We were facile prophets when, in the last issue of this magazine, we warned of the possibility that the metalworkers' contract might also end disastrously for the historically most combative sector of the Italian working class. The defeat suffered in the referendums proposed by the CGIL leadership on the Jobs Act, just months before the agreement between Federmeccanica, FIOM, FIM, and UILM was finalized, further demonstrates the overall weakness of the labor movement. Above all, it demonstrates the ineffectiveness of a union political strategy that, by diverting its action from the realm of class struggle to institutional and parliamentary initiatives, betrays its core mission as an organization of resistance and improvement of real wage and regulatory conditions in the workplace, aiming to change the balance of power between employers, government, and the working masses. It also inevitably fails to express any hegemony in broad sectors of society, such as those needed to potentially win a referendum.
The stubborn determination of union leaders, led by the CGIL, to refuse to unify the struggle over wages despite their constant shouting for wage cuts at rallies and on talk shows, combined with the now definitive choice of the CISL to collaborate with the current government and the further disengagement of the UIL itself, and the minority and sectarianism of grassroots union leadership groups, also suffering from "parliamentary cretinism," albeit a homeopathic version compared to the CGIL itself, have created a bleak, dangerous, and grave situation for the workers' movement, both male and female, and for the younger generations. The mechanics' contract has been finalized with increases that only cover 9% of inflation compared to the real 18%, with its duration extended from three to four years. It will be valid until June 30, 2028, while the previous contract expired in June 2024. The expected monthly increase is EUR177.62 at level C3 (formerly level five); EUR53.17 from June 1, 2026, EUR59.58 on June 1, 2027, and EUR64.87 on June 1, 2028. This is precisely the figure (EUR170) that Federmeccanica had already indicated and which was the reason for the initial breakdown in negotiations. The fraudulently reported figure of EUR205.32 includes the EUR27.70 already accrued in June 2025, which has no bearing on the contract renewal as it represents the normal determination of the minimum wage rates based on inflation trends for 2024, measured by the IPCA index net of imported energy, which was 1.3%, as reported by ISTAT. The initial request from FIOM, FIM, and UILM was EUR280 over three years, meaning we are over EUR100 below the initial request. Furthermore, the increase of EUR177.62 gross is expected at level C3, but the majority of workers are placed at level C1 (formerly level three). Furthermore, the negligible nature of these increases is further exacerbated by the unexpected exclusion of employer practices regarding the absorption of collective and individual super-minimum wages, which could render the few expected wage increases null and void. Not only was no result achieved on the reduction of working hours, having only provided for a joint national commission (ha!), but there was a further setback. Companies obtained further flexibility in working hours, with the multi-week schedule being extended from 80 to 96 hours per year, allowing for a maximum of 48 hours per week. The 16 hours exceeding the initial 80 are increased by only 8% and are not paid as overtime. The increase to 128 hours of the cap between multi-week and overtime in exempt quotas, i.e., these too are not increased as overtime but only 8% above the normal hours for companies with more than 200 employees,and a whopping 136 hours for companies with fewer than 201 employees, i.e., the smallest ones. Furthermore, of the 13 days of paid leave (PAR), five of which were available to companies for any planned collective closures or periods of layoffs, these days are now reduced to seven. Thus, we have gifted the employer another 16 hours. Regarding the maximum duration of staff leasing, that is, those workers on temporary contracts, even if they are permanent and are employed by employment agencies and not by the company, the new contract sets a maximum of 48 months (four years), a goal championed with great emphasis and satisfaction by the unions. Suffice it to say that under current case law, the limit for fixed-term contracts is only 24 months (two years). Finally, the issue of corporate welfare and flexible benefits has been left out of the considerations and discussions of the sector's union leadership groups. The split with Federmeccanica occurred precisely over this aspect, which expressed willingness to introduce even more substantial and significant contributions than the final result achieved. The corporate welfare contribution was increased from EUR200 to EUR250 per year, without any consideration, now unavoidable, of the contradiction these provisions pose with the defense of universal public healthcare, which is constantly invoked by union leadership. As our readers well know, we have already repeatedly highlighted in our previous articles more specifically the role these private forms of assistance play and have played as a veritable wedge on public healthcare. Yet, the national leadership not only fails to support, at least not a steady reduction, if not an outright ban on these forms of private healthcare, but has effectively abandoned a traditional union-led battle that would mobilize the sector directly to defend it, proposing a further signature drive for a popular initiative on public healthcare.Finally, the issue of corporate welfare and flexible benefits has been left out of the considerations and discussions of the sector's union leadership groups. The split with Federmeccanica occurred precisely over this aspect, which expressed willingness to introduce even more substantial and significant contributions than the final result achieved. The corporate welfare contribution was increased from EUR200 to EUR250 per year, without any consideration, now unavoidable, of the contradiction these provisions pose with the defense of universal public healthcare, which is constantly invoked by union leadership. As our readers well know, we have already repeatedly highlighted in our previous articles more specifically the role these private forms of assistance play and have played as a veritable wedge on public healthcare. Yet, the national leadership not only fails to support, at least not a steady reduction, if not an outright ban on these forms of private healthcare, but has effectively abandoned a traditional union-led battle that would mobilize the sector directly to defend it, proposing a further signature drive for a popular initiative on public healthcare.Finally, the issue of corporate welfare and flexible benefits has been left out of the considerations and discussions of the sector's union leadership groups. The split with Federmeccanica occurred precisely over this aspect, which expressed willingness to introduce even more substantial and significant contributions than the final result achieved. The corporate welfare contribution was increased from EUR200 to EUR250 per year, without any consideration, now unavoidable, of the contradiction these provisions pose with the defense of universal public healthcare, which is constantly invoked by union leadership. As our readers well know, we have already repeatedly highlighted in our previous articles more specifically the role these private forms of assistance play and have played as a veritable wedge on public healthcare. Yet, the national leadership not only fails to support, at least not a steady reduction, if not an outright ban on these forms of private healthcare, but has effectively abandoned a traditional union-led battle that would mobilize the sector directly to defend it, proposing a further signature drive for a popular initiative on public healthcare.
