Intervista ad Aris Accornero
“Il vecchio segretario era scettico su un’unità sindacale portata avanti sull’onda dell’entusiasmo ma senza basi solide”
di Enrico Galantini
Agostino Novella
http://www.rassegna.it/articoli/2010/04/29/61800/quello-scontro-tra-novella-e-lama
Luciano Lama
The year 1970 is a complicated, characterized by a real tangle of events. In politics, the ups and downs through the center, the crisis and then the government monochrome dc. In society, with the launch of the Workers' Statute, Law 300, which was promulgated on May 20. In the union, union with the process of unity, with the first unit in May 1 square S. Giovanni in Rome, with acceleration and braking that the project suffers. Aris Accornero then working in the CGIL, very closely with the Secretary-General Agostino Novella (now it seems the staff), dealing with the press, that the Confederation (to him we owe the season brighter for Notebooks Review Auditors) but also of the unit: in those years was also editor of the Union, just promoted from the CGIL, CISL and UIL. Meet Professor Accornero to speak, forty years later, of that year for trade union unity and the Workers' Statute. But to do our part conversation with a small step back last year, the "legendary" 1969, the year with the warm autumn has changed the world of work and society of our country, year in which the theme of unity suddenly became a priority agenda union.
The 1969 season for the unions is also a congress. What CGIL held in Genoa in June and is the first among the confederations. The theme of unity is at the heart of the debate. Accornero live throughout the event from within, together with Renzo Rosso, extends both the report and the conclusions of Agostino Novella, the secretary general will leave a few months after the CGIL. "There were great expectations from the organization, with fears and hopes. The node was not so true unity: News in truth was skeptical but within the confederation and out, in the factories, the pressure was very strong and the rest of the process was andato avanti proprio su impulso della stessa Cgil. No, il nodo di quel congresso fu il problema delle incompatibilità”. Le incompatibilità erano una sorta di preliminare all’unità, la prova del nove della volontà delle confederazioni di andare oltre le appartenenze, sia politiche (meglio: partitiche) sia istituzionali, per costruire un sindacato davvero unito. “Il passaggio delle incompatibilità – spiega Accornero – era ritenuta la prova vera per la Cgil, in quanto più politica: più politica nei partiti, più politica in Parlamento – la Cgil aveva in Parlamento più rappresentanti che la Cisl e la Uil messe insieme. Siccome poi i metalmeccanici premevano uniti per questa che sembrava una scelta emblematica, la Cgil era pressata anche da dentro”. C’erano due diversi tipi di incompatibilità: quella relativa alle cariche pubbliche, e su questo terreno già Foa e Trentin avevano dato l’esempio dimettendosi dal Parlamento; e quella relativa alle cariche politiche. Due tipi di incompatibilità evidentemente apparentati ma che venivano vissuti dal segretario generale della Cgil in modo del tutto distinto. “Novella non aveva nessun problema a dimettersi da parlamentare – ricorda Accornero –. Non accettava però di doversi dimettere dall’Ufficio politico del Pci e di perdere così la sua carica politica. Non ne capiva il perché”.
Rassegna Ma perché questo rifiuto?
Accornero I have worked extensively with him. News was first and foremost a politician, like many of his generation, and was a true communist. By coincidence did the union, and he did very well, but this was because the party sent him to the CGIL. He could do just as well the chairman of the House or the president of the League of cooperatives. He had very clear awareness of what it was that organization called the Italian Communist Party. It did not want to lose his job the Political Bureau, which he considered no less - perhaps more - important than the general secretary of the CGIL. In the 13 years of management of the federal government had become a great trade unionist, ma non voleva assolutamente rinunciare alla sua posizione politica. Io non so se, dicendo questo, ne sto parlando bene o male, ma bisogna mettersi dal suo punto di vista.
Rassegna Dicevi prima che Novella era comunque scettico sull’unità…
Accornero Sì, e anche per questo la relazione al congresso era lunga e non all’altezza della situazione: girava intorno alla questione, dava un colpo al cerchio e uno alla botte, ma nella sostanza frenava – del resto, o dicevi sì alle incompatibilità senza farla tanto lunga, oppure, specie se cercavi di distinguere, ti accusavano di non volere niente. Renzo e io avevamo provato ad “aprire” di più, ma Novella ci fece cambiare due or three times what we had written. The fact was that he (and not only to him) did not seem clear that they wanted those who wanted to trade union unity. On this he was uncompromising. He said, you want to trade union unity? All right. But how? There are the conditions? You can venture on a path without such guarantees?
short review according to the union was against it. How was against the Communist Party?
