The inventor of the Game of the Goose, who knows who he is and who knows if he has ever been aware of it, is also the inventor of an extraordinary metaphor of Italian political life: every 10 squares one returns to the starting point, here is the rule to which all the protagonists underlie, in the game as in reality (the two levels often get confused). Latest confirmation is the intricate case of vouchers.
The CGIL has identified them as the symbol of precariousness and is now asking for their total cancellation via referendum. The CGIL secretary, in an excess of polemical verve, went so far as to define them "pizzini", thus branding them with the stigma of mafia. Then it was discovered that in Bologna the pensioners of the SPI, his "his" pensioners, make extensive use of it to remunerate occasional services. "We have to, it's the only alternative to black", was the awkward explanation of the secretary, who thus shot himself in the foot.
Anyway, the Constitutional Court declared the questions relating to vouchers and tenders admissible, while it rejected the one on article 18. But the heated controversy that followed between the leaders of the CGIL with Sergio Staino's Unit demonstrates once again, whatever judgment one wants to give, that the dispute, as always when the labor market is discussed in Italy, has already gone beyond the merits of the matter and politics became political. Indeed, ideological. Not already a set of ideas and values to which to entrust an interpretative system but the false awareness of reality deriving from dead rhetoric.
INPS president Boeri reports that the CGIL has made use of vouchers for 750.000 euros. The union replies that it did so with 600 pensioners who work occasionally for support and hospitality in the union's 4 offices, for a maximum salary of 150 euros a month. The CGIL adds that "there is no hypocrisy" given that the union itself proposes the introduction of rules aimed at regulating occasional and accessory subordinate work". Without controversy, the underlying theme remains. Imagine abolishing vouchers, what legislative instruments can be activated for this type of service? It's not a scandal to use them, on the contrary, but at least let's not call them "pizzini".
What was also used in trade union organizations first? The co.co.pro that we have asked to cancel. Perhaps project work should be valued and better regulated. Unfortunately, the left-wing salon, increasingly distant from reality instead of seriously dealing with work, needs symbols: article 18, the co.co.pro, the exodates, now it's the turn of the vouchers. Important issues with abuse in all directions. As for exodus workers, in which Fornero's nonsense produced 8 safeguards in which, alongside truly desperate people, people who had voluntarily left work returned with severance pay with many zeros, useful for paying the contribution bridge to the pension for several people.
And then, if the contractual forms subject to abuse were to be cancelled, the first to be repealed is the open-ended contract, and what about internships, etc.? We prevent abuse.
But unfortunately, until we decide to de-ideologize the debate on work, Italy will always fall behind. The issue of vouchers is undoubtedly important, although it only affects a small niche of workers (0,3% of the total hours worked in 2015 in Italy) but faced with youth unemployment among the highest in Europe, at strong infrastructural deficit that weighs on our country, perhaps efforts should be concentrated on solving problems through dialogue and mediation, rather than aiming for the umpteenth time at a showdown.
There is no shortage of examples if you want. The metalworkers contract which was recently renewed, represents a case of high-level mediation between different positions, a mediation that was possible because all the interlocutors recognized themselves in common objectives.
Conversely, the contrast continues, instead of solving problems, to animate a rancorous populism. Now thinking of completely abolishing vouchers, as proposed by the CGIL, imagining replacing them with contractual forms close to subordinate work is like pretending, because it is impossible, to stop the water from a dam with your hands. The reality is different: vouchers are a useful tool. It has been introduced in all countries for years. In Italy they were introduced in 2003 with the Biagi Law but only came into operation in 2008, at the beginning they had a use limited to agriculture: a way to pay pensioners and young people who helped in the grape harvest or in other seasonal jobs.
Then, over the years, they have been extended to more and more sectors and workers: the domestic work, private lessons, tourism and commerce were the first. Since 2009, with the Berlusconi government, the use has also been extended to public administrations, construction, industry and transport. The real problem, however, arose when the Alfano-Bersani-Casini axis, which supported the Monti government and its labor reform, extended its scope to non-sporadic jobs: hence the improper use and abuses. With the Jobs Act, the Renzi government raised the maximum amount of vouchers perceptible to workers in a year from 5.000 to 7.000 euros, introduced babysitter vouchers to be used instead of maternity leave, but also attempted to curb the abuses with traceability (preventive communication from the employer via text message or email).
This is the picture. It should also be said that the net hourly rate of 7.50 euros for the vouchers is close to the 8.50 euros of the German legal minimum wage. It's true, the extension has fostered the trend towards abuse. But eliminating them completely, as proposed by the CGIL, as well as not solving the problem of undeclared work, would leave our country with the highest undeclared workforce in Europe.
And in any case, the problem of abuse affects employers, who are companies, and not natural persons who, on the other hand, are not required to activate electronically and who therefore INPS and Inail know well. It would therefore be necessary to strengthen the inspection activity and activate the necessary controls, perhaps accompanied by heavy penalties: if everyone thinks they can get away with it, every tool that is put in place risks being useless.
Unfortunately in the last twenty years all governments have divested frominspection activity, leaving prairies open to the crafty. Pure and simple abolition is just the shortcut for "beautiful souls" who want to settle their conscience by ignoring the problem.
The truth is that if the fight against undeclared work is really to be done, it must be brought out, with controls and forms that give it visibility. Who checks, for example, if what on paper appears as a part-time job doesn't actually work beyond the established hours, with undeclared payment for extra hours (provided they are paid) or seasonal work?
The vouchers they therefore represent an excellent tool that must be safeguarded, bringing it back into the context of casual work, according to the limits prior to 2012 but preserving the traceability introduced by the Renzi government with preventive communication via text message.
On the Jobs Act front, the referendum on theArticle 18, now we need to give substance to the open perspective on the training side which, with the introduction of Anpal, the National Agency for Active Policies, aims to give a unitary direction to a subject that has been seriously penalized by the fragmentation of regional competences. The lack of reform of Title V, from this point of view, has complicated things a lot. In summary: article 18 is certainly important, but shamelessly lies both those who say that its abolition makes the country grow, and those who make it the keystone of the problem of labor market protection.
In 2014, out of 100 new workers, only 15 could count on the Workers' Statute: for the other 85 this law, which has represented and still represents a cornerstone in the defense of workers' rights, is an emeritus unknown. The same goes for young people under 40 who live on sharing and the gig economy. To conclude. The 600 jobs lost in industry during the eight years of crisis were all protected by article 18: evidently it was not enough. Instead, it is necessary to recreate in our country a business habitat that favors development and consequent employment. As long as we are focused only on standards we will not create a single more job.
In conclusion, the Consulta has made admissible only the referenda on contracts and vouchers. There are bills to stop the abuses. A good sign would be to find a common front on these objectives, electoral speculation on work is bad for workers and businesses.