Once again, the institutional, parliamentary political path is being chosen without a clear position on the welfare issue and all matters affecting bilateral institutions. It is no coincidence that the bill, although announced last November, is still slow to materialize as a coherent whole, and it hasn't even been discussed with workers, starting with those directly affected: public healthcare workers. All of this, along with the very sad outcome of the metalworkers' bargaining process, which will have its final vote on February 18-20, 2026, through a certified referendum, which we hope will be met with clear opposition, leads us to consider the current overall strategy of the CGIL trade union, which is not only severely deficient but actually subordinate. Following the December 12 general strike called by the CGIL alone, which achieved nothing, its highest organizational body, the national general assembly, once again expressed its commitment to the organization's involvement in the Committee for a No to the Referendum on Justice, an initiative presented last January 10 in Rome. We have already had occasion to say that this clash between the judiciary and the government is a battle that has no real meaning for the working masses, so much so that the Secretary General, in his speech, correctly states that «if you talk today about the separation of careers, often they don't know what you're talking about»,[1]but trying to convince people about the goodness and necessity of the referendum battle, he comically, if not tragically, uses the same arguments as the government majority, focusing on the «non-functioning of justice, because often people experience this situation on their own many times»[1]when it is clear to most people that this reform has nothing to do with the possible better functioning of the justice system. This means that from 2026 until the end of March, the organization will be campaigning for a "No" vote in the referendum on justice reform and will perhaps begin collecting signatures for the popular healthcare law initiative. It's as if the budget law, against which we went on strike on December 12th, didn't clearly define some highly significant points for employers and the government. It's unclear (or perhaps it is) why they haven't taken a clear stance against them. For example, the de facto mandatory introduction of pension funds, through the tacit consent method, for all new hires starting July 1st, 2026. On this particular issue, as on the healthcare issue, as previously stated, there should be a broad and frank discussion that the labor and workers' movement should have, especially now that pension funds are investing in the military industries.But returning to our reflections on the trade union question, we could say that until next summer we will not be involved as a workers' movement in any real trade union platform of concrete demands, and without wishing to be a bad omen, if the referendum on justice is, as is probable, won by the government it will be a further defeat for this leading group, which should frankly place itself at the disposal of a fierce self-criticism which some leaders and sectors of the trade union express[2]but which evidently the inertia of the organisational and bureaucratic machine of a structure such as the CGIL still prevents. Let's imagine what might happen if the organizational capacity deployed during the committees supporting the referendum campaign against the Jobs Act, with thousands of public meetings, stalls, and leafleting in workplaces and major squares and markets, were our practice and that of the Chambers of Labor, on a program of few but clear union objectives, such as real wage increases, envisioning the recovery of a sort of sliding wage scale that is not the IPCA index, canceling the inter-confederal agreement with Confindustria, the "Factory Pact," which links this index to contractual wage increases, for a defense of public healthcare that does not rely on funds or insurance, but on increased funding for public healthcare, constantly mobilizing the sector. These indications and this practice characterize our militancy in the class struggle.For a defense of public health that doesn't depend on funding or insurance, but on increased funding for public health, constantly mobilizing the profession. These guidelines and this practice characterize our militancy in the class struggle.For a defense of public health that doesn't depend on funding or insurance, but on increased funding for public health, constantly mobilizing the profession. These guidelines and this practice characterize our militancy in the class struggle.
Notes
[1]Stefano Iucci, Referendum, Landini launches the challenge for democracy: "Together we win" , «Collettiva», 10/01/2026 (https://www.collettiva.it/speciali/referendum-giustizia/referendum-giustizia-landini-hzsnzklk)
[2]Andrea Ranieri, Francesco Sinopoli, Democracy, work and trade unions after the referendums , «Centre for State Reform», 20/06/2025 (https://centroriformastato.it/democrazia-lavoro-e-sindacato-dopo-i-referendum).
Francesco Sinopoli also presented the paper at the seminar "Representation, Conflict, Participation: Which Confederal Union?" held at the Livorno Chamber of Labor on July 28, 2025.
https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/
_________________________________________
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
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten