I wanted to talk about other things and leave the political issues in a corner. In fact, however, in hindsight, the post is at the end of economics and industrial policy. Of course also deals with issues, so-called social thing inevitable, given that industrial policy and economic research issues that affect people's lives, now more than ever.
This morning, I attended a debate on television on the agreement at Fiat and related question of industrial relations. In a post you precede it had already, in part, treated (see the third question of the post ).
unveiled its subject matter, I urge you not stop reading, because maybe you just interested in one aspect, which, seemingly, just about you or you need even less. You will discover by reading how the question is closer to you than what you think.
brief summary. After the agreement in Pomigliano, complete with a referendum on which no to talk back, in these days was agreed for the plant in Mirafiori, Fiat and signed by Fim, Uilm, UGL and Fismic. Fiom not signed and on January 10, the agreement will be submitted to the court of the workers through a referendum. We know how it went in Pomigliano the referendum and in the post I had written, already foresaw how it would go before the referendum to take place. No need to be clairvoyant, because when it comes to work, given the current unemployment rate in Italy, the workers, especially those with some years on his shoulders, do not have many doubts whether to accept working conditions even worse, just to have a salary . I would say that there is little to enjoy and do not understand why the other hand, around, there are many who rejoice in the face of certain agreements (see Berlusconi ) or appear resigned to the threat to transfer production abroad (to be bipartisan as it is today considered beautiful must, see Fassino ).
unveiled its subject matter, I urge you not stop reading, because maybe you just interested in one aspect, which, seemingly, just about you or you need even less. You will discover by reading how the question is closer to you than what you think.
brief summary. After the agreement in Pomigliano, complete with a referendum on which no to talk back, in these days was agreed for the plant in Mirafiori, Fiat and signed by Fim, Uilm, UGL and Fismic. Fiom not signed and on January 10, the agreement will be submitted to the court of the workers through a referendum. We know how it went in Pomigliano the referendum and in the post I had written, already foresaw how it would go before the referendum to take place. No need to be clairvoyant, because when it comes to work, given the current unemployment rate in Italy, the workers, especially those with some years on his shoulders, do not have many doubts whether to accept working conditions even worse, just to have a salary . I would say that there is little to enjoy and do not understand why the other hand, around, there are many who rejoice in the face of certain agreements (see Berlusconi ) or appear resigned to the threat to transfer production abroad (to be bipartisan as it is today considered beautiful must, see Fassino ).
As for the content of the agreement, I refer you to an online search.
What concerns us here is the analysis made by proponents of the agreement, which differs from that of non-signatories.
Berlusconi speaks of "innovative and understanding of an important investment in the country."
Marchionne already seen the next day and says "Now we'll start planned investment in the shortest possible time. Now, we must work to achieve the specific collective agreement for the joint venture which will allow the transfer of workers to the new company Chrysler "
Roberto Di Maulo , general secretary of Fismic ( petitioner ):" The agreement has a historical significance because it demonstrates the ability to maintain manufacturing industries to attract foreign investment. "" It is the modernized industrial relations system, creating the condition of the contract specific car. "
Maurizio Landini, Fiom (not petitioner), "shameful agreement. For the first time, you erase the fact of the existence of the national contract and affecting the rights of workers, preventing an organization, among other things, the most representative of the fund and not just Fiat, to have men and representations. "
attend the debate on TV, I heard Giuliano Cazzola (former head of CGIL, then in 2008 elected MP for the PDL - a great ideological leap - now Vice President of the Labour Commission of the Chamber and political adviser to the Minister Brunetta) speak of War "commercial" and law Fiat's defense, thus justifying the deal. In other words, when you are at war, it must defend itself by any means and we all know, the fewer troops (I will not say much) compared to the ultimate objective: victory. Therefore also revealed why the title of the post.
