There is a phrase that Pasolini, it ignores the reason, I am reminded every time I see I see the traffic of Athens, or throw garbage undifferentiated in the bin, or when I turn the light antiecologica the apartment where I live. The Friulian poet said: "I believe in progress, what they believe is not development." It is difficult nowadays to capture the nuances of this difference, especially since most of the mass media has served up in recent years the concepts of development and productivity values \u200b\u200bas not only positive, but positive overall, epistemological. Something that is so positive that it can not be questioned. Well, at a time when everything seems to change (or at least can be questioned) I hear that the Law 626 on occupational safety is something that can do without, and that "certain privileges" (sic) should make room for the market, otherwise we would have the privileges, but we would not the factory.
university we had a whole lesson on those "certain privileges." In the end, steriel in his historical analysis, it was simply called Workers' Statute and, believe me they did study what was owed. For the republican bureaucracy, it is the parliamentary law No 300/1970, and the father of this new law called Giacomo Brodolini, a socialist reformer whose chronicles contemporary should remember the name most often. The law went "Regulations on the protection of freedom and dignity of workers, freedom of association and of trade union in the workplace and regulations on employment. "Unfortunately, I think, this law took the form of a measure" left "because of its natural fruit history, which began in autumn of 1969 hot . That series of strikes (union or not) shocked Italy, and even lived his hyperbole stragista in the attack in Piazza Fontana. But as I said, this is not the point. The important thing is to focus on the words. And this point of view, it is important to ask whether the trade union freedom or activity to be put at risk in Italy. In fact, adding, unfortunately, I wonder whether it is in endanger the holder of the first part of the law, namely the "freedom" (in general) and the "dignity" of employees.
In three months, the Fiat, the company that represented more than any other has, incredibly, and once again, concentration changes of this country, has placed the problem of the Statute of Workers. In June, while the counting was underway in Pomigliano the referendum, has been afforded an ultimatum: either get a majority in the Bulgarian business plan or we would be forced to shift production and exit permanently from Confindustria, which does not represent us. The majority, who also was there, but not Bulgarian, did not arrive. When dignity is opposed to a simple worker productivity is the calculation of interest in the game: either you're on my terms or I go to those who ask less of you. And so it was.
Finally, the case history of the last day of the strike of Melfi, also Fiat factory, where better than the other times he has witnessed the spectacle of confrontation, in which some unions maintained their positions at the expense of a company that For the first time in several years, decided to dismiss workers, trade unionists.
Controversy on the merits of the newspapers are full, and not worth dwelling here. But one thing I wonder: how do you interpret one of the most grandi aziende italiane, il concetto di Progresso? Progresso della dignità umana, o Produttività? I concetti sono equiparabili, non c’è nessun dubbio, ma quale ha la prevalenza nel mondo globalizzato? Vogliamo rifarci ai valori del mercatismo tout court (termine caro al ministro Tremonti) oppure ci vogliamo riprendere il senso di un’economia occidentale che prima o poi dovrà rimettere l’Uomo al suo centro?
In ogni caso, io ho ancora in mente Pasolini. Ma non quello del progresso e dello sviluppo. Preferisco quello del film “Teorema”, un film che visto a diciannove anni mi ha fatto star male per tre giorni. Alla fine (e nel prologo) del film, un grande Massimo Girotti era un industriale che donava his factory to his workers. It was then the sign of revenge on the Marxist capitalism, and perhaps this is completely anachronistic.
Today, out of ideology, does not serve the working properties of the means of production, serving only their dignity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment