WORLD WORLDWIDE EUROPE ITALY - news journal UPDATE - (en) Italy, FDCA, Cantiere #45 - School and Research: Why This Contract Should Not Have Been Signed - Alessandro Granata Seixas (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The renewal of the 2025-2027 National Education and Research Contract was presented as a positive outcome, almost a demonstration of union responsibility in difficult times. Yet, behind the rhetoric of the "necessary signature," a fundamental political question remains: was this really the best that could be achieved for over a million school, university, and research workers? ---- For a segment of the union community, the answer is no. The alternative Radici group within the FLC-CGIL voted strongly against the preliminary agreement at the General Assembly, calling it a weak and insufficient result. This position does not arise from ideological maximalism, but from a concrete assessment of the wage situation, the balance of power, and the very function of a union organization.

The crux of the matter is simple: the contract does not recover lost wages. The expected increases are around 6% over the three-year period, while inflation accumulated in previous years has eroded purchasing power by approximately 11%. In practice, workers will continue to earn less than before in real terms.
Yet the decision was made to sign the agreement quickly, without building a true national mobilization. No general strike across the sector, no mass campaign in the workplace, no widespread national assembly of the RSU (union unions). The negotiations took place almost entirely within the technical tables, while the sector essentially remained a spectator.
But then the question becomes inevitable: what's the point of being the largest school union if you're unable to use that organized power to secure better conditions?
A large union shouldn't limit itself to managing existing conditions or certifying wage cuts. It should be able to build power relations. It should be able to transform widespread discontent into collective initiative. It should be able to say no when the conditions imposed are insufficient.
The problem isn't just economic. It's political and strategic.
In recent years, schools and universities have suffered progressive material and symbolic impoverishment. Salaries in this sector are now among the lowest in the public sector, despite the high level of qualifications required. ATA staff are near poverty wages, while teachers and researchers are steadily increasing their gap with other public sectors.
Meanwhile, profound transformations are taking place: regionalization, corporatization, rewards, territorial fragmentation, and the entry of private providers into public schools. The national contract is gradually being eroded, replaced by local and competitive approaches that weaken collective rights.
In this context, quickly signing a weak preliminary agreement risks having a specific purpose: normalizing the idea that schools should continue to lose ground without putting up real resistance.
Yet the context could have allowed for another path. The government is experiencing political and social difficulties. Protests against reforms affecting schools, universities, and public administration are growing. Precisely for this reason, those opposed to the signing argue, it would have been time to launch a season of real mobilization: strikes, assemblies, coordination between sectors, and the construction of local and national disputes.
Standing firm wouldn't have meant chasing a sterile testimony. It would have meant using the union's numerical and organizational strength to reopen the wage and social conflict. Because rights aren't won through government benevolence or negotiating skills. They're won when there's collective pressure capable of shifting the balance of power.
The position expressed by Radici in FLC therefore raises a question that goes beyond this single pre-agreement: what strategy and tactics do unions need today to save public schools and enhance wages?
A union that signs out of a sense of responsibility even when results are insufficient? Or a union that considers mobilization, conflict, and democratic participation indispensable tools to defend wages, the dignity of work, and the public function of education?
Because without conflict, the risk is clear: the collective agreement ceases to be a tool for social advancement and becomes merely a place where setbacks already decided elsewhere are certified.

http://www.alternativalibertaria.org
_________________________________________

Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca