This is a risk that society has to recognize. After that, what does this person find on the job market? There is a much greater risk of unemployment than for people hired on a permanent basis. A young person is hired once with a temporary contract, then again, then a third time. Let's take young people, who are the first victims of precariety. That is, we say to the companies: do you need to hire for up to one year? Fine, you can do that without any bureaucratic obligation. So not only did we not abolish temporary contracts, but we abolished the «reason» for the first temporary contract. But the government cannot accept the viewpoint of the companies alone, it has to take account of that of the workers as well, and that, more in general, of the entire country, and not only in the short term. The law does not eliminate these contracts, if anything it valorizes them. to project contractors, from temporary work to part time. Ĭompanies have a thousand good reasons for wanting flexibility: from freelancing with V.A.T. Perhaps the principle is too strict, from the companies' viewpoint. What we are saying is: if you want an independent collaboration, it must be just that, and must not hide a subordinate relationship in the same way, if you hire a collaborator for a project, there must really be a project. Also because the salesperson, who is effectively subordinate and not an independent worker, will end up accepting anything just to keep the job. Take the case of a salesperson hired as an independent worker with V.A.T., but who is made to work the hours of a dependent employee with mechanisms that limit any freedom. We have not reduced flexibility, but we have made it more difficult to use it improperly. We intended, however, to enact a double corrective action, on both aspects of the labor market. Your survey only takes into consideration incoming flexibility and not outgoing flexibility as well. But I also have to stress a second point. So to judge it, you should consider it as a whole, placing it in the proper perspective, because it cannot give immediate results. Moreover, it is necessary to consider that this is not a reform to combat the recession - other policies are needed for that - but to gain a firm grip on the recovery as soon as it starts. It is not a reform in separate pieces, but considers the entire work life of a person. There is skepticism about the potential results of the reform in other parts of Italy, as we have seen elsewhere in the press. But the reform is built on a number of elements».
«Your sample was not representative because it was based on companies mainly based in the northern regions and you only considered one aspect of the labor market reform. «That is Pa norama's conclusion » she answers calmly. Minister Elsa Fornero, did you see your final score on the survey Panorama launched last week? They flunked it: would you care to comment?
0 kommentar(er)
