Three big boulders hinder the path of labor market reform. Three boulders which represent as many totems of the radical left and which constitute the negative legacy of 68, its most poisoned legacy.
The first is the so-called "job property": the idea, that is, that the worker is not simply the owner of a job, but that he is in some way the "owner" of it. That, in short, that place belongs to him. Article 18 is inspired exactly by this principle. So much so that he entrusts to a third party (the judge), who very often knows little about business organization and production, the task of deciding whether a possible dismissal (that is, the loss of ownership of the job) is legitimate or not. If the problem were, as they say, to defend workers from discriminatory dismissals, Article 18 would not help. In fact, the Civil Code would be enough, to which, in Anglo-Saxon countries, workers who consider themselves discriminated against resort to and are very often successful.
However, the “Job property” also had another perverse effect. If, in fact, it is thought that the true asset of the worker is not his professionalism but his place, what need is there to defend, implement and enhance that professionalism? Nobody! It is no coincidence that in recent years bargaining on this point has practically disappeared. Fiom's high-sounding affirmations (we will never sign a dismissal!) were accompanied by the union's practical abandonment of company bargaining, which should primarily deal with professionalism and productivity and nothing else. Employment cannot be defended if professionalism is not defended and promoted. This is the only real guarantee that the worker has of keeping his job. Other than Article 18.
The second boulder is the theory of "work as an independent variable". That is, the theory according to which the level and structure of wages are not defined starting from the concrete contents of work (which are: professionalism, responsibility, effort and productivity) but from the needs of workers. The salary is no longer a wage (the consideration for a service rendered) but becomes a right. This theory, which took hold in Italy in the 70s, had very serious consequences: it led to a flattening of wages and their tendency to decrease; it has mortified the various professions by favoring the spread of envelopes; it caused a drop in productivity and, finally, it practically canceled the second-level bargaining in favor of the Concertation with the leaders of Confindustria and with the Government.
This last consequence was perhaps the most serious of all because it impoverished the system of industrial relations preventing its evolution towards more advanced and responsible forms of worker participation in company choices. Marchionne was needed for this issue to come up again forcefully. Now it is no longer possible to postpone the reform of the bargaining. We must focus with determination on company bargaining and not only to re-establish a link between wages and the contents of the job but also to rebuild a democratic and efficient system of industrial relations which favors the development of a trade unionism capable of managing it.
The third and last boulder it is made up of the residues of a conception of labor market management which by law excluded the intermediation of manpower by private individuals because it considered it in the same way as illegal hiring. The result of that choice is there for all to see. The State has not shown itself capable of carrying out this function effectively and this is precisely the reason why over the years the most unionized and strongest categories have protected themselves by building tools (extraordinary redundancy fund, derogation fund, mobility, etc. ) which did not ensure the re-employment of the worker who had lost his job but guaranteed his accompaniment to retirement. When the government is preparing to review these instruments, the problem arises of active employment policies which should help a young person find his first job and the unemployed to find a new one.
Who can manage them? Realistically, the current job centers cannot do it, but neither can the private agencies which have only recently opened up on the Italian market and which are practically absent in the south for this reason. Hence the need for a strong synergy between the public and private sectors to build an efficient placement system. The delay to recover is enormous because placing or relocating a person is not an easy thing and the subsidy or incentives are not enough to be able to do it. It takes a lot of professionalism.
A precise knowledge of the market is needed: of the demand and of the potential offer of work. Applicants should be interviewed, motivated and helped to promote themselves. You must have non - bureaucratic relationships with potential employers and guarantee the professional training of those applying for that specific post . It is not a normal bureaucratic and office activity. It is an activity that requires adequate specialization and professionalism.
The National Agency we are talking about will not be able to ensure all of this by itself. This is why it would be wise to imagine it above all as a task force, an agile, very professional structure, capable of networking private agencies and public employment centres, providing them with all the information on the Italian and European labor market at their disposal. An agency capable of suggesting to the government, on the basis of experiences and needs, the measures that can be usefully taken to favor the take-off of the new job market towards which we must go.
It will take time, but in any case we must not forget that managing active labor policies does not mean guaranteeing a right but guaranteeing a service. In other words, it means doing everything possible not to leave anyone alone when they really need help and doing so by trying to offer everyone an opportunity.
