the Labor Secretariat replies to Repubblica Futura
The Secretariat of State for Labor is convinced that it is very important that a regulatory intervention such as the one recently ratified by the Great and General Council on employment incentives and active policies has generated discussion both within and outside the Council. But he believes it is equally important and necessary to respond to the criticisms of Repubblica Futura that appeared today and to clarify some concerns raised, whose analysis lacks superficiality and gaps. With reference to the introduction of incentives for fixed-term hiring, Repubblica Futura perhaps forgets that the law approved by the previous government (and today repealed) provided not only incentives on remuneration for fixed-term hiring, but also tax relief. True, after six months there was an obligation to transform indefinitely in order to further benefit from the incentives, but the disbursement for the state was identity; with the new standard it is spread over eighteen months. Absurdly, therefore, the fear of “turnover” activities of people with incentives proposed by RF was actually weakened by the new rules the compliant regime, thanks to the reduction of fixed-term incentives and the strengthening of those for indefinite duration. There are two other important aspects inexplicably gone unnoticed in the analysis of Repubblica Futura: the fact that the new rules only incentivize hires starting from the third level, eliminating the incentives provided for the “base” levels of the previous rules and the reintroduction of the principle of where to reimburse the contribution relief in the event of collective dismissal, not present in the previous law and which could have dared room for distorting behavior. Even the criticisms leveled on the new intervention for professional integration are the result of scarce attention on the part of Repubblica Futura. In fact, if it is true that the previous rules provide for hiring in apprenticeships only for an indefinite period, they forget to point out to readers that that rule was in practice unused, as it overlapped with the other rules on incentives and, moreover, there was another intervention. , called professional training, which provided for pay cuts for fixed-term hires up to 18 months. Also in this case, the new regulation puts order in the system, thanks to the creation of a new single tool for professional integration, with stringent access criteria, providing only 6 months of fixed time with only the wage reduction and additional incentives and Relief only with permanent transformation, with timing modulated according to the level of recruitment, thus encouraging hiring at higher levels, an aspect not envisaged in the previous regulation. But the culmination of the superficiality of Repubblica Futura reaches it with the analysis of the new rules on company internships. In criticizing the changes he can in fact say in the new tool, he omits to say that the new measures are precisely aimed at specifying that the non-working internship can be considered subordinate, which introduces the obligation of a tutor and presentation of a training project, allowing in in this way, the person carrying out the checks can intervene in distorting situations. These measures were not foreseen by the previous regulations, just as the limits for the company were not foreseen and, if those introduced are ever considered exaggerated, why did the party not intervene during the previous experience with the Government? Overriding the “criticism” on having the maximum limit per person, since it is a clear lack of attention, since the relevant paragraph is identified with the previous one, it is sad to note that all the improved aspects introduced, such as having also increased the minimum wage for the intern. The analysis of a regulatory intervention should always be thorough and complete and, however legitimate the criticisms are, they should not alter the reality of things.