It is a very simple point. The Workers’ Statute (dating back to 1970, when the TV broadcast only two channels, you were using typewriters, Arpanet, the forerunner of the Internet was in its infancy and the robots were only on the covers of books by Asimov) provided in Article . 4, preventing the use of “audio-visual systems and other equipment for the purpose of remote control of the workers.”
Of course, as we all know to be entered in a bank where there are cameras everywhere, the ability to install equipment capable of controlling workers was not excluded per se, in fact the art. 2 of that regulation provided for the possibility of using such equipment prior agreement with unions or, failing that, with the authorization of the labor inspectorate. As anyone concerned with issues related to labor law know, there is a provision of the Statute which has suffered more art. 4 of the passage of time. Employers, workers, unions and courts have found to cope with technological advances a standard that spoke of “other equipment”. Thus doctrine and jurisprudence have made literally jump through hoops to bring in a rule of 45 years ago the issues related to the use of devices always connected, and geo-traceable, the use of Internet and electronic mail, satellite detectors, etc. etc.
Among the decrees of the Jobs Act is also the reform of article. 4. The rule follows the structure of the old Article 4, but introduces some important innovations. Reiterating that the tools of remote control can be used only to “organizational needs and manufacturing, to job security and protection of corporate assets”, the new provision clarifies that the working tools are not to be regarded as instruments of control . It seems like a redundant statement, but it is not. The gas meter reader who comes to our house with a tablet on which is tasked to score our consumption is connected to the Internet using a tool that transmits data in real time to the company that supplies the gas.
This data, simplify it, consist of reading, but also the position of the worker. If such an instrument was seen as a tool of remote control, the company would be compelled, before handing over the tablet to the meter reader, to enter into an agreement with the unions or to start, alternatively, the proceedings of the Territorial Directorate of the work or, even, in the case of a company that operates on a larger territory, the Ministry of Labour.
Anyone with common sense would realize that distinguish the instruments of control (that control) than work is an operation to safeguard the privacy of the worker on the one hand and the prerogatives of the employer on the other. Anyone, except a piece of public opinion that has shouldered the task of wielding the banners of the alleged, so-called “true left”. The new standard, moreover, provides an important innovation: the obligation for the employer wishes to use for purposes connected with the employment data collected by the instruments of control and those working to provide employees with “adequate information of mode Use the tools and carrying out checks and in compliance with the legislative decree 30 June 2003, n. 196 “better known as the Privacy Act.
Yes, because so far, it should be remembered, the employer that provides a PC, a tablet, a phone or a van with the GPS to its own employee was not obliged to inform it of what data these instruments were able to convey to the employer, which, of course, had the opportunity to demonstrate through these data, albeit within certain limits, a breach of contract.
I’m not going to convince Gilioli and those who think like him with these few lines, maybe it could be a more serious situation by reading some of the many items and essays on the question (I encourage you, for example: Article 4 of the Statute of workers to the test of Internet and e-mail , Ilario Alvino, Law of Industrial Relations, fasc.4, 2014 , p. 999), but I consider it important to emphasize that the climate of witch-hunting, topped by the usual welter of insults to the government and its communicators (this category into which that anyone who does not think like them, including myself that the government has nothing to do) creates a groove deepening between those for bias has decided that this is the worst of all possible governments and those who intend to get a sense of criticism and freedom of what is going on.
The writer For example, in the past he criticized, right on the Jobs Act, the decision not to include the civil service among the recipients of the rule. I have some technical reasons for this criticism I have tried to explain, but I realize that it is more comfortable starting from the assumption that Renzi is a scoundrel, the renziani villains and fire on government measures, even the most technical of which little is known, as in the case of Art. 4 of the Statute of Workers.
• Follow the updates on our Facebook page
• To be informed about news of The HuffPost , click on our Homepage
• Sign up for the newsletter of The HuffPost
No comments:
Post a Comment