Anyone who has a handicapped person in their family is bound to measure the attention that the State pays to the protection of the handicapped, and how in times of crisis even these unfortunate fellow citizens of ours have been struck by the ax of savings.
Even the major unions, on the occasion of the recent renewal of the CCNL for chemicals, have contributed to worsening the conditions of subjects in serious difficulty, not knowing how to oppose a valid bulwark to the industrialists' claim to ask workers for programming, a year in advance, future medical follow-up needs. As if the management of health emergencies, or more simply the need to be able to pay the utmost attention, for a few hours, to the joint in difficulty rather than to the needs of the Company, were somehow programmable.
Yet the law 104/92 adequately regulates the rules to be able to have permits for the real needs of the handicapped. Furthermore, in the last few years the ruling n. 16 of 10 June 2008 of the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Policies, and subsequently circular letter no. 25/I/0016754 of the same Ministry, restricted the methods of using them.
At this point a few questions arise:
What induces the leaders of the major Italian trade unions to innovate in such a drastic and restrictive way, with respect to the current national law, the use of permits to assist family members in serious difficulty?
What makes those who have the protection of workers' rights in their mandate restrict so drastically (and in a practically unfeasible way) the methods of using the permits of law 104, in contractual provisions renewed so quickly even before their natural expiry?
What are the real motivations of these trade unionists who have already abundantly demonstrated interests other than the protection of workers (allowing companies with flourishing balance sheets to pay large dividends to their shareholders by placing the costs of the mobility of workers employed in the sector at the expense of the community? drug, the only one of all the industrial sectors to close with an increase of 2.8% a year in which the industrial crisis marked a – 18.7%)?
&n
