Al Congress of CGIL the Secretary Landini, strengthened by an almost plebiscitary re-election but also by the success achieved with the participation of the President of the Council Giorgia Meloni (invited under the banner of the need to also listen to the opponents), indicated one set of goals on which he promises to bring the unions together through a great mobilization, and which he proposes to the opposition in Parliament as a basis for a common political battle.
4 day week for equal pay
Let's start from working week claim di 4 days a equal pay. Naturally, this means 4 working days for 32 hours (or less, if for example the work is organized on shifts). We specify this because around Europe there are trials of 4 working days of 10 hours to leave one more day free (in any case, someone has already promptly intervened to clarify that this is not the reasoning…).
They have lavished on this subject rhetoric and emphasis, also alluding to a question of the dignity of work (it has not been explained why working 4 days is more dignified than working 5). Even more, the need for the reduction of the working week has been set in relationship with a new anthropological approach to work, which favors private life over working life, triggered by the lock down and the experience of working remotely. An undoubtedly true phenomenon, but to be verified in its real extent and above all in its concrete practicability. It is clear that in a company that produces IT applications or statistical information, remote work is one thing, in a steel or health care company it is another. It is therefore an emphasis for promotional purposes.
The reduction in working hours must correspond to an increase in productivity
The reality is another, and moreover Landini points it out: the reduction of working hours, if you don't want to cause a drop in production with all the consequences of the case, it must correspond to an increase in productivity; which Landini considers to have already taken place. Theoretically of all production factors, but given that the productivity of the Public Administration, of the Civil Justice or of the infrastructural system is expected to be stable (if it goes well), productivity can only increase for the labor or capital component. What is not impossible: the Mechanical Dashboard of FIM CISL reports that in the last 10 years the sector productivity grew by 15%. But the more general data, referring to the economy as a whole, are very different: the labor factor productivity (ie the ratio between hours worked and value added) has increased on average by 1995% per year since 0,4 (in the EU by 1,5%). L'capital intensity (ratio between capital inputs and hours worked) grew at an annual average, in the same period, of 0,4%, while the capital productivity (ratio between capital input and value added) fell to the annual average of 0,7% per year resulting from an increase in capital input (+1,3%) higher than that of value added (+0,6%) ; in 2021 however thecapital inputs it was +0,8% but above all the added value increased (+8,5%) resulting in a very strong growth in productivity (+7,7%).
It remains to say that this is a general average, over a 25-year period and the economy as a whole. In reality, productivity rises in manufacturing, construction, commerce and transport, but falls in health services and education (typically public employment). The relationship between productivity and wages very eloquent for our country: taking 100 in 2015, the GDP per hour worked reached 104 and the hourly wage to 100,5: in France the GDP rose to 105 and the wages to 103, in Germany the GDP 112 and the salary at 103. And this despite the fact that the hours worked in the sectors that "pull" in Italy are higher than those of Germany: 40,4 against 39,4 in manufacturing, 40,4 to 39,9 in trade, 40,5, 39,9 to 2023 in tourism (Istat February XNUMX data).
The objections to Landini's claim
In the light of these data it would seem that a "normal" union objective should be to increase wages, rather than leaving them still at the stake, where they have been for several years. But let's put them in order objections to Landini's claim:
- Primo: the measure could not be extended to all sectors, and indeed not even to all companies; if the criterion is that of productivity, the dimension to think about can only be that of the company.
- Secondo: going from 40 to 32 hours of work per week (let's use the easiest case to examine as an example) means a 20% reduction in labor input: in order not to cause a drop in production or wages, there should be a simultaneous analogous growth in productivity not say of labour, but at least of the total factors. But as we said above we are very far from such a goal. Under these conditions, the general claim of the 4-day working week is hardly credible.
- Third: it is improper and incorrect to create confusion between freeing up time for workers and planning a time reduction gosplan in order to "pay more for work".
The first case is the one indicated by the Secretary of the FIM CISL, Robert Benaglia, for which the bargaining in companies where there are concrete conditions, it may allow, for example, that part (or even all) of the performance bonus be converted into paid individual leave on a voluntary basis. The second looks a lot like one retaliation on companies intended to increase a labor cost which, inexplicably, must take the form of increases in gross hourly wages rather than increases in monthly/annual wages. To complete the stunning scenery it should public intervention, which thanks to the now mythical cut of the tax wedge should guarantee the increase in net wages.
Let's spare the considerations on this recent propensity to claim the increase in the purchasing power of wages to the State-Fiscal Office rather than Capital and conclude by saying that at least the ideal reference of the 80s (which alas could not withstand the harsh retorts of history) that is, "work less work all" had its own strategic and ethical dimension; in the case we are talking about we are dealing with a claim with a high risk of sterility, unsuitable for generating employment or increasing real wages.
Another thing is define a long-term strategy which has as its objective the gradual reduction of working hours for equal pay which, as experience has shown, gradually spreads over time at company level through agreements that exchange productivity and remuneration. When the situation is generalized at company and territorial level, it becomes consequent to reduce working hours in national agreements and by law.
