Wednesday, January 11, the Constitutional Court rejected the admission of the referendum question, promoted by the CGIL, concerning the abolition of the changes that the Jobs Act has made art.18 of the Workers’ Statute (Law 20 May 1970 n. 300) He is pointing to readmit in any case the reinstatement of the worker, of provisions of the Judge, in case of illegal dismissal and extend this possibility to the employees of companies with fewer than fifteen employees who were excluded from the original text.
Already this last point would be supporting the cassation of the question, wanting to see, since although formally repeal, erasing a part of the text, it would be configured as an intervention actually purposeful, causal categorically excluded by the Institute referendum in the first paragraph of art. 75 of the Italian Constitution; the real point on the controversy that for over fifteen years accompanies the discussion of this rule, however, as they relate neither to his expectations nor to possible extensions in the application.
Since the second Berlusconi government moved up the arrows in defense of workers’ rights that would result from this article 18, now elected to both totems by defenders or by whoever wants a genuine reform or outright abolition.
At this point let us clear up any misunderstanding, article 18 does not represent an entitlement for a worker nor any real guaranty. This arranged, since the first draft, it merely appears as a penalty rule in case of illegal as well as recognized and described in another law, the 604/66, which regulates the individual dismissal.
If, then, you wanted to be picky in the history of the Italian labor law causes for wrongful dismissal which were completed with the reinstatement of the employee are very few, almost all, in fact, ended with monetary compensation because how many would be willing to fall under an employer who had broken the contractual relationship for “trivial reasons” or, indeed, for discriminatory reasons?
Having said that all the legislation relating to individual dismissals had already been amended under the Monti government, with SO-CALLED Fornero Law (Law 92/12) and the Jobs Act did not bring substantial changes to the system that, however you reversals rhetorically, did not generate any “casualization” of the labor market further.
Mirror you can look at it from the side of the companies or foreign investors.
Most of the supporters of the need to abolish or grinding art. 18 indicated in this true “rigidity” of the labor market that made it less convenient hiring an employee or investment in productive activities in Italy. This is a point to the paradox limits too, wanting to see.
Of great difficulty to the “flexibility on exit”, in truth, there are not ever been if not the notorious slowness of Italian justice in the civil case management, including those of work, with its proliferation of inherent costs for employers . In the case of large companies or any foreign groups, however, the Italian legislation already allows the institutions that manage the flexibility of employment, by the rules on collective redundancies to the one on social safety nets including one of the true anomalies of the Italian system that is Lay-off.
The latter, wanting to see, is a phenomenal benefit to companies because it allows you to move to the community a large portion of personnel costs in the event of corporate restructuring, obviously paying the price of a very high taxation and contributions, perhaps the most high in the world. This last point, we got there, is the real weak point of the Italian labor market.
It is not the “tax wedge,” to be a disincentive to hiring (there are states in which it is much heavier with a much greater level of employment, such as for example Germany), is a flexible input and output reduced to be a block on recruitment but are the costs relating to taxes and indirect due to the bureaucracy to become almost unbearable.
Let’s talk about energy costs (the highest level OECD), as the logistics caused by the inefficiency of the road network and transport in generis, the overall tax burden, the Global Corporate Tax Rate which we learned about from the surveys of CGIA Mestre , which make the cost of labor the only real variable on which you can act quickly to optimize the income statement and from there to the use of continuous staff reductions and replacement with robotic instruments or even with production relocations pace it is very short.
So the only solution to the labor problem, goes towards a reduction and simplification of tax each sampling chapters, from the energy excise tax, and the simplification of bureaucracy in the ordinary management of the business life, all united by a strong modification contract system for employment. Three contractual case indefinitely, temporary and on-call, would not be sufficient and easier to manage for both the internal company management is to control by the authorities on the reports regularly?
A system would contribute substantially to a thinning of the labor market and also allow a recovery in labor demand, driven by the increased convenience, even productive, human resource than that of robot systems or the use of continuous work overtime to make up for the production needs. Obviously this could not fail to be accompanied by incentives for continuing professional development of employees through training courses continues, making, as well, the vision, myopic undoubtedly work as a mere cost to hold like that of a long-term investment it could also be very lucrative.
It’s about time, then, to really open a 360 degree discussion on the issue, between the government and social partners, eliminating any preliminary position because at stake are not only the rights of workers but the same estate of the Italian system.