That Mark Bentivogli, leader of the Fim, CISL metalworkers , it was an atypical, irregular union, it was already quite clear. For the strong inclination not to get discounts in the context of one of the most self-indulgent categories of the planet. But also, and above all, to a reading of the economic and social processes often diametrically opposed to that of too many of his colleagues: to say, Bentivogli believes a fairy tale of the “acquired rights”, is in favor of meritocracy, against the citizen’s income and sees not only the risks but the many opportunities of the fourth industrial revolution, has been fighting for a true intergenerational pact in discontinuity with fake ones made to date in which young people are getting poorer and “likely to be scrapped without even being took to the streets for a trail ride. “
” We have ruined Italy? “, just released and already in its second printing, he is asked by the cover of the his latest book, published by Castelvecchi, in fact a kind of manifesto of his idea of the union. A union from which you can not ignore, explains, provided they stay away from the techno-structure “lazy, bureaucratic and reactionary” that afflicts a part of it. Why is the union the only force able today to address the broad economic modernization processes that today someone calls fourth industrial revolution, someone else Industry 4.0: “In such an important moment for the union, where we talk about disintermediation and crisis, if not actual decline of representation, I think it is a useful exercise to start from people, why not, even by vulgar commonplaces. To listen to and understand the perception of our role. And if we turn on the microphone in a bar, or on the Internet, which is the bar of our times, the cliché is that “we ruined Italy.” Here, I believe that our vitality is demonstrated contradicting with facts, those clichés. Not denying them. “
And the union denies them?
Not everything. But the lazy union, bureaucratic, reactionary who are used to seeing on television, in many cases it does. And that union, in the future, you can easily do without. One can not help but, on the contrary, the great essence of trade unionism, of those noble forms of collective solidarity that are still indispensable. During the crisis, watching their backs on the workers we were just us, the only ones to prevent anger and resignation became devastating despair.
Why would they be?
Why the anger, if irrational, not those who are able to give it content and positive form, is unleashed in the worst forms, finding the road several professional riders, as the chronicle of these days, national and European, confirmation. The union, however, transforms the singular plural, gives mounting anger. To do so, however, we must not make the mistake that the best way is to go back to 800, or the seventies. They need radical choices, rifondative and regenerative. I call it the challenge of 3R to return to being a union with a strong social generativity.
Rottamatrici, some would say …
If there is someone who is likely to be scrapped prior to giving a lap are the new generations, young people. It is a paradox: is scrapping the new rather than the old. Worse: you scrapping the new measures to protect the old.
Metaphors? Think about the types of contract: more and more fragile, but only for the young.
This is nothing new: someone called flexicurity … Yes, but we saw only the flexibility, for now. And I say this as a strong supporter of active policies. I call it the theorem of Tarzan. Whose first postulate is that between the liana old and new, I leave the creeper old if at least I see the next. But I also have to say, very honestly, that part of the union, business and politics has not even raised the issue of abandoning the old liana mistakenly thinking to get so safe. On the contrary, if it is kept pretty tight and prevented others could even get close.
The Vulgate has it that the old liana is an “acquired” rights of those who came before.
i think those who only defends the rights of a few, calling them “acquired” can not do the trade unionist. If not all the rights concern, they should be called otherwise. Not only that: the majority of my members will retire with the contribution system. I can not take care of their future. Of course, I have to take care of strenuous work, tiring, who lost his job with the pay system, but as you are trying to do in the confrontation with the government, I have to take care also of the social sustainability and not just financial future pensions. We must change things so that they are in the interests of all. I believe in a responsible meritocracy, not in defense of privileges. Or we beat all the rents and corporatism and establishment associated with them or in this country a little ‘true equity will remain a mirage.
Sometimes your colleague would correct you, and speak of rights, not privileges …
The lexicon union is often absurd: if there are two redundancies and connect to the board is called “social butchery.” Speak to revise a rule in the interest of all and say you are an affront to workers’ rights. A “cathode union” has become famous for this catastrophic approach to issues that affect our future. It is not far from the approach of those who speak of “invasion” if some hundreds of immigrants landed on our shores. And is a disastrous and losing approach to the workers.
How?
I make the example of Fiat, where we are part of an accountability system against abuse of rights, for example. If 70% of workers are on sick leave, on a particular day, sooner or later you will be put in question the right of disease. If the union can not distinguish them from the rights abuses, abuses soon eat their rights. If we do not fight too smart, we know that our reticence is at the expense of hardworking and honest workers.
No comments:
Post a Comment