Accornero on this was really the party line. And his conviction was seen as being burdened by the trade union unity in Fiom, Fim and Uilm that gave birth soon after the flm. He did not like what was happening. I do not think trade union unity, which is not wanted, but knew it was not factually possible. And today I must say that was a good prophet. One thing that is hurled, talking to us, it was the parity. CGIL could not conceive how to have the same weight of the UIL.
Review also consider cultural differences between CGIL, CISL and UIL?
Accornero was very impressed, as indeed I was, too, by the sudden turn and a bit 'easy Storti, who had understood that in the CISL was winning the thrust unit. Storti When Congress spoke of "power against power" - which in itself means nothing, but because of the power CISL never spoke ... -, io stesso scrissi che ormai era andata, visto che avevano dovuto cambiare linguaggio e il cambiamento del linguaggio è quasi più importante del cambiamento della linea. Ma la Uil la vedeva come il fumo negli occhi. Non si fidava di nessuno dei suoi dirigenti. Nella Uil all’epoca c’erano repubblicani, socialdemocratici e socialisti. Novella aveva ben presente gli esiti disastrosi della recente fusione socialista, dalla quale avevano perso entrambi i partiti.
Rassegna Ma, nonostante i dubbi del segretario generale, il congresso voleva l’unità...
Accornero La sua posizione non reggeva. Lui se ne rese conto. L’idea unitaria era più forte. E del resto di unità era facilissimo parlare con entusiasmo and rhetoric, as he did at that conference Foa. "Learning to swim is not necessary to stay on the beach but jump into the water," said Foa, sentence received by a standing ovation, but the real problems were ignored. After the second day of debate, the evening News had a very hard battle with Luciano Lama. Who wanted to fight Renzo Rosso and I (he was his secretary) assistessimo, embarrassed. News Lama told that the issue of incompatibility had been placed against him and, above all, it was of great illusions drive: not enough to cite the union and then only by abandoning all the moorings. It was a very difficult thing for which we took so much more tempo. Insistette molto sul tempo.
Rassegna Ma il congresso ormai andava in un’altra direzione...
Accornero Novella ci lasciò allibiti: non voleva fare le conclusioni. Voleva andarsene, visto come andavano le cose. Renzo si trattenne con lui per calmarlo. Poi scrivemmo delle conclusioni molto diverse dalla relazione. Più di apertura. E relativamente brevi. Lavorammo tutta la notte e all’ora di colazione gliele facemmo leggere. Non so se abbia dormito quella notte. Il nostro testo comunque lo convinse. Ma era ancora troppo sconvolto e, davanti ai congressisti, lo lesse malissimo. Le conclusioni però vennero accolte da un’ovazione: in qualche modo, seppure in zona Cesarini, questo gli evitò di perdere Congress. Many thought that Novell had been convinced, but a few months later, when the Board voted incompatibilities, resigned to avoid having to resign the Political Bureau of the Communist Party. It was a serious person.
Review Somehow he was overwhelmed by the events ...
Accornero The tangle of things that have happened in that period was very deadly. Looking back now, it seems to me that everything was driven by the enthusiasm and that there were very few people who reflect. The debate in the CGIL and CISL was very little down to earth. Just think of the role of counsel. They were union or not? And what role did exactly?
Review Advice prefigured un sindacato diverso, un sindacato unitario, no?
Accornero All’epoca c’era una netta divisione tra Trentin e Garavini. I consigli erano il sindacato o ci voleva ancora il sindacato nelle fabbriche? Secondo Garavini, e all’epoca anche secondo me, i consigli non erano il sindacato. I consigli erano la nuova commissione interna, che non era mai stata il sindacato. Il sindacato doveva avere la sua organizzazione, le sezioni sindacali occorrevano veramente. I consigli di fabbrica erano la rappresentanza del lavoro, erano i lavoratori. E con ciò stesso si dice che erano il sindacato ma anche che non lo erano. Del resto non è mai stata data una definizione di ciò che erano i consigli di fabbrica. Non c’è nessun testo che dicesse il loro ruolo.
Rassegna E dire che i sindacati non hanno mai lesinato sullo scrivere documenti...
Accornero Questa mancata definizione è stata poi risolta sussumendo la lettura che ne diede lo Statuto dei lavoratori. È lo Statuto che ha salvato capra e cavoli, dicendo che nelle fabbriche c’era la rappresentanza sindacale aziendale. Poi lo si è chiamato consiglio di fabbrica e lo si è eletto su lista bianca (ma anche questo dice quanto poco sindacale fosse). Gli stessi sindacati riluttavano a far proprio quello strumento. Soprattutto la Cisl e la Uil, che erano meno presenti in fabbrica e avrebbero voluto, soprattutto la Cisl, un vero sindacato. Figuriamoci se volevano che quello fosse il sindacato: ma se lo votavi su scheda bianca, come faceva a essere il sindacato? È uno di quei nodi italiani in cui l’aspetto normativo, come sempre ambiguo, scivoloso o indefinito, è stato risolto nella prassi. Con lo Statuto c’è stata un’accettazione compromissoria della definizione. E una volta che accetti la definizione, in generale accetti anche la cosa.
