In the end, the Constitutional Court, as expected, ruled that the art. 19 of the Workers' Statute, so tenaciously defended in the past precisely by Fiom against Cobas, is unconstitutional. After 50 years of honorable service, the Court liquidated the principle which underlies the system of industrial relations in democratic countries and market economies. The principle, that is, that representation depends on the freely signed agreements between the parties and that, in the absence of agreements, representation has no reason to exist. In other words: the company is not an elected assembly in which everyone has the right to access if elected. It is a social organism in which the relationship between the various components, in addition to the laws, is regulated by the stipulation of agreements of a private nature between the parties. These agreements cannot conflict with labor laws which are the competence of Parliament and which must in any case be respected, whether the union is present in the company or not, nor can they harm inalienable rights. Instead, they concern the company components of the salary (which are fatigue, professionalism, productivity and responsibility) and concern training, classifications, working hours, rhythms, company welfare and investments. Corporate representation refers to these agreements and is aimed at their compliance. There is no “abstract” right to representation. On the other hand, there is the right to company bargaining which in Italy, unfortunately, is mortified by the Union more than by the entrepreneurs.
This right exists in all democratic countries and can be exercised in various ways: in an individualistic, trade-unionist and corporate logic as often happens in America or in a logic of co-management, of a common assumption of responsibility, that is, respect to the future of the company, as in Germany. What cannot be done is what the Constitutional Court and the Fiom would like to do and, that is, separate representation from company bargaining and, above all, from compliance with the agreements that have been freely approved by the majority of workers. If this separation were made, the companies would become unmanageable: Marchionne is absolutely right about this.
The Court's ruling does not solve the problem but creates a void that Politics will have to try to fill. However, it has the merit of having exposed the ambiguity with which, in our Constitution, the problem of the enterprise is addressed. What is the Company for Constituents? Is it a private type of social organism whose freedom must first of all be guaranteed, as the liberals wanted, or is it an economic institution, which must also be entrusted with extra-economic purposes of a social type, as the planners wanted? The compromise found between these two opposing visions was not particularly happy, at best it was ambiguous and today it no longer holds, just as much of the legislation on labor law, representation and contracts that it is derived. It's time to change and start a profound renewal in each of these directions.
A good way to start would be to re-establish a correct conception of the company. The Company, it should be remembered to those who fuel social hatred towards it, is, in reality, one of the most important historical conquests of humanity. It is not an institution like the Municipality and the Parliament. His job is not to make men happy, to right wrongs, or to heal social contradictions. Its task is to combine the factors of production (labour, capital and technology) in such a way as to create added value, wealth which, in addition to remunerating work and capital, can be reinvested to create further value and work. This is the Company's function and its social responsibility mainly consists in this.
The system of industrial relations and contracts should favor the accomplishment of this social function of the company, not hinder it. For this reason, antagonism is wrong, because this goal is not proposed, just as a corporative and individualistic approach is insufficient. What is needed is conscious participation, a common assumption of responsibility by workers and entrepreneurs with respect to the future of the company. It is on this ground and only on this ground that representation is defined as a positive right and it is on this ground that we should try to rebuild it. The cancellation of the art. 19 was a mistake but at least today it forces us to deal with this problem and the sooner we do it the better it will be for everyone.
