In terms of union representation, what have been the most important changes in recent years at the legislative level?
Contrary to many other branches of our law, which too often see a legislative activity overflowing in quantity, but poor quality and clarity, our trade union law is characterized by a legislative intervention that is prestigious in terms of sources, but modest in quantitative terms, being governed by two articles of the Constitution and the 40 articles of the law n. 300 of 1970, better known as the Workers' Statute. Article 39 of the Constitution, according to which trade unions, as registered entities endowed with legal status, should have constituted, in proportion to the number of their members, a unitary representation of workers able to enter into collective agreements valid for the whole category, has never been implemented in terms of legislation. So today we find ourselves with trade unions that, despite the undoubted social and political importance, are legally unrecognized associations that may be present in the workplace as intermediaries for representation in the union-corporate dialogue, essentially as organizations of each single union formed on an equal basis and regardless of the number of members, according to the decision of the provincial head offices.
This made us doubt the existence of a true trade union democracy, so much so that today unified union representatives are being tested, dictated not by legislative norms but by inter-confederal trade union protocols, composed of members directly elected by the workers of the single productive units.
So, parliament has worked little, at least for the matter of trade union law?
Yes, we can say that. But, where the legislator is missing, it is inevitably replaced by jurisprudence. In this matter, in fact, it is particularly important to refer to the most recent judgments of the Appeals Court and the judges of merit.
How much influence does the agreement between the parties play on legislative choices today?
The so-called consultation is not foreseen by the law but it is a historical result of the political influence that the unions have increasingly assumed. The situation that has been in front of our eyes for several decades is in many ways original: the union does not want the legislator to regulate its institutional activity, thus leaving the constitutional provision of article 39 unapplied, but claims to intervene on the decisions of the parliament and the government that do not directly concern union matters.
In the new scenario characterized by an extreme fragmentation of the types of workers, is the concept of collective interest still strong?
Corporatism has been superseded and classism is perhaps going out of fashion. But the spirit of connection is always alive, of course. Collective interests are still there. But it is more difficult to organize them in self-employment and para-subordinate work relationships.
The multiplication of the types of contracts also involves a modification of the organizational models of the unions.
How much does the lack of a trade union protection network affect the situation of the para-subordinate worker?
The para-subordinate worker, as well as the subordinate worker in an age that requires greater flexibility, needs not only - or perhaps not so much - trade union protection - as social protection. A social protection that cannot be imposed only on companies, made up of social safety nets that compensate for the lesser guarantees of para-subordinate work as well as the greater flexibility of employees.
