A-Infos (en) Italy, FDCA, Cantiere #45 - School and Research: Why This Contract Should Not Have Been Signed - Alessandro Granata Seixas (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The renewal of the 2025-2027 National Education and Research Contract 
was presented as a positive outcome, almost a demonstration of union 
responsibility in difficult times. Yet, behind the rhetoric of the 
"necessary signature," a fundamental political question remains: was 
this really the best that could be achieved for over a million school, 
university, and research workers? ---- For a segment of the union 
community, the answer is no. The alternative Radici group within the 
FLC-CGIL voted strongly against the preliminary agreement at the General 
Assembly, calling it a weak and insufficient result. This position does 
not arise from ideological maximalism, but from a concrete assessment of 
the wage situation, the balance of power, and the very function of a 
union organization.
The crux of the matter is simple: the contract does not recover lost 
wages. The expected increases are around 6% over the three-year period, 
while inflation accumulated in previous years has eroded purchasing 
power by approximately 11%. In practice, workers will continue to earn 
less than before in real terms.
Yet the decision was made to sign the agreement quickly, without 
building a true national mobilization. No general strike across the 
sector, no mass campaign in the workplace, no widespread national 
assembly of the RSU (union unions). The negotiations took place almost 
entirely within the technical tables, while the sector essentially 
remained a spectator.
But then the question becomes inevitable: what's the point of being the 
largest school union if you're unable to use that organized power to 
secure better conditions?
A large union shouldn't limit itself to managing existing conditions or 
certifying wage cuts. It should be able to build power relations. It 
should be able to transform widespread discontent into collective 
initiative. It should be able to say no when the conditions imposed are 
insufficient.
The problem isn't just economic. It's political and strategic.
In recent years, schools and universities have suffered progressive 
material and symbolic impoverishment. Salaries in this sector are now 
among the lowest in the public sector, despite the high level of 
qualifications required. ATA staff are near poverty wages, while 
teachers and researchers are steadily increasing their gap with other 
public sectors.
Meanwhile, profound transformations are taking place: regionalization, 
corporatization, rewards, territorial fragmentation, and the entry of 
private providers into public schools. The national contract is 
gradually being eroded, replaced by local and competitive approaches 
that weaken collective rights.
In this context, quickly signing a weak preliminary agreement risks 
having a specific purpose: normalizing the idea that schools should 
continue to lose ground without putting up real resistance.
Yet the context could have allowed for another path. The government is 
experiencing political and social difficulties. Protests against reforms 
affecting schools, universities, and public administration are growing. 
Precisely for this reason, those opposed to the signing argue, it would 
have been time to launch a season of real mobilization: strikes, 
assemblies, coordination between sectors, and the construction of local 
and national disputes.
Standing firm wouldn't have meant chasing a sterile testimony. It would 
have meant using the union's numerical and organizational strength to 
reopen the wage and social conflict. Because rights aren't won through 
government benevolence or negotiating skills. They're won when there's 
collective pressure capable of shifting the balance of power.
The position expressed by Radici in FLC therefore raises a question that 
goes beyond this single pre-agreement: what strategy and tactics do 
unions need today to save public schools and enhance wages?
A union that signs out of a sense of responsibility even when results 
are insufficient? Or a union that considers mobilization, conflict, and 
democratic participation indispensable tools to defend wages, the 
dignity of work, and the public function of education?
Because without conflict, the risk is clear: the collective agreement 
ceases to be a tool for social advancement and becomes merely a place 
where setbacks already decided elsewhere are certified.

http://www.alternativalibertaria.org
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en