The issue of retirement age can be explained by resorting to the apologue of the chick who gets lost in the snow of the steppe, is rescued (let's not say how) by a cow and then devoured by a wolf. The moral è the same: it is said that a government that lowers the retirement age is necessarily a friend (and an enemy that raises it). Indeed, under the fascist regime, in 1939 (with rdl n. 636) the retirement age was reduced to 60 years for men and 55 for women, changing what was previously in force, namely: 65 years, with the possibility of bringing it up to 60, but with variable economic penalties, depending on the size of anticipation, from 37% 10% of the pension amount.
The Republic of Salò was even more generous and reduced the legal age by another five years. Obviously this change was not implemented by the legislation of the new Italy: the retirement age remained fixed at 60 for men and 55 for women until the Amato reform of 1992 (which gradually increased the limits by five years). In the meantime, early retirement had also been established (definitively with Law No. 153 of 1969), based only on seniority with contributions and regardless of age.
Now, read on the platform elaborated by CGIL, CISL and UIL and illustrated in recent days by the general secretaries, it is difficult not to see a path of substantial sharing with the proposals made by the government on pensions (admittedly and not granted that we arrive at fixed points in the budget law). Indeed, once again it is demonstrated that, when confronted with the demagoguery of power, the unions end up, in most cases, giving the worst of themselves.
There has been much discussion in recent months about the costs that the introduction of quotas would entail (100 and 41 are the numbers magic of the raffle) proposed by the executive. The unions have seized the opportunity to relaunch by proposing to them the total demolition of the Fornero reform that the yellow-green majority finds it hard to implement for reasons of public finance. As CGIL, CISL and UIL have provided important assistance to the irresponsible maneuvers of the government (the same for which it is under fire from the EU Commission).
Luckily, no one noticed or gave it importance, as organizations that are unable or unwilling to take charge of their responsibility towards the country and future generations.
What are the CGIL, CISL and UIL asking for? Let it be twice Christmas and celebration all year round, with junkyard measures that have not even occurred to the prestigious demolition company Di Maio & Salvini, as far as has been said so far: a) establish 41 years of contributions to retire regardless of age; b) proceed with the separation of social security expenditure from welfare expenditure (someone warn them that it has been operating for decades; ed); c) envisage measures for women such as the recognition of 12 months in advance for each child; d) recognize the care work; e) eliminate the current automatic life expectancy adjustment mechanism (boom! ed); f) create a guarantee contributory pension for young people (so we take away the thought of finding them a job, ed); g) relaunching supplementary pensions; h) restore the full revaluation of pensions from 1 January 2019; i) solve exodus problems (the ninth safeguard, perhaps? ed) and extend the women's option; l) to protect, in a structural way from a social security point of view, the categories included in the Ape sociale; m) eliminate (in spite of the adequacy of the treatments, ed) the constraints which, in the contributory method, condition the right to a pension upon reaching certain amounts of the allowance (1,5 and 2,8 times the social allowance).
As regards quota 100, the "mother" of all yellow-green counter-reforms, the unions are asking to act on an exit flexibility at 62 years old. ''In this direction - they argue - quota 100 is a useful path knowing that by itself it does not fully respond to the needs of many workers, such as women, young people, discontinuous work, entire geographical areas of the country". The latter reference concerns the regions of the South. It is well known that advance treatments are a prerogative, in fact, male and northern. If this is the case (and will be) also in the case of the 450 more pensioners claimed by Matteo Salvini, have the unions wondered if, in the North, the job offer will be such as to compensate for these exoduses? Even assuming that Mr. Brambilla's companies are ready to hire a young man in place of an elderly retiree, are the union leaders sure that these young people will really find them? That the supply will match the job demand? Or will a trivial demographic problem that continues to be ignored be highlighted?
