Dearest,
Last Saturday, November 26, we signed the CCNL 2016-2019 hypothesis, a contract that we consider a "turning point" for industrial relations in our country due to its innovative scope. Our priority is naturally to go to all workplaces to illustrate it to workers and bring it to life in the daily experience of all company realities.
We think that, among the tasks of the union, there is also that of stimulating any government to carry out the reforms that serve our country and, in particular, the industrial sector, reforms that can safeguard employment and improve the competitiveness of our businesses. As you know, Sunday 4 December we vote for the Constitutional Referendum. We want to avoid this letter being misrepresented and we reiterate above all that it has the sole purpose of illustrating the reasons why we have assessed in national bodies that this reform is positive for workers and the country.
On this issue we too often see, on TV and in the newspapers, as well as on social networks, an excessively partisan debate, made up of fan groups, insults and personalizations that denote a total lack of will to inform. As you know, our Statute contains guarantees of autonomy from parties, institutions and companies. But autonomy and independence from parties does not mean "indifference". We confront any party and government with a single beacon: the merits of the issues. For this reason, the Fim and the Cisl have always taken sides in the last constitutional referendums: for the Yes in 2001 (D'Alema reform), for the no in 2006 (Berlusconi reform). Choices always dictated by content and merit and by nothing else. This is why we are among the few unions that have been able to strike or make agreements with governments on both sides. We are against the encroachments of the union for electoral purposes. We are convinced that the union should do well and only the union; after all, we are the ones who coined the term "100% union" and we will never make choices based on future personal political careers or dictated by some party secretariat.
With us, anyone who wants to run for politics automatically loses any trade union position, we were the first trade union organization to include this rule. When political issues concern workers, we cannot remain indifferent. So you are truly independent and autonomous. We think for ourselves and discuss like FIM. In a general sense, trade union activity is also political but for us it must be done far from the interests of the parties (of any alignment) and with the credibility of always staying on the contents. For this reason, we think it is a duty to have our say on taxation, social security, migrants, reforms, costs and policy inconsistencies, the functioning of institutions, beyond the sensitivities of individuals which must always be compared and respected.
First of all, why is the constitutional referendum being held?
Because it is the Constitution itself (art. 138) that provides for the possibility of requesting a constitutional referendum after a double vote by the 2 chambers of a constitutional revision law or a constitutional law. Until 1970 the constitutional referendum could not be requested, as there was no law governing this institution. The request can be presented by one fifth of the members of a Chamber, by five hundred thousand electors or by five Regional Councils within three months of publication in the Official Gazette, and can be presented only if the second vote does not reach a qualified majority of the 2 /3 of the members of each Chamber. In this type of referendum there is no quorum (minimum number of voters for the referendum to be valid). The law is promulgated if the votes in favor outweigh the votes against.
Who made the request for the referendum?
There was a request for a referendum by parliamentary groups (Pd and others), the Committee for the Yes collected 580.000 signatures reaching the quorum, unlike the Committee for the NO which stopped at 300.000 signatures and therefore just over the half of the required signatures. The Cassation rejected the appeal against the referendum by the Codacons, the Lazio TAR that of the M5S and the Italian Left, the Court of Milan that presented by the constitutionalist Valerio Onida.
Since the approval of the reform proposal, the FIM has first of all investigated the text and content in discussions with a group of experts (economists and constitutionalists) of various orientations to verify the impact of the reform on the issues that particularly concern work and the world of industry. For this reason, there have been numerous local and regional initiatives for discussion, listening to pro and con positions. On the basis of this analysis, therefore, we have expressed an overall favorable orientation, without hypocrisy, because we believe that the reform will overcome a series of problems that have been blocking the country for some time.
The thing we would like to emphasize is that in the FIM, throughout its history, different ideas find (and will always find) citizenship: in this case, the YES and NO positions have equal dignity for us, if they are argued and preceded by adequate information, and not the result of other conflicting or uninformed logics. Equal dignity, but different consequences, of which we must all be fully aware. We are not interested in being for or against the Renzi government, we are only interested in the merits of the Reform. Believing that by voting No you spite Renzi is improper and superficial, because you are voting on something far more important. We believe that transforming the December 4 deadline into a referendum for or against the government means losing an opportunity to modernize the country.
As FIM we have also taken critical and dissent positions towards this Government, some examples above all: the issue of ways of fighting tax evasion, the resistance to open dialogue with the social partners and the continuous generalization on the Italian trade union, the lack of initiative on the strategic participation of workers and on supplementary pensions, etc.
Just as we have said that it is wrong for all political forces to personalize the debate on the Reform with the risk of often reducing information to slogans and animating fan groups. However, we believe it necessary that the trade union not only express itself on very relevant issues for our country, such as that of the Constitutional Reform, but that it recover that role of educator for active citizenship which makes people informed, aware and, therefore, more free to decide and choose.
We are not afraid to take even "uncomfortable" positions when the goal is so high: we need a country with fewer divisions and more reforms, to recover common sense, efficiency and credibility, and create ever more advanced conditions of equality and social justice . We discussed and unanimously voted on this position, in the democratic bodies that represent all the realities of Italy, in the General Council and in the national Executive. Many moments of comparison on the different positions in all regions have been carried out previously.
We are a free organization jealous of its autonomy. We have never done and will never do electoral campaigns and we know very well that each member will vote for what he deems most appropriate, freely. For us, unlike others, freedom is a value even when personal choices do not correspond with our orientations. We want you to participate in the vote by listening to all the positions (Yes and No) but informing yourself about the merits of the Reform and about nothing else. Exactly like when we ask you to comment on union agreements. Without complete information and awareness of what you vote for, democracy remains empty and debased. Free, responsible, participating and aware. These are the preconditions of democracy that will always be indispensable for us.
