A-Infos (en) Italy, FAI, Umanita Nova #22-26 - Tempting Offers for Bosses. Toward the Fascistization of the Unions (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

On June 17, the confederal secretaries of the CGIL, CISL, and UIL signed 
the "Proposals for an Interconfederal Framework Agreement," aimed at 
defining collective bargaining procedures for the recognition of the 
most representative organizations, along with issues of training, health 
and safety, and participation. --- This represents a challenging step 
for the three confederations, following the law on participation and the 
latest labor decree. At first glance, it appears to be a proposal geared 
toward aligning with government policies.

It is noteworthy that the topic of "Health and Safety," out of a 
seven-page document, occupies only seven lines. The central theme of the 
Proposals is bargaining, and in particular the control of wage 
increases. The claim that "Wage growth at the national level must be 
adjusted to the real recovery and increase in purchasing power" is 
immediately refuted, as it is influenced by macroeconomic dynamics and 
sectoral trends.

More specifically, the Minimum Economic Treatment (TEM) and the Total 
Economic Treatment (TEC) are defined.

The TEM amount includes the minimum wages, cost of living allowances, 
seniority increases, EDRs, and other fixed and ongoing elements defined 
by national bargaining. This bargaining will lead to changes in the TEM, 
taking the IPCA NEI index calculated by ISTAT as a reference. It's 
natural to wonder why the consumer price index for blue- and 
white-collar workers' families (FOI), whose calculation also involves 
union experts, isn't used. According to ISTAT data, in May 2026, the 
price increase compared to the same month of the previous year was 2.1% 
according to the IPCA index, and 3.2% according to the FOI index. It 
should be clear that the FOI index is used for other contractual 
revaluations (e.g., rental agreements). In practice, the worker sees his 
rent increase more than his contractual wage.

As readers of Umanità Nova already know, the HICP (Harmonized Index of 
Consumer Prices) NEI refers to the Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices 
for the European Union. The European Union has established that the HICP 
be used to verify the convergence of national economies for states that 
have requested membership in the Monetary Union and for the continuation 
of membership for states already participating. The HICP is based on the 
price actually paid by the consumer and therefore also takes into 
account discounts and promotions. The HICP (Harmonized Index of Consumer 
Prices) NEI excludes price variations due to imported energy products 
from its calculations.

This step is important because the adoption of this index led the CGIL 
to not sign the Framework Agreement on the Reform of Contractual 
Structures of January 22, 2009, which, on the union side, was signed 
only by the CISL and UIL. This failure to sign had no substantial 
consequences because, at the collective bargaining level, the various 
categories subsequently proposed contract renewals in line with the IPCA 
index, only to be left with nothing. Since Luciano Lama, in the late 
1970s, defined wages as a variable dependent on the performance of the 
national economy-that is, on capital accumulation-the CGIL has 
consistently been at the forefront of policies aimed at impoverishing 
the working class. With this proposal, it rightfully returns to this 
role, and not just de facto. It took the arrival of the sinister 
Maurizio Landini as the Confederation's secretary to bring to fruition 
this latest display of subservience to employers and the government.

Another significant aspect of this proposal from union leaders is its 
connection with the concept of fair wages introduced by the Meloni 
government in the latest labor decree. The decree, approved on the eve 
of May Day with an obvious propaganda purpose, was quietly passed into 
law, while the political world was focused first on the dispute between 
Giorgia Meloni and Donald Trump, and then on amending the electoral law. 
This is another sign of what the working class can expect from 
Parliament. Even the bombastic statements of Maurizio Landini, who gave 
a strongly negative assessment of the decree and the government's 
aggressive intervention in areas subject to bargaining, have not been 
translated into a concrete commitment to fight, nor, evidently, into 
pressure on parliamentarians and media outlets close to the unions.

