On June 17, the confederal secretaries of the CGIL, CISL, and UIL signed the "Proposals for an Interconfederal Framework Agreement," aimed at defining collective bargaining procedures for the recognition of the most representative organizations, along with issues of training, health and safety, and participation. --- This represents a challenging step for the three confederations, following the law on participation and the latest labor decree. At first glance, it appears to be a proposal geared toward aligning with government policies.
It is noteworthy that the topic of "Health and Safety," out of a seven-page document, occupies only seven lines. The central theme of the Proposals is bargaining, and in particular the control of wage increases. The claim that "Wage growth at the national level must be adjusted to the real recovery and increase in purchasing power" is immediately refuted, as it is influenced by macroeconomic dynamics and sectoral trends.
More specifically, the Minimum Economic Treatment (TEM) and the Total Economic Treatment (TEC) are defined.
The TEM amount includes the minimum wages, cost of living allowances, seniority increases, EDRs, and other fixed and ongoing elements defined by national bargaining. This bargaining will lead to changes in the TEM, taking the IPCA NEI index calculated by ISTAT as a reference. It's natural to wonder why the consumer price index for blue- and white-collar workers' families (FOI), whose calculation also involves union experts, isn't used. According to ISTAT data, in May 2026, the price increase compared to the same month of the previous year was 2.1% according to the IPCA index, and 3.2% according to the FOI index. It should be clear that the FOI index is used for other contractual revaluations (e.g., rental agreements). In practice, the worker sees his rent increase more than his contractual wage.
As readers of Umanità Nova already know, the HICP (Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices) NEI refers to the Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices for the European Union. The European Union has established that the HICP be used to verify the convergence of national economies for states that have requested membership in the Monetary Union and for the continuation of membership for states already participating. The HICP is based on the price actually paid by the consumer and therefore also takes into account discounts and promotions. The HICP (Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices) NEI excludes price variations due to imported energy products from its calculations.
This step is important because the adoption of this index led the CGIL to not sign the Framework Agreement on the Reform of Contractual Structures of January 22, 2009, which, on the union side, was signed only by the CISL and UIL. This failure to sign had no substantial consequences because, at the collective bargaining level, the various categories subsequently proposed contract renewals in line with the IPCA index, only to be left with nothing. Since Luciano Lama, in the late 1970s, defined wages as a variable dependent on the performance of the national economy-that is, on capital accumulation-the CGIL has consistently been at the forefront of policies aimed at impoverishing the working class. With this proposal, it rightfully returns to this role, and not just de facto. It took the arrival of the sinister Maurizio Landini as the Confederation's secretary to bring to fruition this latest display of subservience to employers and the government.
Another significant aspect of this proposal from union leaders is its connection with the concept of fair wages introduced by the Meloni government in the latest labor decree. The decree, approved on the eve of May Day with an obvious propaganda purpose, was quietly passed into law, while the political world was focused first on the dispute between Giorgia Meloni and Donald Trump, and then on amending the electoral law. This is another sign of what the working class can expect from Parliament. Even the bombastic statements of Maurizio Landini, who gave a strongly negative assessment of the decree and the government's aggressive intervention in areas subject to bargaining, have not been translated into a concrete commitment to fight, nor, evidently, into pressure on parliamentarians and media outlets close to the unions.
But what does this decree entail? Umanità Nova has already discussed it, and it's worth reiterating: we are facing a constitutional revision far more significant than the separation of judicial careers. The Constitution reaffirms the right of every worker to a wage "in any case sufficient to ensure a free and dignified existence for themselves and their families." What constitutes a free and dignified life depends on the level of civilization achieved; in any case, a fair wage is defined based on the needs of the person receiving it, understood obviously as the average needs of the class to which they belong, but still independently of the government's economic policy guidelines. The Labor Decree, or rather Law 112/2026, defines a fair wage as that established by collective bargaining. This creates a logical short circuit: if collective bargaining was supposed to be inspired by the implementation of the Constitution in the section regarding fair wages, now collective bargaining is the point of reference for fair wages.
This logical contradiction is cleverly resolved by the proposal from the three little pigs-CGIL, CISL, and UIL-where it states that contractual wage growth should reflect macroeconomic dynamics and sector-specific trends. I'll quote the passage in full: "Wage growth at the national level must be aligned with the actual recovery and increase in purchasing power, including as a result of product and process transformations, environmental changes, the introduction of digital technologies, resulting organizational and professional innovations, macroeconomic dynamics, and sector-specific trends." At the beginning, it states that wage growth must be adjusted, etc.; then the conjunction "also" suggests that other things are added to this wage growth, just as, on a paycheck, contingency payments, EDR, and so on are added to the basic wage. In reality, it's the participle "consequent" that gives the sentence its meaning. Stripped of all the rhetorical frills, the statement is clear and forceful: WAGE GROWTH WILL BE A RESULT OF MACROECONOMIC DYNAMICS AND SECTOR TRENDS. It's a clear example of union rhetoric, which asserts the essential subordination of wages while giving the impression of asserting the opposite!
In this way, the letter of the constitution remains unchanged, but the substantive constitution is completely distorted, demonstrating once again that the government's commitments to the exploited classes are written in sand.
Why are the CGIL, but also the CISL and UIL, failing, once again, in their duty to defend the working class? Isn't it logical to think that this failure to defend workers' interests translates into disaffection on the part of the latter and consequently a decline in the revenue needed to operate the union machine?
Now, the idea that the bureaucracy, including the union bureaucracy, is a distinct and separate social stratum with specific, particular interests is well established; it is the source of a whole series of characteristic "bureaucratic" relationships. At first glance, it would seem that this bureaucracy, however, should have every interest in improving workers' conditions, in order to justify its existence and increase its revenues with the new members that a policy of opposition to the employers and the government would bring.
In reality, any bureaucracy is incapable of addressing social problems. The essential bond of any bureaucracy is the bureaucratic bond, both within the organization and in relation to the administered body (in this case, the working class). Even assuming that union bureaucrats possess good will and zeal, they are incapable of addressing problems that fall outside their scope and could jeopardize the organization, perhaps by encouraging greater participation among the organized people.
On the other hand, contributions from those who work represent a residual portion of union revenues: a good portion comes from contributions from retirees and from compensation for welfare services, where the bureaucracy is most involved. To carry out this work effectively, the bureaucracy requires ongoing relationships with state institutions and with its counterparts, relationships that preclude head-on confrontation.
This is hardly surprising, considering that the current confederal unions are the heirs of the fascist unions. When Mussolini's government fell on July 25, 1943, the new Prime Minister, Pietro Badoglio, appointed representatives of the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, and the Christian Democrats as liquidators of the fascist unions. From this transition, and not from the free association of workers' leagues, the CGIL was born, which never lost its characteristics as a corporatist union, that is, subordinated to the interests of big business.
It is therefore not surprising that the joint action of the "Proposals for an Interconfederal Framework Agreement" developed by the CGIL, CISL, and UIL, and the labor decree passed by the Meloni government and now enacted into law, outline a future for the unions similar to that of the fascist unions.
Tiziano Antonelli
https://umanitanova.org/offerte-allettanti-per-i-padroni-verso-la-fascistizzazione-dei-sindacati/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten