A-Infos (en) Italy, FDCA, Cantiere #41 - Reflections on the Progress of the Union Struggle: Mechanics' Contract and Related Issues - Cristiano Valente (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

We were facile prophets when, in the last issue of this magazine, we 
warned of the possibility that the metalworkers' contract might also end 
disastrously for the historically most combative sector of the Italian 
working class. The defeat suffered in the referendums proposed by the 
CGIL leadership on the Jobs Act, just months before the agreement 
between Federmeccanica, FIOM, FIM, and UILM was finalized, further 
demonstrates the overall weakness of the labor movement. Above all, it 
demonstrates the ineffectiveness of a union political strategy that, by 
diverting its action from the realm of class struggle to institutional 
and parliamentary initiatives, betrays its core mission as an 
organization of resistance and improvement of real wage and regulatory 
conditions in the workplace, aiming to change the balance of power 
between employers, government, and the working masses. It also 
inevitably fails to express any hegemony in broad sectors of society, 
such as those needed to potentially win a referendum.

The stubborn determination of union leaders, led by the CGIL, to refuse 
to unify the struggle over wages despite their constant shouting for 
wage cuts at rallies and on talk shows, combined with the now definitive 
choice of the CISL to collaborate with the current government and the 
further disengagement of the UIL itself, and the minority and 
sectarianism of grassroots union leadership groups, also suffering from 
"parliamentary cretinism," albeit a homeopathic version compared to the 
CGIL itself, have created a bleak, dangerous, and grave situation for 
the workers' movement, both male and female, and for the younger 
generations. The mechanics' contract has been finalized with increases 
that only cover 9% of inflation compared to the real 18%, with its 
duration extended from three to four years. It will be valid until June 
30, 2028, while the previous contract expired in June 2024. The expected 
monthly increase is EUR177.62 at level C3 (formerly level five); 
EUR53.17 from June 1, 2026, EUR59.58 on June 1, 2027, and EUR64.87 on 
June 1, 2028. This is precisely the figure (EUR170) that Federmeccanica 
had already indicated and which was the reason for the initial breakdown 
in negotiations. The fraudulently reported figure of EUR205.32 includes 
the EUR27.70 already accrued in June 2025, which has no bearing on the 
contract renewal as it represents the normal determination of the 
minimum wage rates based on inflation trends for 2024, measured by the 
IPCA index net of imported energy, which was 1.3%, as reported by ISTAT. 
The initial request from FIOM, FIM, and UILM was EUR280 over three 
years, meaning we are over EUR100 below the initial request. 
Furthermore, the increase of EUR177.62 gross is expected at level C3, 
but the majority of workers are placed at level C1 (formerly level 
three). Furthermore, the negligible nature of these increases is further 
exacerbated by the unexpected exclusion of employer practices regarding 
the absorption of collective and individual super-minimum wages, which 
could render the few expected wage increases null and void. Not only was 
no result achieved on the reduction of working hours, having only 
provided for a joint national commission (ha!), but there was a further 
setback. Companies obtained further flexibility in working hours, with 
the multi-week schedule being extended from 80 to 96 hours per year, 
allowing for a maximum of 48 hours per week. The 16 hours exceeding the 
initial 80 are increased by only 8% and are not paid as overtime. The 
increase to 128 hours of the cap between multi-week and overtime in 
exempt quotas, i.e., these too are not increased as overtime but only 8% 
above the normal hours for companies with more than 200 employees,and a 
whopping 136 hours for companies with fewer than 201 employees, i.e., 
the smallest ones. Furthermore, of the 13 days of paid leave (PAR), five 
of which were available to companies for any planned collective closures 
or periods of layoffs, these days are now reduced to seven. Thus, we 
have gifted the employer another 16 hours. Regarding the maximum 
duration of staff leasing, that is, those workers on temporary 
contracts, even if they are permanent and are employed by employment 
agencies and not by the company, the new contract sets a maximum of 48 
months (four years), a goal championed with great emphasis and 
satisfaction by the unions. Suffice it to say that under current case 
law, the limit for fixed-term contracts is only 24 months (two years). 
Finally, the issue of corporate welfare and flexible benefits has been 
left out of the considerations and discussions of the sector's union 
leadership groups. The split with Federmeccanica occurred precisely over 
this aspect, which expressed willingness to introduce even more 
substantial and significant contributions than the final result 
achieved. The corporate welfare contribution was increased from EUR200 
to EUR250 per year, without any consideration, now unavoidable, of the 
contradiction these provisions pose with the defense of universal public 
healthcare, which is constantly invoked by union leadership. As our 
readers well know, we have already repeatedly highlighted in our 
previous articles more specifically the role these private forms of 
assistance play and have played as a veritable wedge on public 
healthcare. Yet, the national leadership not only fails to support, at 
least not a steady reduction, if not an outright ban on these forms of 
private healthcare, but has effectively abandoned a traditional 
union-led battle that would mobilize the sector directly to defend it, 
proposing a further signature drive for a popular initiative on public 
healthcare.Finally, the issue of corporate welfare and flexible benefits 
has been left out of the considerations and discussions of the sector's 
union leadership groups. The split with Federmeccanica occurred 
precisely over this aspect, which expressed willingness to introduce 
even more substantial and significant contributions than the final 
result achieved. The corporate welfare contribution was increased from 
EUR200 to EUR250 per year, without any consideration, now unavoidable, 
of the contradiction these provisions pose with the defense of universal 
public healthcare, which is constantly invoked by union leadership. As 
our readers well know, we have already repeatedly highlighted in our 
previous articles more specifically the role these private forms of 
assistance play and have played as a veritable wedge on public 
healthcare. Yet, the national leadership not only fails to support, at 
least not a steady reduction, if not an outright ban on these forms of 
private healthcare, but has effectively abandoned a traditional 
union-led battle that would mobilize the sector directly to defend it, 
proposing a further signature drive for a popular initiative on public 
healthcare.Finally, the issue of corporate welfare and flexible benefits 
has been left out of the considerations and discussions of the sector's 
union leadership groups. The split with Federmeccanica occurred 
precisely over this aspect, which expressed willingness to introduce 
even more substantial and significant contributions than the final 
result achieved. The corporate welfare contribution was increased from 
EUR200 to EUR250 per year, without any consideration, now unavoidable, 
of the contradiction these provisions pose with the defense of universal 
public healthcare, which is constantly invoked by union leadership. As 
our readers well know, we have already repeatedly highlighted in our 
previous articles more specifically the role these private forms of 
assistance play and have played as a veritable wedge on public 
healthcare. Yet, the national leadership not only fails to support, at 
least not a steady reduction, if not an outright ban on these forms of 
private healthcare, but has effectively abandoned a traditional 
union-led battle that would mobilize the sector directly to defend it, 
proposing a further signature drive for a popular initiative on public 
healthcare.

