated against would actually be only the 19 who filed an individual appeal. Where do the other 126 come from then?
Simple, by dividing the total called back to work, around 2.000, by the number of Fiom members. Any comment is superfluous. Let's say with Ichino that this is an inopportune and even a bit bizarre sentence. The serious fact, however, is that this sentence reintroduces in Italy an institution that no longer existed, namely that of the taxable labor force. For those who don't remember it, it was that institution, wanted by Giolitti, which entrusted the union (in this case the judge) rather than the agricultural entrepreneur with the decision on the number of workers that the company had to hire to carry out certain functions. The abuse that the union made of it in the red two-year period, 1919-1920, contributed in no small way to pushing a large part of the landowners into the arms of fascism.
But the most serious thing about the sentence is that it introduces into Italy an institution that we did not have and that existed only in England, which then abolished it: the closed shop, which forced companies (originally printing houses) to hire only the members of the union which, luckily for England, was only one. If this ruling were to lead the way, one should ask what criteria the number of workers to be assigned to each union should be decided by: should one refer to the results of the internal elections or to the number of members? And what fate will be reserved for those who do not vote and do not join any union? Logically, none should be assumed.
How will the union, in turn, select its candidates for employment? Will he organize a competition, will he draw lots or will he entrust the choice to the company? Mystery. The only clear thing is that the judge did not consider the problem and did not evaluate the consequences of his sentence. A clear case of irresponsibility for which there are currently no penalties.
Fiat reacted to the English. Faced with the obligation to hire workers that it does not deem necessary at the moment, it has decided to put the same number into mobility. Hard but linear. It is only to be hoped that in the 45 days that the law makes available to the parties to find an agreement, a solution will be found, which would in any case be entirely possible, if only the judiciary were no longer involved, if Fiom accepted, while maintaining his criticisms, the contract that the majority of workers have freely signed and if Fiat (Marchionne) is convinced that Italy is not America and that it takes a little patience but that in the end good will prevail.
Lastly, it was said that we would have to tackle the issue of industrial relations in order to move decisively towards co-management, but even on this front, at the moment, there is nothing new to report. The initiatives of Del Vecchio (Luxottica) and Della Valle (Tod's) to distribute company bonuses and implement People Care practices are certainly commendable, but they have little to do with the problem of co-management.
The problem of co-management is, in reality, that of the joint assumption of responsibility by entrepreneurs and workers with respect to the future of the enterprise. It is the problem of sharing honors but also burdens, successes but also difficulties and crises. This implies that the trade union moves from an antagonistic culture to a participatory one, that it takes an active and managerial part in the production process and that it places the active defense of the workers' interests within this framework. The union can do it in two ways: by doing what the Chrysler unions did, or, if it doesn't like the American model, it can take the German route of co-management. The important thing, however, is that he decides to do it and that he moves accordingly.
