I admit. I had not noticed this despite the fact that I am credited – with a great deal of exaggeration – with great competence in the field of pensions. I hadn't noticed the most insidious trap contained in the so-called summary report signed on 28 September by the Government and the trade union confederations.
The wild imagination of union leaders has invented another type of work: hard work, for which there is no scientific definition or regulatory precedent. Probably some of them – I imagine it is the UIL secretary Carmelo Barbagallo, a person of good reading – during the summer holidays found Cesare Pavese's book ''Working tired'' in their hands; and so he had the brilliant idea of making use of it at the discussion table with the Government.
Therefore, if the minutes are applied, in Italy not only strenuous work, but also onerous work will be protected through discounts on the requirements for access to pension treatment. Let's see the characteristics of the two types.
The strenuous work - in the case of particularly uncomfortable tasks (already identified by Legislative Decree No. 374/1993 in continuous night work, on assembly lines, with restricted rhythms, in quarries, tunnels, greenhouses, confined spaces, etc.), at night and driving public transport with at least 9 passengers - remains the one regulated by Legislative Decree No. 67/2011, which regulates
significant changes are made:
a) the abolition of the so-called mobile window, thus bringing retirement by 12 or 18 months depending on whether it is employed or self-employed;
b) the possibility of accessing the benefit, starting from 2017, having carried out one or more strenuous work activities, both for a period of time at least, equal to seven years out of the last ten years of work activity, without the constraint (currently in force) of employment in strenuous activity in the year of achievement of the requirement, either having carried out the particularly strenuous activity for a number of years at least equal to half of the entire working life;
c) the elimination of the life expectancy adjustment from 2019;
d) the administrative feasibility of simplifications relating to the documentation necessary for the certification of the right to access the benefit.
Basically, more favorable access requirements are established and the main obstacles are eliminated (assignment to strenuous tasks even in the year of achievement of the requirement as a necessary condition to be considered worn out and the complexity of the documentation required to demonstrate the existence of the requirements ) found in the experience of recognition of protection.
What about hard work? It is mentioned in point 4 of the minutes in the following terms: “The categories of heavy work will be identified after a discussion between the government and the trade unions. using three general criteria:
(I) the current legislation that identifies the strenuous activities and in particular the decree www.bollettinoadapt.it 24 October 2016 legislative 67 of 201l;
(Ii) the analysis of the tasks for which, on the basis of Italian legislation e
international scientific analyses, the risks of "work-related stress" (established at European level and implemented in Italy in 2008) proved to be higher;
(Iii) within the limits of data availability, a verification of the accident and occupational disease indices as a function of the increase in age".
And it goes without saying that “the convergence between the Government and the OO.SS. on this point it obviously remains conditioned on the positive outcome of this comparison”. It would then be said that strenuous work is part of a broader category that constitutes heavy work. The related areas identified concern the following sectors and professional conditions: construction, seafarers, some categories of nurses (in the operating theatre), excavators, porters, machinists, drivers of heavy vehicles, nursery school teachers.
What will be the expected benefits of hard work? Early workers (those who started paying contributions at least 12 months before turning 19) will only be able to make use of the requirement of 41 years of seniority (without further conditions) if employed in some particularly onerous activities which will be identified by the definitive provision.
Under these conditions, precocious workers will be able to benefit from the cancellation of the current penalties in the event of early retirement, or leaving the world of work before reaching the age of 62. Workers subjected to strenuous and onerous tasks will then be able to make use of the social Ape, in the face, however (the Government has inserted it to reduce the audience and .... the costs of the operation) of 36 years of social security payments.
No particular foresight is needed to imagine that the frontier of hard work is as fragile as the Maginot Line and lends itself to being broken through by the powerful action of corporations. We still remember the ugly page of social security protection for workers exposed to asbestos. The strong union and political pressure concerning cases not recognized by Inail was answered by means of the ploy of analogical interpretation (the so-called acts of
government address) in order to include cases that are not adequately documented.
After all, let's already imagine the arguments. A kindergarten teacher will certainly have to strain the spine to raise the children in her care; but a secondary school teacher will soon make use of the nervous system attrition caused by school groups of undisciplined adolescents backed up by ex-XNUMX parents. The same reasoning can be done for nurses.
Why only those who serve in the operating room and not in other departments such as geriatrics, for example? What about the surgeons who use the scalpel for hours in that very operating room where the nurses who assist them get their heavy work licence? Is there a nurse who carries out all of her professional activity from the first to the last day in the operating room? And the porters? It is one thing to unload weights, another to use transport machines.
How do we put it, then with the risk of accidents (as a parameter of heavy work), when half of these events occur en route? Is the traffic risk also included? The doubt of moving on insidious terrain - with reasoning that would make their appearance in a conference on ergonomics rather than in the definition of a public pension system - becomes even more disturbing to read what is written among the commitments of Phase 2, that which should open after the approval of the budget law.
Let's read together: "In the context of the necessary relationship between demography and social security and maintaining the adjustment to life expectancy, evaluate the possibility of differentiating or overcoming the current forms of adjustment for some categories of male and female workers in order to take account of the diversity in life expectancy (see the recommendations of the OECD report, Fragmentation of retirement markets due to differences in life expectancy, 2016)".
Another nice puzzle: do we intend to reach retirement age ad personam? Looking for material you can find everything. Even fine studies and research that bear witness to the fact that graduates have a greater longevity than those who have only completed compulsory education. Maybe? If you wish, you could explore how much longer a classical high school graduate lives compared to a scientific one.
“The world is beautiful and the future is holy”. Why give up on living in a perfect world, with a pension system that does justice to all the wrongs suffered during an active life?