But what does this decree entail? Umanità Nova has already discussed it, 
and it's worth reiterating: we are facing a constitutional revision far 
more significant than the separation of judicial careers. The 
Constitution reaffirms the right of every worker to a wage "in any case 
sufficient to ensure a free and dignified existence for themselves and 
their families." What constitutes a free and dignified life depends on 
the level of civilization achieved; in any case, a fair wage is defined 
based on the needs of the person receiving it, understood obviously as 
the average needs of the class to which they belong, but still 
independently of the government's economic policy guidelines. The Labor 
Decree, or rather Law 112/2026, defines a fair wage as that established 
by collective bargaining. This creates a logical short circuit: if 
collective bargaining was supposed to be inspired by the implementation 
of the Constitution in the section regarding fair wages, now collective 
bargaining is the point of reference for fair wages.

This logical contradiction is cleverly resolved by the proposal from the 
three little pigs-CGIL, CISL, and UIL-where it states that contractual 
wage growth should reflect macroeconomic dynamics and sector-specific 
trends. I'll quote the passage in full: "Wage growth at the national 
level must be aligned with the actual recovery and increase in 
purchasing power, including as a result of product and process 
transformations, environmental changes, the introduction of digital 
technologies, resulting organizational and professional innovations, 
macroeconomic dynamics, and sector-specific trends." At the beginning, 
it states that wage growth must be adjusted, etc.; then the conjunction 
"also" suggests that other things are added to this wage growth, just 
as, on a paycheck, contingency payments, EDR, and so on are added to the 
basic wage. In reality, it's the participle "consequent" that gives the 
sentence its meaning. Stripped of all the rhetorical frills, the 
statement is clear and forceful: WAGE GROWTH WILL BE A RESULT OF 
MACROECONOMIC DYNAMICS AND SECTOR TRENDS. It's a clear example of union 
rhetoric, which asserts the essential subordination of wages while 
giving the impression of asserting the opposite!

In this way, the letter of the constitution remains unchanged, but the 
substantive constitution is completely distorted, demonstrating once 
again that the government's commitments to the exploited classes are 
written in sand.

Why are the CGIL, but also the CISL and UIL, failing, once again, in 
their duty to defend the working class? Isn't it logical to think that 
this failure to defend workers' interests translates into disaffection 
on the part of the latter and consequently a decline in the revenue 
needed to operate the union machine?

Now, the idea that the bureaucracy, including the union bureaucracy, is 
a distinct and separate social stratum with specific, particular 
interests is well established; it is the source of a whole series of 
characteristic "bureaucratic" relationships. At first glance, it would 
seem that this bureaucracy, however, should have every interest in 
improving workers' conditions, in order to justify its existence and 
increase its revenues with the new members that a policy of opposition 
to the employers and the government would bring.

In reality, any bureaucracy is incapable of addressing social problems. 
The essential bond of any bureaucracy is the bureaucratic bond, both 
within the organization and in relation to the administered body (in 
this case, the working class). Even assuming that union bureaucrats 
possess good will and zeal, they are incapable of addressing problems 
that fall outside their scope and could jeopardize the organization, 
perhaps by encouraging greater participation among the organized people.

On the other hand, contributions from those who work represent a 
residual portion of union revenues: a good portion comes from 
contributions from retirees and from compensation for welfare services, 
where the bureaucracy is most involved. To carry out this work 
effectively, the bureaucracy requires ongoing relationships with state 
institutions and with its counterparts, relationships that preclude 
head-on confrontation.

This is hardly surprising, considering that the current confederal 
unions are the heirs of the fascist unions. When Mussolini's government 
fell on July 25, 1943, the new Prime Minister, Pietro Badoglio, 
appointed representatives of the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, 
and the Christian Democrats as liquidators of the fascist unions. From 
this transition, and not from the free association of workers' leagues, 
the CGIL was born, which never lost its characteristics as a corporatist 
union, that is, subordinated to the interests of big business.

It is therefore not surprising that the joint action of the "Proposals 
for an Interconfederal Framework Agreement" developed by the CGIL, CISL, 
and UIL, and the labor decree passed by the Meloni government and now 
enacted into law, outline a future for the unions similar to that of the 
fascist unions.

Tiziano Antonelli

https://umanitanova.org/offerte-allettanti-per-i-padroni-verso-la-fascistizzazione-dei-sindacati/
_________________________________________
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