The major feeling after the signature of the separate agreement, and the series of declarations which followed, praising its modernism or flaying the union divide it created, is that the coup on industrial relations by the signatory social partners raises many questions over its enforcement. Yet, one of the objectives of the conventional system it is supposed to replace, the one introduced by Protocol Ciampi of July 23, 1993 (the result of major dialogue between the government and the social partners), was, among others, to structure the conventional system. The application of this system implied that it had to be shared by the main confederations because, in Italy, neither representativeness (in the private sector at least), nor the link between negotiation levels are supervised by law. The objectives of the agreement signed in January (see our dispatch No. 090080), even though it is a tripartite agreement, are much less ambitious. It differs from the 1993 agreement, not only because the government only funds company negotiation and only takes care of its hobbyhorse of the moment – public employment – but mostly because the most representative union, the CGIL, didn’t sign it… which makes its legal and union future rather uncertain.
ture the conventional system. The application of this system implied that it had to be shared by the main confederations because, in Italy, neither representativeness (in the private sector at least), nor the link between negotiation levels are supervised by law. The objectives of the agreement signed in January (see our dispatch No. 090080), even though it is a tripartite agreement, are much less ambitious. It differs from the 1993 agreement, not only because the government only funds company
…Do you have information to share with us?