Prime Minister Matteo Renzi's reference to Germany as a model to follow for reforming our labor market arouses strong interest on the one hand and many perplexities on the other. Even if there are some critical points in the German system, the reality is overall very positive and incomparably better when compared to the Italian one.
It must be said that the results obtained have benefited from a flourishing economy but it is legitimate to assume that this has also been favored by the quality of the reforms. The doubts arise from the different political and social contexts of the two countries. In Germany, the system of co-management, which is based on the principle that power and responsibility are two sides of the same coin, deeply permeates the social partners and political forces. In Italy the right of veto on social matters was born as a modus vivendi between the DC and the PCI in the aftermath of the breakup of the anti-fascist unity. Over time it has transformed into the defense of corporate interests, starting with the bureaucratic apparatus and makes it objectively difficult to implement any effective reform project.
Recently the CNEL has been sent for scrapping in general disinterest. Isn't this clear proof of the failure of the participatory project of the social partners? And to think that in the past, CNEL, when there was a political commitment from the parties, offered excellent contributions, with a very broad consensus. The examples of the "proposals for the revision of the legislation on the employment relationship" of 4 June 1985 (with the annexed hypothesis of modification of article 18 which today would be seen by many as an attack on workers' rights) and of the bill of 1986 are valid on information and consultation of workers. But they were "German-style" hypotheses, rejected in practice by a culture of conflict prevalent both in the union and among entrepreneurs. For this reason they soon fell into oblivion and there was less and less interest in an effective role for the CNEL.
After the story of the escalator, which disappeared definitively at the beginning of the nineties with the agreement on the new contractual model, not only has the CGIL never shown a serious critical examination in a revisionist key to those events but there has generally been a lack ability to build a clear project of decentralized contractual policy, linked to productivity also as a response to the loss of competitiveness of the Italian economy.
Even in the public sector, the centralization of bargaining has produced an inverted system of "wage zones", which strongly penalizes workers who reside in areas where the cost of living is higher, especially in large urban centres. When and where was the objective of truly decentralized bargaining on efficiency and merit in the public sector set?
In recent times, which today however seem distant, we have also witnessed a phenomenon that once would have been unthinkable: the "transmission belt" that Berlinguer himself activated in 1984 to prevent Luciano Lama from a CGIL agreement on the escalator has changed direction and, starting from the leadership of Sergio Cofferati, has produced its effects in the opposite direction, from the union to the reference Party.
Nor have the business organizations been the bearers of a courageous cultural offensive and for this they have paid the price of a much more serious loss of representation than that of the union. Beyond the common spirit of "mitbestimmung". Perhaps the fact that the DGB is a unitary union, therefore a more credible interlocutor for companies and the government, also helps the German reality. Also for this consideration, it being understood that the turning point must be political and planning, the issue of trade union unity must also be taken up with determination in our country.
It is not a question of re-proposing the traditional formulas of organic unity: the unification of the apparatuses would be as impossible today as it was in the past. The unity which, in addition to being necessary, is also achievable is that of the rules. The major trade union organizations must be acknowledged for having moved in this direction. Recent interconfederal agreements have affirmed the overcoming of the principle of equality with the possibility of calling not only the democratically elected delegates, but also the workers to decide with transparent procedures.
We are moving towards a model of delegated democracy accompanied by instruments of direct democracy. In any case, everyone will count for what they represent, subject to ascertaining the actual degree of representation of each one. It is not yet clear whether delegates and workers will be given not only the power to approve or reject the agreements but also the power to decide, as one would expect, to call strikes. With clear rules and choices made by the majority, everyone will have to assume their responsibilities. It would also be time to finally implement articles 39, 40 and 46 of the Constitution, which are often invoked instrumentally and immediately forgotten afterwards.
But the clarity of the rules does not resolve the basic question which is that of building a new union of active workers with a forward-looking and authoritative planning capacity that starts from a rigorous analysis of reality. Conflict is an engine of development but without outlets it becomes a factor of stagnation and frustration. In the enterprise there is an important area of common interests between capital and labor which must be governed and extended. Only in this logic does the same bilaterality exist which must increase the quality and quantity of services in favor of workers and businesses. It is through company bargaining on productivity, efficiency and responsibility that the union will strengthen its authority and unity, organizational strength and political autonomy.
Beyond the serious crisis we are going through, the critical issues of our labor market have been known for some time. It is probable, as well as desirable, that the adoption of the German model of the labor market, starting from the dual training system, will produce positive effects. But without profound and widespread culture change, even the best role models are doomed to failure.