Well, first we find that the agreement was put in return for the investment, in other words, Fiat has made it clear: if the agreement passes invest in Italy, if not past investments in a country where what is provided for in me to do.
reasons I do not bat an eyelid, as we see quite a few years of emigration, not of workers (such as early last century), but the entrepreneurs, many of which are now in what is a weighing of the European Union , Romania, given the "better working conditions" (seen in the way they see it, that is, cost lower labor, less bureaucratic restrictions and impediments to trade unions).
The question is: how come you are allowed to countries that do not have the same standard of living and therefore different salary basis, but also different in terms of sensitivity and safety of workers to join a forum, such as Europe, which would had to align the standards of different countries, creating a union not only of law but also in reality?
Needless to watch and then blame China, if you can not answer these questions.
short, the business logic is that if I have to produce in a country where I have more constraints in terms of job security, bureaucracy and the work costs more or less gain, why not go to countries where there are no constraints or those are minor, such as lower labor costs, or fewer constraints, less cost, more useful. In the end, the same reasoning (for a second time bipartisan) that workers are called to refendum: A bad agreement is better than no agreement, which means no work, no salary, no food, so hungry. On the other hand
signature analysis, signature no agreement, we find that those who do not sign poses a different question: Fiat with the agreement, creates a specific contract is separate from the national contract, so any company could do the same and not refer to general rules valid for the entire country. More who does not sign the agreement can not be in union business representative in that reality, that the employees will be represented only by those who signed the agreements.
Here the doubt expressed in two questions:
1) because Fiat wants a specific contract is separate from the national one, in which it is expected that it will not be representative of the union did not sign, in other words an agreement that whoever does not sign non- can no longer contract and therefore will not exist in that company, whether a certain number of workers represented by the union to be recognized and excluded accedes;
2) because the union did not even agree on a certain proposed agreement advanced by the employer Work will not bother to sign it, with the consequence of being cut off by subsequent meetings and not being able to negotiate in that company?
short, it is clear that if the reasons for a company's competitiveness, economic development, investment, defense jobs are shared, do not appear as the ways in which you want to support.
In recent years, a certain latent disaffection for the unions, too often seen as a means of protection of the lazy, pretentious in requests.
certainly also to blame for some choices of political union. However, should always be kept in mind that whatever you have, at times, and is written down superfluous, appear necessary and obtainable only at great cost, not once you have more. This also applies to the freedom that is wasted and snubbed, only to be regretted when it was lost and trying to regain whatever the cost. Never forget the achievements by employees, just think of the working conditions in Italy, not even a century ago, that many years after the unification of Italy, which this year celebrates the 150th anniversary.
may seem excessive to remember the fascist period, but in those years the scheme, with the corporate establishment of order, in fact the end of the union, made a policy of public policy, as the ideology Corporate deny the inevitability of conflict of interests between employers and providers, eliminating the conflict for the law, as was said a supreme common interest: the public interest of the economy. For each job category was admitted to the legal recognition of only one trade union for both employers and workers. The union of employers and the providers of labor were opposed, then, the "corporation". The corporate unions, had legal personality under public law, legal representative of the profession. The state, to ensure the public purpose given to the unions reserved the power to revoke union leaders and exercised supervisory powers. After the fall of the fascist regime, were abolished corporate guilds and unions. The new unions were formed and there was the resumption of collective bargaining. Meanwhile I am giving you two link for those who wish to learn. They are dispense with history are in addition to the usual network wilkipedia for those who may desire and time to be an incentive to read and check the accuracy or otherwise of what is reported there.
Make this analysis could be useful to answer the question I ask and I ask myself: is it so important right to organize? The link provided on the definition of trade union rights Wilkipedia date, I report only the definition: "The right to organize focuses on the figure of the worker in terms of collective discipline in the study are therefore three main topics: trade unions, the strike and the contract collective work. "
Think now, what is happening in these years and the policy pursued by the government on the unions, the critique of the collective bargaining agreement made the issue Fiat and then you decide if there is any problem or all is well.
Every time you think about the sad events of the past and it is said that today the conditions are different. The problem is that some of the basic ideas are always the same and that's what worries me, because you can slide by the day, imperceptibly, to find himself where he thought he could not reach. Moreover
(link to carry Sole 24 ore) , in 2008 alone there was an agreement to regulate the trade union representatives, trade union confederations have signed. But today, for much, not good either, if it is true that Fiat says that foreign investors are discouraged to invest in Italy, because the plurality of players due to the fragmentation of trade union (ergo better one contact, perhaps, come to think , non-confrontational and the other part of the same opinion ... that is a trace analysis of past choices).
Let's leave aside the question of union and return to economic and industrial policies. Who supports the agreement says that it will be useful, even necessary, to win the global economic competition in the auto industry (which is why a specific contract). I have said before emigration of entrepreneurs towards certain countries, but the question is to be analyzed: the competition can only be overcome by regulating the work, reducing labor costs?
In short, the issue of competitiveness, it is only labor regulation and less conflict? certain choices are not subsidiaries of finance issues.
Who supports the choice of Fiat, it seems to suggest just this and the spin-off of Fiat and the division of auto industry than is indicated as the decisive solution, at least as stated by Marchionne: "Today is a point of arrival and departure ... to respond to significant changes taking place in the market could no longer continue to hold together the fields who do not have any characteristic economic and industrial policy ". In practice off has covered the auto industry, spun off from Iveco, FPT and CNH (tractors, trucks, etc.)..
is, however, doubt that such an operation after 120 years of history, Fiat (no spin-off) is also useful to make decisions faster in terms of disposals and reorganization of production, as well as interesting issues for non-industrial finance but, since the same day the title of the Fiat industrial spin-off was up 3.05% and 4.91% of Fiat SpA, and the sum of the prices of two securities was higher than that of pre spin-off unit price.
We know the funds are moving in a hurry and do not care workers, production and market of real estate, if you think that those who invested yesterday, increasing the odds that the second has not even considered the registrations in December these are decreased by 21.71% over the same month last year and the only market share of the Fiat group fell by 2% in a year (being at the 29.67%).
Where are the industrial issues, the design, new ideas, projects? Where is the research on new means of transport and alternative fuels? I admit to not being an expert, but in a time when the price of gasoline and diesel oil salt and has shot for no apparent reason and access to oil prices, why do not we talk about innovative technologies and alternative and does not show that the promised investments needed to achieve them.
In recent years there has been talk of electric cars, hydrogen to , provides links, even oils can be used instead of gasoline. It is not science fiction (see link on the messaggero.it and on a Community policy on the subject). Need an answer to see if those who work and directs companies in the auto industry sees the future through the eyes of myopic. If
content to recover profit margins and raise capital to do what it always looks for solutions, or if that really represent a turning point, not only for those who work in those companies, but also for consumers. It seems difficult to win the global competition, and certain emerging countries, still producing the same car, except you do not want to flood the market with these cars that can no longer find relief in countries like ours that are no longer living the overwhelming industrial expansion and consumption. The competition is won, by what other people do not know yet, developing and producing new goods, innovative, maybe even help to reduce the impact environment, reduc consumption of scarce energy sources and manipulated by the few producers in the price, so even freeing from the shackles of various sheiks and oil companies.
What concerns us here is the analysis made by proponents of the agreement, which differs from that of non-signatories.
Berlusconi speaks of "innovative and understanding of an important investment in the country."
Marchionne already seen the next day and says "Now we'll start planned investment in the shortest possible time. Now, we must work to achieve the specific collective agreement for the joint venture which will allow the transfer of workers to the new company Chrysler "
Roberto Di Maulo , general secretary of Fismic ( petitioner ):" The agreement has a historical significance because it demonstrates the ability to maintain manufacturing industries to attract foreign investment. "" It is the modernized industrial relations system, creating the condition of the contract specific car. "
Maurizio Landini, Fiom (not petitioner), "shameful agreement. For the first time, you erase the fact of the existence of the national contract and affecting the rights of workers, preventing an organization, among other things, the most representative of the fund and not just Fiat, to have men and representations. "
attend the debate on TV, I heard Giuliano Cazzola (former head of CGIL, then in 2008 elected MP for the PDL - a great ideological leap - now Vice President of the Labour Commission of the Chamber and political adviser to the Minister Brunetta) speak of War "commercial" and law Fiat's defense, thus justifying the deal. In other words, when you are at war, it must defend itself by any means and we all know, the fewer troops (I will not say much) compared to the ultimate objective: victory. Therefore also revealed why the title of the post.
Well, first we find that the agreement was put in return for the investment, in other words, Fiat has made it clear: if the agreement passes invest in Italy, if not past investments in a country where what is provided for in me to do.
reasons I do not bat an eyelid, as we see quite a few years of emigration, not of workers (such as early last century), but the entrepreneurs, many of which are now in what is a weighing of the European Union , Romania, given the "better working conditions" (seen in the way they see it, that is, cost lower labor, less bureaucratic restrictions and impediments to trade unions).
The question is: how come you are allowed to countries that do not have the same standard of living and therefore different salary basis, but also different in terms of sensitivity and safety of workers to join a forum, such as Europe, which would had to align the standards of different countries, creating a union not only of law but also in reality?
Needless to watch and then blame China, if you can not answer these questions.
short, the business logic is that if I have to produce in a country where I have more constraints in terms of job security, bureaucracy and the work costs more or less gain, why not go to countries where there are no constraints or those are minor, such as lower labor costs, or fewer constraints, less cost, more useful. In the end, the same reasoning (for a second time bipartisan) that workers are called to refendum: A bad agreement is better than no agreement, which means no work, no salary, no food, so hungry. On the other hand
signature analysis, signature no agreement, we find that those who do not sign poses a different question: Fiat with the agreement, creates a specific contract is separate from the national contract, so any company could do the same and not refer to general rules valid for the entire country. More who does not sign the agreement can not be in union business representative in that reality, that the employees will be represented only by those who signed the agreements.
Here the doubt expressed in two questions:
1) because Fiat wants a specific contract is separate from the national one, in which it is expected that it will not be representative of the union did not sign, in other words an agreement that whoever does not sign non- can no longer contract and therefore will not exist in that company, whether a certain number of workers represented by the union to be recognized and excluded accedes;
2) because the union did not even agree on a certain proposed agreement advanced by the employer Work will not bother to sign it, with the consequence of being cut off by subsequent meetings and not being able to negotiate in that company?
short, it is clear that if the reasons for a company's competitiveness, economic development, investment, defense jobs are shared, do not appear as the ways in which you want to support.
In recent years, a certain latent disaffection for the unions, too often seen as a means of protection of the lazy, pretentious in requests.
certainly also to blame for some choices of political union. However, should always be kept in mind that whatever you have, at times, and is written down superfluous, appear necessary and obtainable only at great cost, not once you have more. This also applies to the freedom that is wasted and snubbed, only to be regretted when it was lost and trying to regain whatever the cost. Never forget the achievements by employees, just think of the working conditions in Italy, not even a century ago, that many years after the unification of Italy, which this year celebrates the 150th anniversary.
may seem excessive to remember the fascist period, but in those years the scheme, with the corporate establishment of order, in fact the end of the union, made a policy of public policy, as the ideology Corporate deny the inevitability of conflict of interests between employers and providers, eliminating the conflict for the law, as was said a supreme common interest: the public interest of the economy. For each job category was admitted to the legal recognition of only one trade union for both employers and workers. The union of employers and the providers of labor were opposed, then, the "corporation". The corporate unions, had legal personality under public law, legal representative of the profession. The state, to ensure the public purpose given to the unions reserved the power to revoke union leaders and exercised supervisory powers. After the fall of the fascist regime, were abolished corporate guilds and unions. The new unions were formed and there was the resumption of collective bargaining. Meanwhile I am giving you two link for those who wish to learn. They are dispense with history are in addition to the usual network wilkipedia for those who may desire and time to be an incentive to read and check the accuracy or otherwise of what is reported there.
Make this analysis could be useful to answer the question I ask and I ask myself: is it so important right to organize? The link provided on the definition of trade union rights Wilkipedia date, I report only the definition: "The right to organize focuses on the figure of the worker in terms of collective discipline in the study are therefore three main topics: trade unions, the strike and the contract collective work. "
Think now, what is happening in these years and the policy pursued by the government on the unions, the critique of the collective bargaining agreement made the issue Fiat and then you decide if there is any problem or all is well.
Every time you think about the sad events of the past and it is said that today the conditions are different. The problem is that some of the basic ideas are always the same and that's what worries me, because you can slide by the day, imperceptibly, to find himself where he thought he could not reach. Moreover
(link to carry Sole 24 ore) , in 2008 alone there was an agreement to regulate the trade union representatives, trade union confederations have signed. But today, for much, not good either, if it is true that Fiat says that foreign investors are discouraged to invest in Italy, because the plurality of players due to the fragmentation of trade union (ergo better one contact, perhaps, come to think , non-confrontational and the other part of the same opinion ... that is a trace analysis of past choices).
Let's leave aside the question of union and return to economic and industrial policies. Who supports the agreement says that it will be useful, even necessary, to win the global economic competition in the auto industry (which is why a specific contract). I have said before emigration of entrepreneurs towards certain countries, but the question is to be analyzed: the competition can only be overcome by regulating the work, reducing labor costs?
In short, the issue of competitiveness, it is only labor regulation and less conflict? certain choices are not subsidiaries of finance issues.
Who supports the choice of Fiat, it seems to suggest just this and the spin-off of Fiat and the division of auto industry than is indicated as the decisive solution, at least as stated by Marchionne: "Today is a point of arrival and departure ... to respond to significant changes taking place in the market could no longer continue to hold together the fields who do not have any characteristic economic and industrial policy ". In practice off has covered the auto industry, spun off from Iveco, FPT and CNH (tractors, trucks, etc.)..
is, however, doubt that such an operation after 120 years of history, Fiat (no spin-off) is also useful to make decisions faster in terms of disposals and reorganization of production, as well as interesting issues for non-industrial finance but, since the same day the title of the Fiat industrial spin-off was up 3.05% and 4.91% of Fiat SpA, and the sum of the prices of two securities was higher than that of pre spin-off unit price.
We know the funds are moving in a hurry and do not care workers, production and market of real estate, if you think that those who invested yesterday, increasing the odds that the second has not even considered the registrations in December these are decreased by 21.71% over the same month last year and the only market share of the Fiat group fell by 2% in a year (being at the 29.67%).
Where are the industrial issues, the design, new ideas, projects? Where is the research on new means of transport and alternative fuels? I admit to not being an expert, but in a time when the price of gasoline and diesel oil salt and has shot for no apparent reason and access to oil prices, why do not we talk about innovative technologies and alternative and does not show that the promised investments needed to achieve them.
In recent years there has been talk of electric cars, hydrogen to , provides links, even oils can be used instead of gasoline. It is not science fiction (see link on the messaggero.it and on a Community policy on the subject). Need an answer to see if those who work and directs companies in the auto industry sees the future through the eyes of myopic. If
content to recover profit margins and raise capital to do what it always looks for solutions, or if that really represent a turning point, not only for those who work in those companies, but also for consumers. It seems difficult to win the global competition, and certain emerging countries, still producing the same car, except you do not want to flood the market with these cars that can no longer find relief in countries like ours that are no longer living the overwhelming industrial expansion and consumption. The competition is won, by what other people do not know yet, developing and producing new goods, innovative, maybe even help to reduce the impact environment, reduc consumption of scarce energy sources and manipulated by the few producers in the price, so even freeing from the shackles of various sheiks and oil companies.
0 comments:
Post a Comment