[...] la devastazione della sede del più importante sindacato in Italia è vista dai lavoratori e dalle persone come una lacerazione della propria identità, del chi sei, dei propri valori. È una ferita profonda, non definita dall'entità del danno che anzi è irrilevante. Aver voluto sfregiare un'organizzazione storica come la Cgil significa superare la soglia d'allarme.
Sergio Cofferati (born 1948) is an Italian trade unionist and politician. He was secretary general of CGIL from 1994 to 2002, mayor of Bologna for the Democrats of the Left from 2004 to 2009, and Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from 2009 to 2019 elected as a candidate of the Democratic Party.
From: Wikiquote (CC BY-SA 4.0)
[...] the devastation of the headquarters of Italy's most important trade union is seen by workers and people as a tearing apart of their identity, of who they are, of their values. It is a deep wound, not defined by the extent of the damage, which is irrelevant. Wanting to deface a historic organisation such as the CGIL means crossing the threshold of alarm.
Unlimited Quote Collections
Organize your favorite quotes without limits. Create themed collections for every occasion with Premium.
(Sul governo Renzi) Penso che sia un governo di centrosinistra che produce politiche non condivisibili per una parte dei suoi elettori.
While political representation is becoming increasingly rare because parties are becoming lighter, even fluid, according to some, resorting to the streets on major issues is becoming almost a necessary outlet for voters who no longer have places and tools through which to express their opinions. Interviewer: You mean that without mass parties, the only option left is the streets? Cofferati: The streets become the main place where people can express their ideas. Interviewer: But isn't there a risk that protest will have no effect? That it will become a mere outlet? Cofferati: That wouldn't be a bad thing or a cause for concern. A demonstration can also bring about change.
Questo Governo non vuole soltanto la rottura del movimento sindacale, ma il suo mutamento genetico. Ha cominciato col dire che la CGIL non è un sindacato, bensì una forza politica: ridicolo!
Luciano Lama was secretary general of the CGIL trade union at a time when terrorism was a particularly aggressive cancer in Italian society. He had the merit and great courage – together with others – to take the CGIL against political violence and terrorism. He was a true moral authority in this country, a role that, unfairly, was not fully recognised.
I consider this accusation not only unfounded but also offensive to this organisation and its history. The Italian trade union is an enemy of terrorists and is considered by them, not surprisingly, as one of the targets to be explicitly fought. The reason is easy to understand for those who want to see it. The CGIL, and other trade union and social organisations, fought to eradicate terrorism from Italian society, even when terrorism was strongest and most deeply rooted in society. When it tried to penetrate the world of work to gain cover and influence behaviour. It would not have been defeated in the 1970s and 1980s if there had not been a clear and unhesitating decision by the trade union to confront terrorism and violence head-on.
Interviewer: The CGIL and its secretary are accused of having political motives. Of wanting to ally themselves with judges and the ‘girotondi’ (protesters). Cofferati: These are unacceptable accusations. I contest choices that I believe to be wrong on their merits; they continue to say that the CGIL is not doing its job as a trade union, that we have a political strategy. The right to criticise cannot be demonised. And there is a misguided underestimation of the role of social representative organisations. The government has a duty to pursue its objectives, but it must know that if part of the social representation does not share these objectives, a break and then conflict are inevitable. I would never dream of contesting their legitimacy to govern, but they cannot contest the legitimacy of my right to oppose them with the rules of democracy and a practice established over many decades.
[...] for the first time, an executive has proposed changes to the rights system, with an economic and social policy that is explicitly hostile to the ideas and proposals of the trade unions. Article 18 has become the symbolic reference point for all this. There is conflict, but there is nothing more ‘orderly’ than the struggles that CGIL-CISL-UIL have waged in recent months. When people talk about a ‘climate of hatred’ – referring to the trade unions – they are making statements that are out of place and have no basis in the reality of Italian society. Some attacks are not only unfounded, but literally disgraceful.
Even with the murders of Ruffilli, Tarantelli and D'Antona, terrorist madness sought to strike scholars and intellectuals in the service of the state. But this time, Biagi was killed while the confrontation and negotiations in which he was participating in an authoritative capacity were underway. This is a targeted attack on social cohesion policies, but also on the very mechanism by which social dialogue takes place. It is intended to influence the social partners involved in the negotiations. This is another reason why it is important to remain as firm as ever in the fight against terrorism, but also to have the intelligence to quickly restore social dialogue. In its physiological, natural forms: negotiation, the possibility of reaching agreements, or moving on to conflict and struggle if there is disagreement. Terrorism cannot dictate the timing, the merits or the dynamics of the debate. I think it is entirely understandable that the government should confirm its intentions on Article 18. It is equally essential that the trade unions do the same, with a critical assessment of the government's proposals and with struggle and conflict. [...] It is all perfectly normal and natural. There was a confrontation with the government that did not have a positive outcome, there was a breakdown, and the trade unions asserted their reasons with this initiative. Terrorism wants to prevent this natural process. And all those who support this attempt, more or less unconsciously, are making a serious mistake.
Interviewer: ‘Wasn't it a mistake [...] to claim that Biagi collaborated with both the government and Confindustria?’ Cofferati: In claiming, as I did, that there is collusion between Confindustria and the centre-right government, I expressed a political opinion. Nothing more and nothing less, nothing to do with individuals or relationships with individuals. I was and still am convinced of this. And what I said about Professor Biagi was simply an objective fact: he was the coordinator of the group that drafted the ‘White Paper’ and was also a collaborator of Confindustria. The professor's death affected me deeply; I am not affected by accusations that I consider completely unfounded. I never considered Biagi an adversary: he was a valuable expert.