As part of the introductory report to the 1995 National Welfare Conference, Bruno Trentin so he admonished: “… We want to talk about the factor in which the welfare state in Italy is structurally hidden; that of lifelong education and training. It is from this factor that the economic and social position of Italy among the industrialized nations will be decided in the coming decades “*.
From this premise Trentin began a careful analysis of our welfare state and the effects that inaction was already causing on the processes of job degradation, job insecurity, selection of citizens in the face of new challenges.. With the passion that characterized him denounced the systematic reduction of investments in the training and education sector, in stark contrast to other European countries, the increase in the absenteeism rate and the exclusion of attendance at school facilities and the lasting and cumulative effects of these training deficiencies which constitute an obstacle that grows over time, weighing on employment opportunities and job retraining. A negative process that also sees among the fugitives the system of companies that do not intend to “assume part of the burden of training, qualification and updating of the vast majority of workers they employ” *.
By firmly stating that the right to education and education and the first right that should guarantee a modern welfare state “As an essential condition for the effective exercise of all other rights which it is called upon to protect,” Trentin did not skimp on a long list of limits, delays, resistances that hinder that deep process of reforming the education system and end up adding to the scarce resources devoted to training. A lacerating contradiction that also speaks to our responsibilities. The first, above all, is the reduction of the value of solidarity which cannot be understood only as the distribution of income and resources but, as Trentin argued, increasingly in terms of redistribution of “services, services to people, community services “. .
Basically either the welfare state makes a transition from the compensatory conception to a promotional conception, or the bonds of solidarity between people are destined to sink progressively. In short, Trentin captured the heart of the social and institutional transformation of the state. At that time, almost thirty years ago, there was no Title V or even differentiated autonomy, but there was the whole political meaning of the question: how to reunite this country, how to build a virtuous relationship between all institutional levels, how to build a system of education and lifelong learning capable of producing social bonds of solidarity and which also allows us to face the new challenges of the technological revolution and changes in the world of work. How to overcome the degradation of a compensatory social system, exposed to care / individual drifts and build a system of promotional welfare for the realization of people’s rights.
Well of all this there is no trace in the debate on differentiated autonomy; the protagonists continue to be fugitives from a thought and a never-before-discussed discussion with social forces, citizenship, movements, and volunteer associations. They are fugitives and even repeat offenders, because at least the harsh lessons of the covid before and now the consequences of the dramatic war in Ukraine should also have suggested some reflections on the institutional fragility of our countryactivated tearing repercussions on school and health care, on the growth of inequalities that find no resistance and recomposition in a state where different institutional levels are unable to work for shared and proven goals. Even when there would be resources. This is the case, these days, of the children’s nests where in spite of the repeated extensions of the tenders for the opening of new structures, the purpose of the requirement will not be met as a consequence of an institutional system that does not work and that does not provide that when there is a general interest in pursuing (in this case the rights of the child) the State has full and direct ownership of the intervention. If not, what sense does it make to have put it 0/6 within the national education system of the state?
I What sense does it make that these days Minister Bianchi decides by decree how to combat early school leaving without even a preventive confrontation with the trade unions, unions and professional colleges of the school? Can a general question of this social relevance go back to a ministerial decision?
The announcements of the promoters of differentiated autonomy do not say anything about these issues and the aforementioned debate but, warning of the approaching elections, they regain their breath. For these reasons the CGIL did well to remind the government that the institutional structure of the country cannot be a topic far removed from a discussion that must involve the country, the institutions, the trade union movement, the associations. At stake is the future of solidarity as a discriminatory value of all policies and as the only antidote to territorial inequalities, there is defense of fundamental rights such as education which must remain a national, active and permanent resource to keep the country together. Even against the will of the fugitives.
Dario Missaglia, national president of Proteo Making Know
June 27, 2022
* Sergio Cofferati (edited by) Welfare of the state in the community. Topics for debate. Rome, Ediesse, 1996, pp. 20, 22, 216