Another week has passed, and yet another political clash, if it really was such and such a serious one, seems to have taken place. On the one hand, Matteo Salvini, secretary of the League, deputy prime minister, and minister of Infrastructure and Transport, on the other Maurizio Landini, trade unionist and general secretary of the CGIL, for many, but not for all, an alternative or perhaps competing expression of the Democratic Party .
That it was the thought of those who, probably in a specious manner, necessarily intended to "colour" an intervention of social importance which, considered in and of itself, seemed to have little or nothing political, that is, simply the opportunity to regain visibility lost, by a minister of the current majority, probably, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The protagonisms do not always, indeed almost never, appear to be useful, and rather can become, on the contrary, triggers for the loss of that same consensus for those who have always made a point of that consensus (forgive the inevitable pun). flag.
Beyond the media clash, therefore, two aspects, rather than the subjective expressions of the confrontation, have emerged: the extension of the right to strike and the consistency of its potential limitation, and the opportunity, anything but political, to a "precept" issued from above by virtue of which last Friday's strike was subject to a significant time limitation. Whether it was necessary, or even just appropriate, or not necessary, to resort to an extraordinary administrative measure introduced into the Italian legal system in order to combine the right to strike with every other right of enjoyment of the person, both constitutionally guaranteed, is not easy to argue . In fact, the exercise of every right should be guaranteed with the least possible compression of the equally important one that acts as a counterweight to it. What probably appears to be "inappropriate" is not so much the pure and simple time limitation of the strike, but rather the "tone" with which the Authority, personified by Matteo Salvini, deemed it necessary to intervene in the circumstance and which, almost inevitably, seems to have triggered the fuse of a clash which, even if only apparently, pitted the workers against each other, however expressing their disappointment towards a maneuver which was disappointing for them and which, in all likelihood, they would have wished seek a constructive dialogue with the highest expressions of the central government, and that central government itself.
First of all, because, if we consider it carefully, the exercise of the right to strike consists precisely in the collective abstention of workers from carrying out the service in order to advance their claim for the achievement of the protection of a series of rights. Therefore, because, although the strike is certainly a constitutionally guaranteed right, the provisions of article 40 of the Constitution are clear in expressly providing that the same "right to strike is exercised within the framework of the laws that regulate it". Furthermore, because, on a jurisprudential level, the Court of Cassation, in its Labor Section, with its own ruling, since 2004, had had the opportunity to maintain, barring an error, not only that "the right to strike" was recognized directly by Article 40 of the Constitution to all workers, but also that that same right did not appear to encounter "limits other than those of the historical-social ratio that justifies it and the inviolability of other constitutionally guaranteed rights or interests". Finally, because, in any case, they could not constitute, conversely, limits to the exercise of the right to strike, mere assessments relating to the foundation, reasonableness or importance of the objectives being pursued.
Saying it differently: was it really necessary to go and look for the media "clash" of political connotation in relation to a demonstration which, otherwise, and very probably, would have returned to serene normality? Can the incident be characterized as a dispute of a political nature between the government majority and opposition? And if this had truly been the consistency of that specific circumstance, what would have been the position of the central power? The questions, far from obvious, are not negligible in their outcomes, because, even if we consider and grant everything, the final impression that emerges seems to be that of seeking a political dispute within of a context in which the protagonist should only and exclusively have been the Workers' People. Even more so when Maurizio Landini, in the circumstance, was the expression of around sixty thousand workers (which are far from few) who were motivated by the intention of expressing their grievances towards a maneuver which they perceived as not very useful for improving their conditions. And even more so when, on that same occasion, the Minister of Transport, despite expressing on an exquisitely technical-legal level an extremely correct concept in the attempt to balance opposing rights (that of striking and that of the peaceful use of essential services), probably seems to have done so in an inappropriate manner, generating a "clash" (perhaps even in some ways unconscious) between the ministry of which it appears to be a subjective expression and an extremely large group of workers, thus "playing the game" (the hypothesis is only argumentative clearly) of a left that was essentially absent in the context considered due to neither Giuseppe Conte nor Elly Schlein having been present in the square during the strike. Probably, the only one who had to intervene on the occasion of that strike, and with reassuring tones, should have been Giorgia Meloni, as an expression of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and therefore of the Government, because if it is true, as it is true, that for Piero Calamandrei, the strike was a "stimulator of social improvement" and for Giuseppe Pera, that same right was an "instrument of progressive social elevation of work", then, it is equally true that, precisely because of the social function of the strike, the expression maxim of the government majority, in the person of Giorgia Meloni, should have made its closeness felt to the many workers who, even regardless of the union they belong to, felt the need to express their discontent, thus eliminating any dispute created between the secretary of the CGIL and the Minister of Transport, who seem to have had little to do with the specific needs of the many workers who attended, but rather, on the contrary, diverted attention from the aims of the street demonstration in which the only protagonist should have been the People.
Giuseppina Di Salvatore
(Lawyer – Nuoro)
