Useless referendum, discomfort ignored

On the same topic:

The failure of the referendum on work shows us how the union and the entire opposition are struggling to gather the demands of workers, who have not responded to the referendum's call to arms. The problem, in my opinion, is that workers themselves are not aware of the problems that grip their careers and that lead to great dissatisfaction at work. The discussion in fact almost always focuses on the low level of wages, the high level of precariousness or the lack of respect for workers' rights, but these factors are not causes, but consequences. Consequences of an economy that does not innovate and is becoming too old and struggling to adapt to the needs of the contemporary world. The low participation in the referendum is indicative of a general disconnection of the center-left from the needs of people, from the needs of the "real country" . The battle against the Jobs Act, against precariousness and against poor safety at work are confirmation of this. The three questions were meant to act on what were considered three totems in the fight against the Jobs Act: the return of the right to compensation and reinstatement in the event of dismissal, the limitation of fixed-term contracts, and greater responsibility in large contracts. In reality, however, they would not have been relevant and, indeed, in some cases, they could have made things worse.

In particular, the attack on flexibility, from less randomness in labor processes to the possibility of hiring without a specific cause on a fixed-term basis, is actually counterproductive and unions should know this very well. Most studies show that greater flexibility in the labor market, up to a certain limit, is associated with a greater disposition towards economic growth. This is because a more flexible labor market increases the options available to entrepreneurs and workers, lowering the so-called "hidden costs", that is, the price to pay, be it in monetary or other terms, to leave one's job. For example, many workers are subject to non-compete agreements, often illegitimate, which limit mobility: if they decided to move, they would lose the possibility of working in another company in the same sector . These costs may also exist because of regulatory advantages, such as a permanent contract: when you decide to accept a permanent contract, the incentive to never leave that job will be very strong because it is unlikely that anyone will offer us that type of protection. Even if a potential new employer approaches us, by changing we would lose at least part of the benefits accumulated with seniority.

Likewise, a potential entrepreneur who wanted to try to bet on us would be forced to offer advantageous conditions, but also risky for him: how can I be sure that an employee I hire on a permanent basis will perform well in the future? He is not necessarily a slacker, but perhaps his skills do not fit with those required for the job. Today the employer is faced with this doubt and although this then translates into an advantage for the worker once he is hired, it is also a strong barrier that reduces trust between worker and employer and risks closing doors in the face of willing workers, so no entrepreneur feels like taking the risk. So, today, workers have a first real big problem: if they are not comfortable in the workplace, they have no alternative to leave. And this happens also, but not only, because of some protections for the workers themselves . It is no coincidence that the average length of service with a single employer in Italy is 140 months, a full 20 more than the EU average. We are more stable, but also less paid: according to a study on US data, those who changed jobs at least once between 2020 and 2023 saw their salary increase almost double compared to those who kept the same job. Thus, the poor incentives for mobility mean that salaries are lower, because no one takes the risk of hiring and making the market more dynamic. In a country where job mobility does not exist, it is not difficult to understand why workers are doing badly. And not because of the issues on which we voted a few days ago .

More on these topics: