2016

General Discussion
41

Hi Ivan,

OK now I am not a Constitutionalist or anyone with any legal training, just an ordinary bloke who made his own way, so forgive my thickness.

You have now stated, and thank you for that, that the Italian Government (at least) has the Responsiibility to CREATE jobs as a Constitutional RIGHT of the workers. As I follow it, theoretically at least then, there should be no such thing as unemployment in Italy.The State MUST by the Constitution provide jobs. Logic?

However we know there is unemployment at what, the 11.4% level Peter has quoted? Surely that must mean the Government has contravened the Constitution by NOT providing jobs? I don't think your comment on being able to print its own money in itself would cure the situation. I don't recall it helping Germany very much in the 1920's, and there are plenty of other examples around today where this apparently simple procedure doesn't work. South American states spring to mind.

There is no argument from me that Governments are there to provide a framework for business to develop and organically develop and create jobs, away from many non-jobs that cost the State (i.e taxpayers) money but contribute little or nothing to the productivity of the State. Very few Governments with the obvious exception of the USA even think like this, and they are not perfect either eg healthcare - which I DO consider a RIGHT, no matter what economic status the individual may have. I also believe the poor,deprived and the handicapped (in any meaningful way) should also be financially supported - even if this does not mean providing A job as such.

To my simple mind a Constitution should be a legal agreement between the State and the People. So I am puzzled by how a Constitution can be separated from the State and have any meaning at all?

For me it should be a contract that exists, and of these two sides the one that NOT under any circumstances should contravene this has to be the side with inevitably the most power - the State. For at least 11% of the workers of Italy it appears that this is precisely what the State has done - or not done, relative to providing the jobs the Constitution demands. Usually if one side of a Contract breaks it, then the Contract becomes inoperable and often damages can be awarded to the side receiving the injury - again which appears to be the 11% unemployed.

ON that basis is their any mechanism for the unemployed to sue the Government for something like Breach of Contract/Constitution? Somehow I doubt it.

42

The state cannot put anything in the constitution being that the constitution is separated entity from the state in itself. Its a parallel organ there to represent one whole organism: the people of a country as a collective sovereign citizen.

The right of having a dignities retribution for work and to sustain one's family was not a standard before WWII. The constitution was written after WWII with the role to draw a basic framework representing the values of the republic. They must be respected in each legislative power and governing cycle.

Government come, laws change but the constitution (think at the root word) stays there, like a guideline on a map.

It has been written to safeguard and avoid authoritative governments from abusing the basic, fundamental rights, like it happened in the past.

I'm not sure why there is such a confusion about this subject :!! it shows me that we know little about a relative simple subject. We should know our basic rights and how they are to be safeguarded from the legislative power. They are not the legislative powers in itself but monitoring them. In case of infringement they can even intervene in our defence. Seemples.

43

On what Constitutional or even practical basis can people be forced to provide or create jobs?

We are not talking much about enforcement but about duty and warranties. A right cannot be enforced but rather endorse, or the conditions must be provided for it to be supported.

We are entering the economic ministry. Indeed its the Ministry of Economy and Finance most important and influential task of controlling public expenditure, government revenue, as well as supervising the economic and financial policy, and to processes and the formalities of fiscal policy on the public budget.

Second is the Minister for Economic Development which overviews policy: competitiveness, research and industrial innovation, technology transfer, reorganization of production, corporate crisis management, support for small and medium enterprises, promotion of competition, liberalization , consumer protection, simplify matters for companies, price monitoring (by the Observatory for the monitoring of prices and tariffs, better known as Mister prices), the Company Register and chambers of commerce, supervising the cooperative system, the farmers' cooperatives, on the commissioner's management and procedures of the administration of major companies, corporate trust and auditing.

If Italy would be fully souvreign, and by that I mean free to print and regulate its own currency it would be able to regulate its own economy.

This theory has been discussed in the MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) where : "governments with the power to issue their own currency are always solvent, and can afford to buy anything for sale in their domestic unit of account even though they may face inflationary and political constraints".[1] In contrast to orthodox monetarism, MMT explains inflation as being caused primarily by resource constraints rather than monetary expansion.

Because the government can issue its own currency at will, MMT maintains that the level of taxation relative to government spending (the government's deficit spending or budget surplus) is in reality a policy tool that regulates inflation and unemployment, and not a means of funding the government's activities per se.

THis explains how the state CAN actually create JOB's by controlling its own currency and this returns with our discussion as State being centrally responsible of warranting its citizen with the right (and its associated duty) of WORK.

44

Hi Norman,

Shortly yes: the italian deputies are nominally public servants of the italian republic and its citizen. They have to swear oath under the constitution. The president of the Republic oversees laws and must make sure they are not in conflict with the intrinsic values: which article 1 states as being centrally focused on work and the sovreignity of the italian people.

I will respond more specifically this and other points. Some are unclear but I will do my best :)

Keep in mind that this discussion is highly political and very instrumentalized by the different parties.

I consider myself a constitutionalist, making reference to its articles and giving a very responsible if not central role the organ of state as a warrant of democratic values.

How things differ in practice from theory is another piece of the cake. I'm simply referring to how a state ideally should function, and which efforts have been made to actually put it in text.

45

I think that's the point i'm trying to make Norman. It's all well and good having a wonderful constitution which tells the world one has the right to a job but 11.4% or whatever are getting a raw deal ! On that basis the state could put anything into a constitution like 'every subject will have the right to earn 1 million € per year' or 'every family has the right to own their own semi-detached house' etc etc The right of everyone to work comes as standard in any democracy so there's no need to state the bleedin' obvious !

46

I still haven't seen an answer to my question.

Rights of workers IN jobs I can understand, but if it is a RIGHT to work is that the same as the RIGHT to an actual job? They seem interconnected to me, if you haven't got work ( ie a job) then what rights exist? I can even understand workers rights applying when going for a job. However does a prospective employer have any Rights over whom he or she employs?

But my question remains- who has the responsibility for actually providing the work or the jobs? On what Constitutional or even practical basis can people be forced to provide or create jobs?

As I read the Italian pieces provided it seems that it is the responsibility of the Italian Government to provide jobs? If so then every worker would be a civil servant? Then who would be responsible for ensuring workers did actually 'work', as the employer would be the one applying the Right in the first place. And if the RIGHT to a job is as it appears even the Government couldn't take away the Right to Work established in any job obtained.

What Rights do non-governmental employers have? Even Human Rights? Or are employers in Italy regarded LEGALLY as some sort of sub-species or milch-cows?

What I always see are the rights of workers, but never any responsibilities. Both of these always seem loaded onto any employer who seems to have few if any RIGHTS, but a hell of a lot of responsibilities. Few of which would seem to form any practical incentive to start or run a business in Italy - or many other places for that matter.

Is it to be wondered at that employers are loathe to add to their problems with even more staff? What possible incentive can there be? One assumes one has the Right to close down a failing company - or is that also forbidden under the Right to work?

47

So what? I am reading the Italian constitution and laws and see the two are separable, one gives the framework for the others to exist, so more. Of course the constitutional court is their to ensure compliance with laws but what it cannot do is enforce laws because judges are there to adjudicate not to operate laws. For that there are specialised civil and public servants who include specialised police and prosecutors, plus defence lawyers for the state when others prosecute it. Constitutions and laws are very different, the latter relatively easy to change by government with or without parliamentary process and approval. Constitutional courts can only adjudicate when a complainant claims a change in law is wrong. At least that is what the explanation of the Italian system is and compares with most modern secular states except those of England and Wales where there is no written constitution, both Scotland and Northern Ireland to an extent and Liechtenstein because a royal family still 'owns' constitutional structures of state although all laws are enforced by Swiss police and put through process of law by the Vaduz court.

Italian labour law is also bound to EU, EEA and Council of Europe regulation and is furthermore a signatory to a long list of International Labour Organisation conventions. Nowhere is there any possible interpretation of a right of work but, to repeat myself, only a right to work. Your constitution does not say that work is a basic right at all. Now sit down and read it again slowly. My wife is not a lawyer but because of her own expertise as an academic is specialist in labour issues, whilst she is specialised further in child labour, it is necessary to know labour laws generally. When she read through the Italian constitution she was quite clear that work is not a right and simply said that Italy is the same, in that respect, as every other country in the world.

48

No, laws are there to be respected, policed and enforced. To not do so is to do something unconstitutional. To not do any of these things is to not deliver basic rights, often called a civil code by countries, which are the principles that sit between the constitution and specific sets of laws. But neither in Italian nor translated say that work itself is a right and there is nothing to enforce, the citizen simply has a right to be able to work and that is protected by those article of the constitution and enforced by labour laws. The articles are extremely clear, unambiguous and do not required interpretation, which is in fact something to leave to courtroom lawyers to claim is possible but academic lawyers like the many I have worked with for about 40 years will all say is not actually possible. What is written is what a law says not what somebody wants it to mean.

49

I have never ever taken any unemployment but then again i'm happy that if ....

there might be a buffer chance.

50

here I meant art 4 of the constitution

Art 18 of the statute of workers might be relevant and worth mention.

51

I will agree with Brian one one point: Lobbiest and the liberal industry will do its best to deny that work is a constitutional right, when in fact saying so is a contradiction. A country centered and funded on work must warrant it citizen with that opportunity.

The problem this days very simply is that the primate of politics has lost over economy. Ideally they should work in a separate function for the good of society and its social organism.

Cultural Life including education and culture (even religion), as well as cooperation of people is not to be dictated by Politics. That's the basic notion of a secular state.

The economic life, which includes the production, trade and consumption of goods and services does work separately from politics.

The right of life, which includes laws, rules and agreements is dictated by Politics overseen by the constitutional court.

They rights are described as autonomous and equal, but different in their nature. Each main section is associated with an ideal of the French Revolution as a guiding principle: Freedom is associated with the intellectual life, the equality of the law of life, and the brotherhood of the economic life.

We are back in France now.

52

Brian, I was pleased to see on TV last night, watching the Ant & Dec interview with Price Charles, to celebrate 49 years of The Princes Trust. That the trainees placed with M&S, from the Trust, we’re all offered permanent jobs! As their placement had just finished. I’ve never been a particular Fan of his but it was a good programme to watch and I’ve warmed more to the Prince, having learnt what made him want to start it!

OK call me cynical and that may have been for TV programme, it was show, but thousands and thousands Have benefitted, including entrepreneurs in succeeding with the help of the Trust.

53

If what you are trying to say was truly the case that a constitute has nothing to do with laws and was above it, then the government would not be able to change laws.

NOT CORRECT AT ALL Brian.

The Constitutional Court oversees the legislative power. I'm ITALIAN by birth, so my father and forefathers. If there is something we know and learn at school its the CONSTITUTION as monitoring legislative power.

Indeed its 'the body which carries out functions of control and guarantee the compliance of laws with the principles of the constitutional system.

The Constitutional Court consists of 15 judges, appointed by the Parliament for 1/3 to 1/3 by the President of the Republic and 1/3 by Courts (ordinary, administrative, accounting), professors, lawyers and judges. Judges are appointed 9 amni and not be re-elected; among them he is elected president who has a mandate of three years. The President and the Judges in the exercise of their functions are aided by studio assistants.

It places in judicial form the following tasks:

The constitutionality of laws and acts with force of law incidentally (on the initiative of a judge during a trial) and in the main street (on appeal against the laws of the State of the Regions and on appeal of a region, against the laws of State or another Region);

resolving jurisdictional disputes between state powers, between the state and the regions, and between regions;

admissibility of requests for recall referendum;

trial on charges of high treason or attempt against the Constitution against the President of the Republic.

54

The constitution is being abused yes and not respected.

But why should we forget its existence. It was put there in place to safeguard a states and citizen interests.

We can debate whether work is a right, in the end all is left up to one's interpretation. What we cannot argue is that a government duty is to provide it citizenship with dignity and a work that can reversely contribute to the material and spiritual success of its own country.

If in practice this is not happening, we should not dismiss it in its entirety.

Its like saying laws are not respected, hence we should not take them in account and simply forget about all (?)

55

Michele Tiraboschi's point about adults.

56

The 'constitution' seems to be totally irrelevant in this case. Going by Brian's (wifes) translation the constitution is being abused and not respected. Words are cheap, the Italian constitution on such matters seems meaningless so just forget it exists...

57

I asked my wife to dictate that article to me, just in case I was not reading it correctly. It reads:

Italy is a Democratic Republic, founded on work. Sovereignty belongs to the people and is exercised by the people in the forms and within the limits of the Constitution.

The other articles you cite are:

Art. 35: The Republic protects work in all its forms and practices.It provides for the training and professional advancement of workers. It promotes and encourages international agreements and organisations which have the aim of establishing and regulating labour rights. It recognises the freedom to emigrate, subject to the obligations set out by law in the general interest, and protects Italian workers abroad.

Art. 36: Workers have the right to a remuneration commensurate to the quantity and quality of their work and in all cases to an adequate remuneration ensuring them and their families a free and dignified existence. Maximum daily working hours are established by law. Workers have the right to a weekly rest day and paid annual holidays. They cannot waive this right.

Art. 37: Working women have the same rights and are entitled to equal pay for equal work. Working conditions must allow women to fulfil their essential role in the family and ensure special appropriate protection for the mother and child. The law establishes the minimum age for paid work. The Republic protects the work of minors by means of special provisions and guarantees them the right to equal pay for equal work.

Art. 38: Every citizen unable to work and without the necessary means of subsistence has a right to welfare support. Workers have the right to be assured adequate means for their needs and necessities in the case of accidents, illness, disability, old age and involuntary unemployment. Disabled and handicapped persons have the right to education and vocational training. The duties laid down in this article are provided for by entities and institutions established by or supported by the State. Private-sector assistance may be freely provided.

Art. 39: The right to join unions....

By the way, Article 18 to which you referred has nothing to do with work:

Art. 18: Citizens have the right to form associations freely, without authorisation, for ends that are not forbidden to individuals by criminal law. Secret associations and those associations that, even indirectly, pursue political ends by means of organisations having a military character, are prohibited.

However Article 4 specifies the right of each citizen to be able to work, but it does not describe work as being a basic right.

Art. 4: The Republic recognises the right of all citizens to work and promotes those conditions which render this right effective. Every citizen has the duty, according to personal potential and individual choice, to perform an activity or a function that contributes to the material or spiritual progress of society.

There is nothing in the entire Costituzione della Repubblica italiana that makes it a right to work. I read Italian well enough, but then I have more living relatives who speak, read and write Italian than any other language and need it when I visit in-laws, etc.

If what you are trying to say was truly the case that a constitute has nothing to do with laws and was above it, then the government would not be able to change laws. A constitution is the basic set of principles on which the political structure of a state is built, those include law making. Laws are those that regulate the behaviour of people within a constitutionally defined legal system. That is exactly why when we discuss the political state of any nation we talk about them as constitutional and legal systems of state. Professor Tiraboschi who is Professor of Labour Law at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia has been an advisor on child labour in Italy who we have worked with on and off for about 15 years. He has recently advised us on the 2015 reforms and how they affect young workers, one of his points is that the is supporting the worldwide effort to get children who work, despite global attempts to eliminate child labour, workers' protections but says that Italy is not very good at doing that for adults so not a good example.

It is a diversion from topic but there you go.

58

The constitution was written to provide a legal framework and protect the concept of secular state. But its up to the people and politician to to put it in place.

Its not the constitution fault if there is so much unemployment. I'm not even going in that discussion :)

59

Maybe Italy should change their constitution Ivan ? Italy have one of the highest rates of unemployment in the EU, even higher than France so obviously something isn't working !

60

No Brian, Work is a right and at the centre of the republic.

The republic of Italy is funded on work (Art 1 of Constitution). Its not by chance the first article of the constitution.

The republic MUST meet the condition for everyone to have work. Not doing so by squandering resources, or working for lobbies is actually anti-constitutional...

That means that the state must commit to intervene in the economy to create job opportunities for citizens; interventions of this type are therefore an obligation for the state, which is therefore characterized as a welfare state (not liberal).

This is clearly expressed in our constitution. I paraphrased the Italian constitution because I don't know the french too well.

Art. 1

L’Italia è una Repubblica democratica, fondata sul lavoro.
La sovranità appartiene al popolo, che la esercita nelle forme e nei limiti della Costituzione.

Labour protection laws have NOTHING to do with our constitution and government duty to provide a situation where everyone's rights are met.

To further cite the constitution

Art. 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39

gives the government the task of protecting the work in all its forms (either independent or dependent) as well as to ensure the professional training. But this first identification of work as a value in itself is passed in later articles to provide protection and especially the rights of employees; This is because the employment is carried out in a contractual relationship where the employee is the weaker party.

Labour are simple intermediaries between the industry and people. But first-most its the government to have protect a basic right for work. That's where Art. 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 say. Including the right to be registered with labour.

Many people, including you, ignore that this facts (work rights and duty to work) are fundamentally entrenched in our constitution.