WORLD WORLDWIDE EUROPE ITALY - news journal UPDATE - (en) Italy, Umanita Nova #14-25 - Without a fight you get nowhere (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The referendum is certainly an instrument placed within an institutional
process and, among the various limitations, it has that of being only
abrogative, allowing only to deny an existing law or part of it to
change its meaning. However, there is an important difference compared
to other procedures of the electoral institution: representatives are
not elected to whom the power to legislate and govern is delegated, but
one expresses one's opinion on a specific problem, albeit within the
limits highlighted. This aspect, not secondary, is a cause for debate
and often of disagreements within the libertarian and anarchist
movement, between those who always refuse to participate, as an
instrument specific to the institutional process, and those who, due to
the characteristics of the referendum to express themselves directly on
a problem, decide from time to time whether it is appropriate to
participate.

Other considerations should be added.

Sometimes the results of won referendums are poorly respected. Sometimes
referendums are used only for propaganda purposes knowing in advance
that they will not reach the quorum. Or they are used as a replacement
for the same struggle, resulting misleading as they ask a heterogeneous
public opinion to express its opinion on issues that concern, for
example, specific work situations. As a consequence of this, the
possible negative outcome of the referendum vote can further undermine a
claim for denied rights, especially in the workplace. A negative case
that we want to remember was the rejection of the referendum promoted by
Berlinguer's PCI, which opposed the Craxi government's decision to
reduce the coverage of the sliding scale. As a consequence, Cgil, Cisl,
Uil after a short time went to sign the agreement for the abolition of
the entire institution of the sliding scale, thus decreeing that the
salary must not increase automatically but must be negotiated.

Vague promises were signed but never kept. We have often seen how it ended.

A referendum that we have benefited from was the one to phase out
nuclear power, but in that case, in addition to the vote, there was
support from a strong mobilization against nuclear power plants, which
also spread as a result of nuclear accidents that had occurred and a
growth in widespread awareness of the risks of nuclear power. Today,
governments are doing everything they can to restore civil nuclear power
with the fairy tale that it is currently safe, even if the problem of
disposing of nuclear waste, which no one wants to take charge of, has
not yet been resolved.

But let's get to the referendums scheduled for June 8 and 9. In total,
there are 5 questions, of which the first 4 were proposed by the Cgil
and the fifth by +Europa, to which Radicali, Rifondazione, PSI were added.
The first question (Dismissals and increasing protection contracts)
concerns the cancellation of part of the Jobs Act, the reform of labor
law introduced by the Renzi government, with the definitive cancellation
of art. 18, and with a regulation that allows the company a tax
exemption for new hires, while taking away the right to automatic
reinstatement from workers in the event of unlawful dismissal, providing
only a defined path of "increasing protections", which means financial
compensation of 2 months' salary every year, from a minimum of 4 to a
maximum of 24 months' salary. The only cases of reinstatement allowed
are those relating to disciplinary dismissals not validated by the judge
or those for discriminatory reasons (sex, religion, political opinions).
But it is enough to dismiss while taking care to exclude such reasons to
automatically exclude the possibility of reinstatement. If the Yes vote
wins in this referendum, the current rules would be annulled and we
would return to the situation prior to 2015, with greater possibilities
of reinstatement. We say greater and not full possibilities, since the
Fornero law had already profoundly reduced the efficiency of art. 18
introducing dismissal for economic reasons, such as in the case of
restructuring or cutting branches of a company, cases in which it is
difficult to prove the contrary from a legislative point of view. And
all this had been passed with the complicity of Cgil, Cisl, Uil.
The second question (Compensation for dismissal in small businesses)
concerns the compensation provided for workers dismissed in companies
with fewer than 15 employees. The current law provides for compensation,
based on the years worked, from a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 6 months
of the last salary. If the Yes vote wins, the limit provided for is
cancelled and it is the judge who establishes the monthly compensation
on a case-by-case basis, in the event that the compensation is higher
than the current one. It should be noted that in any case, workers with
fewer than 15 employees do not have the protections provided for by the
Workers' Statute.

The third question (Fixed-term contracts) deals with the regulation of
fixed-term contracts. Currently, fixed-term contracts can be stipulated
for up to 12 months without the obligation to justify them. The
referendum aims to restore the reasons for fixed-term contracts by the
company called upon to justify the technical, organizational or
production reasons, placing a constraint that, if not demonstrated, in
the event of an appeal to the judge would oblige to proceed with
permanent hiring. It should be noted that on the abuse that companies
make in the use of fixed-term contracts, as a form of job insecurity,
more stringent rules should be introduced to define the times and the
consequent obligation to hire for an indefinite period.

The fourth question (Joint liability in contracts) claims the
responsibility also of the contracting company for accidents at work in
the context of contracts and sub-contracts where, as we well know, these
occur most. The contracting company would therefore be required to be
more vigilant about working conditions and compliance with accident
regulations at the agreed contract. But the real issue is the very
nature of the contract, a system widely used in the outsourcing of parts
of the production cycle, with rules that effectively reduce employee
protections and rights. First of all, outsourcing itself should not be
allowed and in any case it should not be based on tenders that expire
and are renewed solely on the basis of the lowest cost offered to the
client. This puts workers in conditions of continuous precariousness,
and the low costs with which tenders are won have repercussions in the
worsening of the conditions suffered by employees. The contractual
working conditions and compliance with acquired rights should be
binding, but this is not the case, and all of this is the responsibility
of Cgil, Cisl, Uil, subjected to the logic of bosses' profit.

The fifth question (Italian citizenship for foreigners) aims to reduce
the time needed to obtain the right to request Italian citizenship by
non-EU immigrants. Currently, a period of 10 years of continuous
residence in Italy is envisaged; the question proposes to reduce the
minimum period for requesting citizenship to 5 years, with benefits for
the person themselves and for their children.

Let's try to draw conclusions.

Surely the proposed referendums, if they were to win, despite
everything, would make the conditions of the interested parties less
worse. The objection on the difficulty of reaching the quorum is
answered that if there is in any case a favorable orientation this would
facilitate the path to achieving the objectives.

But some considerations must also be made. First of all, if the stable
is closed after the oxen have come out there are objective
responsibilities and they belong to those who caused this situation. The
real reality is that without a serious, concrete, radical fight we will
not go anywhere.

Furthermore, it must be reiterated that the referendum logic is
misleading, useful only for propaganda purposes, because it subjects
questions that concern specific working conditions to the choice of a
heterogeneous public opinion with the risk of negative repercussions.
Finally, although the referendum process is not our terrain, it still
involves us. For better or for worse, orientations will emerge that
concern us all. Everyone should draw their own conclusions, also by
discussing them within their own group, the association they belong to,
their own union section, in order to arrive at orientations of greater
sharing.

Enrico Moroni

https://umanitanova.org/senza-lotta-non-si-va-da-nessuna-parte/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca