The general strike of CGIL and UIL does not seem, not even to the members themselves, too good a choice and risks failing as much as that of 10 December last year. Without detracting from the reasons for the protest – wage increases, pension reform, more stable employment contracts, abolition of the relocation of companies – it is clearly perceived how disaffection towards trade unions and their facade mobilizations is mounting: they invite us to strike against a government that does not care about the most fragile social categories, but the impression is that even they do not take much care to protect them.
They call us to the streets because they are indignant that the government has not summoned them before setting up the fiscal maneuver at the end of the year, but they do not realize that the world of work is also indignant with them because they no longer feel represented. The deafness of governments towards the concrete demands of us workers is also the consequence of their indolence, of the condescension shown by them on several occasions when they sat down at the negotiating table, but their voice was not heard. is that the people have now nicknamed them “Ready signature”.
As far as we are concerned, we clearly keep the memory of the strike of 9 December last year, which they proudly proclaimed after that, in spite of all our requests, they had agreed to the launch of an inauspicious supplementary contract that tangibly demeaned the professionalism of the teacher. A difference, compared to that December 9, 2020, is that in December 2021 there was a fracture (how severe it is not yet known) within the so-called “Triple”.
Another difference is that today, in the name of the rules on the objective rarefaction of the strike, not all categories of professionals who wish to do so will be able to protest (and they know it very well): in fact, those who work in the service sector will be left out. postal, environmental hygiene, education. This all-inclusive strike does not convince us at all, it actually gives us a feeling of yet another mockery: we will consider it differently, perhaps, if those who announce it in almost unified networks, in addition to picking up the microphone, take the real situation to heart of those who pay the registration fee monthly.
These reflections of ours, it should be clarified, have as their object this specific strike, not the strike itself, a right enshrined in the Constitution; although in the exercise of this right, from 1990 to today, rather stringent limitations have intervened, it remains for us an important instrument of complaint, of dissent, of struggle.