According to the Guarantor for strikes, Professor Santoro Passarelli, the abstention from work in the transport sector on Friday 16 June is legitimate. And it is precisely the observation that the rules have been respected that makes clear the fact that "these rules are no longer adequate or sufficient". The main critical element would be the ease with which the minor unions, in compliance with the procedures, can call strikes that paralyze the country.
In truth, it often happens that non-members or even members of large organizations respond to the appeal of the "trade unions" by recognizing them a sort of "karstic" legitimacy, occasional but not always marginal. This phenomenon is the consequence and not the cause of strikes " unfair”, starting from the public transport services that affect the right to mobility, in particular of the less well-off sections of the population.
The main cause that prevents the exercise of the right to strike in essential public services from finding a reasonable balance, not only between the interests of work and those of companies but also respect for the interests of citizens, is the fact of recognizing the strike as a right exercised individually (albeit in accordance with the established procedures and methods). This juridical nature of the right, especially if it is considered "constitutionally protected", multiplies the subjects who can exercise it, pluralism and freedom of trade union association being guaranteed, beyond the organizational consistency.
After all, today in Italy not only is the strike of a single worker legitimate, but the proclamation of a strike involving a large metropolitan center is in fact decided by very few managers without any formal approval from the union's governing bodies. This requires a strong political will for change which, from a cultural, legislative and contractual point of view, as well as in jurisprudence and doctrine, transforms the right to strike from a right exercised individually into a right exercised collectively.
Then it will truly be possible to transfer to workers at company, sector or local level, primarily through their own democratically elected representatives, or where it is deemed inevitable by resorting to the referendum instrument, the responsibility and power to decide on a strike, always respecting the established rules. In this case, a model similar to the German one of the referendum would then be easily applicable, establishing as a condition the preventive adhesion to the strike of a significant percentage of the workers concerned.
In this case, the consequences for the "unions" or "unions" who do not respect the rules would be the sanctions currently envisaged, while the "illegitimate" strike of individual workers would be sanctioned as unjustified absence. In this case we would be faced with an organic regulation of the exercise of the right to strike, explicitly indicated by article 40 of the Constitution which would guarantee both democracy and effectiveness of the new norms.
In reality up to now the limits of the rules in force have been circumvented in the most difficult cases with the precept which has not met with significant resistance or sensational violations but has left the responsibility for deciding to the individual prefects.
Even if hope is the last to die, after the grotesque affair of the vouchers it seems difficult to think of a concrete initiative by the Government on this matter. It would be hoped that, not only the trade union organizations but also the political forces, in view of the coalitions that seem destined to be reborn on the basis of "new programs" on which the most illustrious figures of the parties are working (it would be really useful for the jurist Pisapia to participate to this debate), offered the country clear proposals on such an important issue for the country.