Rassegna A proposito di Statuto, non fu facile intervenire per legge su quelle materie, no?
Accornero Nelle fabbriche, all’epoca, si stava proprio male. E come ricordava Gino Giugni, che all’epoca faceva anche l’avvocato, se difendevi i lavoratori, nelle cause di lavoro era impossibile vincere . Tanto che lo stesso Giugni tre anni dopo scrisse la riforma del processo del lavoro. La situazione richiedeva un intervento. Qui intervenne il partito socialista. Con Nenni e con Brodolini. Che dovettero superare le resistenze non solo del Pci ma anche, almeno all’inizio, degli stessi sindacati. In Parlamento c’erano dei progetti di legge ma, come ho scritto più volte con un po’ di cattiveria, erano tutti più o meno uguali: “Articolo 1. La Costituzione si applica anche nelle fabbriche”. Che era poi la vecchia idea di Di Vittorio: la tutela, dall’alto della legge, del lavoratore come persona. La domanda vera a cui doveva rispondere una legge, però, era: chi è che difende il lavoratore? Questa è la domanda pragmatica School of Wisconsin, where he studied Giugni (and where I have been), this is the legacy of Selig Perlman: the problem is all there. There is someone who defends or not? The statute was this. The state was the union. The statute was to promote a subject adequate to protect workers, because even with thirty thousand a law obligations would be enough to change things at the factory.
Review You knew at first hand the factory in 50 years. And then you've studied for many years as a sociologist. How to change the factory with the statute?
Accornero The statute gives a big breath to the employee as a person in general, although this is not era il fine specifico della legge. I consigli ottengono un riconoscimento di cui all’epoca avrebbero anche fatto a meno – il rapporto di forza era talmente favorevole che non sembrava necessaria una legge perché i consigli potessero difendere i lavoratori. Il meccanismo che garantì una svolta è stato l’articolo 28, quello che sanzionava i comportamenti antisindacali. Questo articolo, che all’inizio nessuno sapeva usare, fece sì che si poteva far rimangiare al padrone quello che stava facendo, lo si poteva fermare. Questo, prima dell’articolo 28, era impensabile. Il sindacato, per ottenere lo stesso effetto, doveva fare scioperi notevoli. Ma non li avrebbe mai fatti per un caso singolo. Prendi quello what happened to me when I was fired in retaliation to the Riv, my department went on strike, not the factory ...
Having a tool that allows you to stop the master was the key weapon. And it was inherent to the paradigm of a weapon on the status of equal trade union promotion. " To me that was the final step and really legitimized the Statute. The same Giugni wrote that no one expected that these two lines of Article 28 had such a binding nature on the employers' behavior.
Review of returning to the unit. Why not work?
Accornero On the one hand neither the DC nor the Communist Party wanted. They did not believe, even before they did not want that CGIL, CISL and could get along. Imagine being together. There was strong interest and a matter of prestige (the fear of not having "their" union, the fear of losing the support of many activists, not to have more hands at work: it was a huge loss) but There was also a sincere disbelief: how was it possible that while the Communists and Christian Democrats in parliament argued hard every day, go in the union of love and in agreement? But the problems were not only certain political parties. Even in the confederations there were big problems.
Review How many really believed in the union to the possibility unity?
Accornero I think at least half of the leadership of the unions did not believe it. Leadership in the UIL this percentage rose to 70-80 per cent: they lived together three parties in a trade union and the life was already impossible. CGIL, CISL and the leadership would have some interesting sociological study, but unfortunately there is not. For example, they agree more categories or horizontal structures? It would seem that they agree more categories. But not all. Those who did not agree they were so very strong. The laborers, for example, the postal and telegraphic's electric all situations many connotations. Metalworkers were pulling. And the authorities, most politicians were not necessarily convinced. Sure, there were areas and cities with more extreme situations, others less. The employees' side, I think they had an idea vaguely useful operation. Even here, however, no paean, if anything, the consciousness of what was more rational to have only one representative instead of three ...
you direct Judicial Review, the magazine unit. How was that experience?
Accornero was a beautiful magazine. But it was very tiring experience. How many difficulties for an article, discuss a dummy, prepare a summary. Besides, the confederations and they have very different cultures. There were and are very different interests, even careers. Just think about today. The political divisions of the past are gone, unions have become autonomous from political parties and even all of them refer to the Democratic Party. This has helped in any way the trade union unity? No. He was right
News.
0 comments:
Post a Comment