The media, especially television talk shows, have become opium dens, much more dangerous than the light cannabis shops to which Matteo Salvini has declared war. Pages and hours of broadcasting are devoted to the internal wars of the majority, to the exchanges of jokes between the two "deputies", to news episodes (such as the hunt for the Roma) that do not do the country any credit. In the meantime - unbeknownst to public opinion - they are changing (or at least it tries to) the consolidated rules of industrial relations.
This is important in many respects. On the political level, first of all, why a broad convergence between a part of the majority (the M5S) and one of the opposition is destined to form on the new rules (Surely the Pd, if not also “the lost dogs without collars” on his left). The whole with the blessing of the unions (for now no sound comes from viale dell'Astronomia: therefore the principle of silent assent should apply).
They have now "passed judgment" share 100 (and surroundings) and the CBI: measures which, in the implementation phase, confirm the criticisms leveled at them. In the case of pensions, there is no (or very modest) labor substitution effect, while, as regards the RdC, the discrepancy that was feared between the phase of assistance and that of active policies is verified and widens. In the first case, the benefits are provided without making too much fuss; in the second one is still looking for navigator handyman (if they ever will be able to).
Parliament is now dealing with two important issues: the Labor Commission of the Chamber is conducting the examination of bill on trade union representation, while that of the Senate has been dealing with the bill on the minimum hourly wage. In parallel with the reference activity in the Commissions, discussions are underway between the government and the trade union organizations, which are continuing in a fairly constructive manner. While risking the paradox, one gets the impression that between one of the two governments in office at the same time in the country (one yellow, the other green, both chaired by Giuseppe Conte under personal union) and the historic trade union organizations there is under construction a Pact of Palazzo Vidoni in reverse.
Then, in October 1925, the democratic trade unions were ousted and the exclusive representation granted to the fascist corporate organizations. Today the "yellow government" seeks legitimacy (which Berlusconi was never granted) by the CGIL, CISL and UIL. And it has prepared, in exchange, an ambitious package of trade union protections. On the one hand – with various bills presented by deputies of the majority and of the opposition now being examined by the Labor Commission in the Chamber – a representation system is outlined borrowed from the trade union agreements and from the so-called Consolidated Act on representation of 2014.
Basically the system refers to the usual mix of registrations and votes: as regards the measurement of the electoral data, the pdl establish the survey of the results achieved by the unions in the elections of the unitary representatives, considering the percentage of votes obtained out of the total number of voters. The results are then communicated to Cnel. Again, the verification of representativeness is the responsibility of the Cnel, which, at a national level, considers the trade union organizations of workers who have a representativeness of at least 5% in the category or in the contractual area to be representative.
Such an approach is not incompatible with the provisions of Article 39 of the Constitution, obviously taking for granted the "democratic-based" statutes. Some problems – according to the writer – instead it is presented in the criteria adopted to give effect erga omnes to collective agreements. The climax of the operation takes place in the Senate, for now in the Labor Commission, on the occasion of the examination of the bills proposed for the introduction of the guaranteed minimum wage. Without doing any wrong to any group, the two most important bills are that of the president Nunzia Catalfo (M5S) and that of sen. Tommaso Nannicini (Pd), which incorporated the bill first signed by Laus previously presented by a heterogeneous group of left-wing senators.
The Catalfo bill connects the minimum wage directly to article 36 of the Constitution, in an attempt to escape Ghino di Tacco perched on article 39. In fact, the art. 2: "Total remuneration is considered proportionate and sufficient pursuant to article 1 (which refers to article 36 of the Constitution, ed) the overall economic treatment, proportionate to the quantity and quality of the work performed, not less than that provided for by the national collective agreement in force for the sector and for the area in which the work is performed, stipulated by the associations of employers and lenders more representative at national level (omissis), whose scope of application is more connected and objectively close in a qualitative sense, also considered as a whole, to the activity carried out by the workers, also predominantly and in any case not less than 9 euros per 'now gross of social security contributions''.
In essence, with a flight of fancy on a legal level, the pentastellato bill – disregarding article 39 of the Constitution – would like to attribute erga omnes "to the overall economic treatment" sanctioned in the collective agreements through the application of article 36. In addition, it establishes that the legal hourly wage (therefore also the contractual one) cannot be less than 9 euros gross. Article 3 also provides that "In the presence of a plurality of applicable collective agreements pursuant to article 2, the overall economic treatment which constitutes proportionate and sufficient remuneration cannot be lower than that envisaged for the performance of work deducted as an obligation from the collective agreements stipulated by the comparatively most representative trade unions and employers' organizations at national level in the category itself, and in any case not lower than the amount envisaged in paragraph 1 of article 2 (the 9 euros, ed)".
Summing up, the bill Catalfo remits by law the historic trade unions at the center of the system, grants legal coverage to the contracts signed by them together with the employers and provides them with a base of 9 euros per hour.
The bill at first signature Nannicini establishes as a primary rule the principle according to which a fair wage can be found in the discipline of national collective labor agreements entered into by the associations representing workers and employers which are comparatively more representative at national level, in relation to the sector to which they belong. The minimum salary established by the national collective labor agreement stipulated by the representative associations applies to all workers in the sector, wherever employed in the national territory. Where does the minimum wage come from? In the areas of activity not covered by the collective agreements stipulated by the representative associations, the minimum guarantee wage is established as the minimum economic treatment that the employer is required to pay to the worker to whom the discipline of subordinate work applies, according to the established amounts.
The difference between the two projects is subtle but perceptible. The M5S bill assumes the minimum wage as a general reference also for collective bargaining, while the Pd bill attributes a guarantee role to the minimum wage for those sectors without contractual coverage.
Trade unions have always had strong reservations about the establishment of a legal minimum wage which, in their opinion, could challenge a consolidated jurisprudence according to which fair and proportionate remuneration, provided for by article 36 of the Constitution, is a corresponding to that established by the collective bargaining agreement. The fact is that, within a few years, the number of contracts (under the common law regime) has exploded with dozens of so-called pirate agreements entered into by trade union organizations "daughters of a lesser god" that thrive on the dumping. It is not easy to get out of such a situation, because it does not seem constitutionally correct to attribute to article 36 the prerogatives that the Charter recognizes in article 39 where paths and procedures are envisaged which allow employers' and trade union organizations to jointly stipulate contracts with general effectiveness.
Until now, constitutional jurisprudence has never allowed the adoption of shortcuts as, after all, are also those that are discussed in the Senate Labor Commission. There should be no problem solving the question of effectiveness in the above ways erga omnes minimum, but it is certainly a different matter to attribute this effectiveness to collective agreements, in their entirety and economic and regulatory complexity (hence "the overall economic treatment"), negotiated and stipulated in the ambit of the common law.
