“The trade union has not managed to protect its space, it lost ground when it accepted the idea that collective bargaining was an instrument of economic competition, instead of safeguarding the rights on which the progress of society can be constructed, helping to steer industrial policy after strenuous negotiations with the government of the day.“
Can we be sure that May Day is (still) perceived as the Workers’ Holiday, and not just a day off work? I do not think so, especially among the younger generations (I do not blame them at all, I merely note without being judgemental). No sacredness is attached by them to this “festival” for the simple reason that they perceive work and their status as workers or future workers in a different light.
So this is another reason to celebrate workers and put the question of work at the centre of the debate, which for younger generations, according to the FragilItalia report drafted by Ipsos and Lega Coop, is well down the list of their interests. Work is perceived “merely” as a way of making enough money to do other things in life. This was unthinkable for our fathers and grandfathers.
We can safely say that work has lost its cultural, ethical and social dimension, namely that of being a structure around which to build the identity of the individual and by extension of society as a whole, in short the foundations of the so-called ‘social lift’, which now appears to be stuck.
These are, after all, the years in which the economy is (so social networks say) driven mainly by income from investments rather than from sweat of the brow. This has led to the idea, shared by many, that it is no longer necessary to work, with all that entails (physical and mental fatigue, study, taking time to learn how to do a job, and finally actually working, etc.), if one can simply “invest” money that makes more money (which begs the question: invest in what? Money from where? From our parents? This can only be true for a small percentage of people that have such luck, certainly not for everyone).
Elsa Fornero in La Stampa and Nicola Saldutti in Corriere della Sera have offered convincing explanations of the reasons behind the contradictions of work in our country, albeit viewed from a broader, global perspective. At first sight it appears that the situation is going well, an improvement on past years. These incontrovertible figures point in a comforting direction. Yet the data on job growth, however positive, do not hide the fact that unemployment in Italy is double that of the European average. Then there is the plague of inactivity affecting young people, who seem to be moving further away from the workplace, while there is actually a shortage of workers in some parts of the country.
All these contradictions, combined with very low Italian productivity and downward wage dynamics, provide us with the image of a country with widespread symptoms of a deep malaise. It is hard to make a diagnosis and suggest a cure (and let’s stop blaming the Government, this is a trend that has been with us for years, we can just say that things are going a little better at this moment).
The years of widespread subsidies and “citizen income” that have not been tied to pathways leading towards the workplace have left their mark. Precious time has been wasted in a fast-moving economic system, in which enormous amounts of resources set aside for the above could have been invested in many other more concrete, less divisive projects, in which the idea of work as a tool for generating income would be to the fore.
The world of our fathers was simpler: higher consumption led to a rise in output, which in turn stimulated the demand for labor. This triggered the great battles for workers’ rights, including the right for better pay, carried forward by trade union confederations that had an authoritative and active presence in the social and political spheres.
This linear mechanism was not perfect, at times it was dysfunctional, but generally reliable over time. Now it has broken down, and today the cracks can be seen in a scenario in which trade unions and employers’ associations are poor relations to the Market. The trade union has not been able to protect its space, it lost ground when it accepted the idea that collective bargaining was an instrument of economic competition, instead of safeguarding the rights on which the progress of society can be constructed, helping to steer industrial policy after strenuous negotiations with the government of the day.
It has gradually lost its representativeness, and is now shrunk, divided, uninfluential, tempted by spontaneous movements that are very present on the political scene but much less so on the factory floor, choosing to stop fighting for the demands of workers and risking a state of self-imposed irrelevance. We need to reflect on this risky scenario, since weak trade unions are like a weak opposition, incapable of coming up with ideas to get the other side to improve. And the country as a whole will come out of it badly.
That is why it is necessary to reflect on the cultural dimension of work, and seek answers with more complex tools that go beyond the immediacy of incentives and focus on the development of education and training, bringing closer together school and the workplace, universities and professions, and offering unrestricted access to the financial resources needed to pay for these pathways, which are often denied to families.
Only in this way can we hope to see a return of the social lift, restoring to society the worth of work, the humanity it contains and its ability to be an instrument for personal growth and not just one of survival. We always end up on the question of the collective culture. That must mean something.