Once again, the institutional, parliamentary political path is being 
chosen without a clear position on the welfare issue and all matters 
affecting bilateral institutions. It is no coincidence that the bill, 
although announced last November, is still slow to materialize as a 
coherent whole, and it hasn't even been discussed with workers, starting 
with those directly affected: public healthcare workers. All of this, 
along with the very sad outcome of the metalworkers' bargaining process, 
which will have its final vote on February 18-20, 2026, through a 
certified referendum, which we hope will be met with clear opposition, 
leads us to consider the current overall strategy of the CGIL trade 
union, which is not only severely deficient but actually subordinate. 
Following the December 12 general strike called by the CGIL alone, which 
achieved nothing, its highest organizational body, the national general 
assembly, once again expressed its commitment to the organization's 
involvement in the Committee for a No to the Referendum on Justice, an 
initiative presented last January 10 in Rome. We have already had 
occasion to say that this clash between the judiciary and the government 
is a battle that has no real meaning for the working masses, so much so 
that the Secretary General, in his speech, correctly states that «if you 
talk today about the separation of careers, often they don't know what 
you're talking about»,[1]but trying to convince people about the 
goodness and necessity of the referendum battle, he comically, if not 
tragically, uses the same arguments as the government majority, focusing 
on the «non-functioning of justice, because often people experience this 
situation on their own many times»[1]when it is clear to most people 
that this reform has nothing to do with the possible better functioning 
of the justice system. This means that from 2026 until the end of March, 
the organization will be campaigning for a "No" vote in the referendum 
on justice reform and will perhaps begin collecting signatures for the 
popular healthcare law initiative. It's as if the budget law, against 
which we went on strike on December 12th, didn't clearly define some 
highly significant points for employers and the government. It's unclear 
(or perhaps it is) why they haven't taken a clear stance against them. 
For example, the de facto mandatory introduction of pension funds, 
through the tacit consent method, for all new hires starting July 1st, 
2026. On this particular issue, as on the healthcare issue, as 
previously stated, there should be a broad and frank discussion that the 
labor and workers' movement should have, especially now that pension 
funds are investing in the military industries.But returning to our 
reflections on the trade union question, we could say that until next 
summer we will not be involved as a workers' movement in any real trade 
union platform of concrete demands, and without wishing to be a bad 
omen, if the referendum on justice is, as is probable, won by the 
government it will be a further defeat for this leading group, which 
should frankly place itself at the disposal of a fierce self-criticism 
which some leaders and sectors of the trade union express[2]but which 
evidently the inertia of the organisational and bureaucratic machine of 
a structure such as the CGIL still prevents. Let's imagine what might 
happen if the organizational capacity deployed during the committees 
supporting the referendum campaign against the Jobs Act, with thousands 
of public meetings, stalls, and leafleting in workplaces and major 
squares and markets, were our practice and that of the Chambers of 
Labor, on a program of few but clear union objectives, such as real wage 
increases, envisioning the recovery of a sort of sliding wage scale that 
is not the IPCA index, canceling the inter-confederal agreement with 
Confindustria, the "Factory Pact," which links this index to contractual 
wage increases, for a defense of public healthcare that does not rely on 
funds or insurance, but on increased funding for public healthcare, 
constantly mobilizing the sector. These indications and this practice 
characterize our militancy in the class struggle.For a defense of public 
health that doesn't depend on funding or insurance, but on increased 
funding for public health, constantly mobilizing the profession. These 
guidelines and this practice characterize our militancy in the class 
struggle.For a defense of public health that doesn't depend on funding 
or insurance, but on increased funding for public health, constantly 
mobilizing the profession. These guidelines and this practice 
characterize our militancy in the class struggle.

Notes

[1]Stefano Iucci, Referendum, Landini launches the challenge for 
democracy: "Together we win" , «Collettiva», 10/01/2026 
(https://www.collettiva.it/speciali/referendum-giustizia/referendum-giustizia-landini-hzsnzklk)

[2]Andrea Ranieri, Francesco Sinopoli, Democracy, work and trade unions 
after the referendums , «Centre for State Reform», 20/06/2025 
(https://centroriformastato.it/democrazia-lavoro-e-sindacato-dopo-i-referendum).

Francesco Sinopoli also presented the paper at the seminar 
"Representation, Conflict, Participation: Which Confederal Union?" held 
at the Livorno Chamber of Labor on July 28, 2025.

https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en