It 'appeared a few days ago an article signed by the Secretary of Femca of Brescia in the newspaper of the CISL. Makes an analysis and give an opinion on the choice of Filctem CGIL and UIL Uilcem not to sign the agreement for the sale of Brescia Caffaro AUTHORITIES extraordinary.
It 'good to clarify some aspects in this article that distort the context in which decisions have been taken not with light.
On March 3 at the Confederation of Brescia ended the confrontation with the new property can, difficult because a meeting took place in the absence of a qualified plan of action on the web via Milan. Plan submitted to the relevant ministry but that the union has never seen.
Because we wanted to know? to assess whether the commitment of the new property was related to the period of 24 months already provided for by law and not negotiable, or whether, as we hope, the company really intends to invest long term in Brescia.
In this particular story that sees a solution where industrial pollution is consistently insists, contained in national and reclamation plans for the new property which has no responsibility.
It was also proposed taking only part of the staff (52 employees), which has cast doubt on the ability to pursue sound management of the establishment, not only in terms of production, but management of all activities related facilities. (Recall that the Caffaro is classified high risk).
At the end of the morning was convened a meeting with employees, which is useful to discuss how we would continue the negotiations in that forum and there is already the differences in approach between those who believed there were no conditions to sign and who was believed to be appropriate. (The Femca actually had already decided a long time).
The USW and the assembly agreed on the opportunity to decide in relation to the sun and internal representations in the process of vote the union structures are out of the room.
voted 36 in favor of signing the agreement, 18 against and three abstained, thereby giving a mandate to the RSU to sign the agreement. (So \u200b\u200bit's not 75%)
The signature of the MSW was sufficient to prevent what we had been raised, namely, in the absence of agreement the company would be bankrupt. In negotiations as a responsibility that falls on this review, we believe improperly. In fact, impossible to choose, take it or leave, either that or nothing. As a result of this constraint can then make statements such as improper to have saved at least 52 jobs, rather than of anything .... but none of us, given the particular characteristics of an argument given to the union table with these procedures prescribed by law , you had dreamed of playing with the skin of people.
We just did our job of union members.
E 'unacceptable then delivered to the public and debate the role of trade union representation compared with this particular story. What would be sent "bypassed" by Uilcem if our RSU has signed an agreement while he was known to employees that the facility would not sign? exercise in democracy that we violated? we believe that it acted in full transparency and consistency with respect to our statements.
insisted the secretary of Femca stating that the accused would "be reduced to the notary of the masters" while the statement was given to the ways in which these negotiations take place, that negotiations are not just a take it or leave . We have not moved a comma from the text of an agreement originally proposed, if not for the constraints of organization of work, undertaken from 46 to 52. (But it was an oversight by the buyer).
What we think is that by virtue of validity of the signature alone was enough of MSW, MSW of all, the signing of Femca was not necessary and would have avoided many instrumental statements the next day.
The debate should focus on the need to reform the powers of the union in regard to the sale of assets under administration in order to avoid becoming commissioner ALL, notaries.
In this story there are heroes, saviors of the job, but union members with equipment removed, and the choice that has made signing the agreement Femca is legitimate but simply inappropriate.
(for the reading of that Article just click on the word in the first line of this text)
0 comments:
Post a Comment