When we look at the subject of work, it is as if we were suffering from squinting. We struggle to focus on the object. We do not have the proper lenses to analyse the phenomenon correctly. We persist in using the stereotypes of the past. Out of metaphor, the subject of work and its changes (organisational and cultural) has not been comprehensively revisited since the end of the myth of the working class. Work has become disjointed, flexible, diffuse. Tasks and professions have changed profoundly. But also the meanings attributed by subjects. However, whenever, particularly in Italy, the issue of work rules is touched upon - as was also the case with the Jobs Act reform - defensive mechanisms are triggered 'regardless'. Paraphrasing the title of a famous book by Aris Accornero, it could be argued that we still think of 'work as ideology' (Mulino, 1981). And when it takes on this connotation, taboos are created, by definition untouchable. No mediation is possible: the public discourse on reform, which we have witnessed in recent months, has often been a ground for ideological clashes, rather than a real confrontation of ideas. Little realism and much doctrine.
Focusing only on rules, we lose sight of productive transformations and, in particular, the value assigned to work. If we take this point of view, then we would discover that flexibility (as opposed to precariousness), the search for personal fulfilment, the idea of work experienced as a path of professional growth rather than as a fixed job, are central dimensions in people's aspirations. We find that some of the old taboos about work have been transformed. Community Media Research has launched a research project on these issues. In this first instalment we will consider not only knowledge, but above all the extent to which the measures introduced by the Jobs Act also correspond to the orientations of the population.
Firstly, the labour market reform was followed, to a greater or lesser extent, by 70.8% of Italians. Thus, a reform whose impact involved a large part of the population, in particular the male component and even the youngest, who, of all, are those who have followed the issue in greater proportion. Among workers, the debate on the reform involved more entrepreneurs (80.2%) and technicians (78.9%), less workers (68.4%). But it is above all among voters from the Centre (87.4%), the Centre Left (81.0%) and the Left (78.4%) that the Jobs Act had the greatest following. That is to say, in that cultural area where the issue of work is an ingrained aspect of identity.
Secondly, people's opinions become polarised when assessing who would benefit from the implementation of the Jobs Act. On the one hand, just over a third (37.3%) think that it is equally beneficial for companies and workers. On the other hand, a slightly smaller share (33.6%) thinks that it benefits companies most of all. What is certain is that few perceive it to be disadvantageous for everyone (9.2%) and, even fewer, favourable only for workers (3.0%). Thus, a (slight) majority sees benefits for both sides. As if to say that the reform constitutes a good mediation point between different interests. But public opinion, faced with the choice of whether the Jobs Act is good more for companies or for workers, chooses the former. Analysing professional conditions, among entrepreneurs those who see equally distributed benefits prevail (46.9%). Among executives and technicians, on the other hand, the balance of benefits is equal (38.4% for everyone; 37.6% for companies); while among blue collar workers it tilts in favour of companies (38.2%) more than for everyone (32.0%). But it is the political positioning that is most divisive. A favourable view only for businesses predominantly unites voters from the two extreme wings of the political spectrum (Right: 29.5%; Left: 51.6%), as does a totally negative view of the Jobs Act (Right: 21.1%; Left: 7.3%). Conversely, those in favour of a fair distribution of benefits are the voters of the Centre (61.6%) and the Centre/Left (52.6%). Thus, voters on the Right/Centre-Right, who, however, are less familiar with the reform than others, anticipate negative repercussions for everyone or at most favourable only for companies. Conversely, in the Left/Centre-Left camp, the Jobs Act is divisive, polarising minds between those who see benefits for everyone (Centre-Left) and those who only see benefits for businesses (Left). Therefore, it is still the political-cultural affiliations that discriminate between labour orientations.
Precisely in order to circumvent the stickiness of an ideological or prejudiced approach, the respondents were asked to make a number of statements that, in fact, translate the measures of the Jobs Act (the most controversial ones) without explicitly mentioning them. The aim was to capture whether and to what extent there was consistency between the population's orientations and the approved reforms. In general, on average more than 75 per cent approve of the fact that one can change job in order to keep one's job (77.5%), that there are increasing protections with permanent employment (76.3%), and that in the case of dismissal it is better to receive financial compensation than to be reinstated in the same job (77.5%). Change of job, increasing protection, overcoming Article 18 no longer appear taboo. By summing up the scores obtained from the different answers, it is possible to create a summary measure of the (implicit) orientations towards the Jobs Act, to which more than 80% of Italians adhere in principle. The prevailing group is the 'Inclined to the JAct' (51.4%), i.e. those who approve of almost all the measures introduced. They are followed by the 'YES JAct' (29.4%) who approve them in full. On the other hand, 17.1% rate the reform predominantly negatively (YES JAct) and only 2.1% are totally against it (NO JAct). It should be emphasised that the latter include above all those who are politically on the Left (36.7%), but at the same time as many as 63.3% of them are in general agreement with the approved reforms of the Jobs Act.
On labour issues, there is still a cultural gridlock that prevents a pragmatic discussion. One that addresses real problems without denying the value and dignity of work. Because in the meantime, the world of production has changed and with it the orientations of workers. But political cultures do not seem to have done the same. And the Jobs Act interprets the population's tensions to change much more than the public discussions let on.
Daniele Marini
