Stop the 32-hour week: the House rejects the opposition's proposal to reduce working hours for equal pay
With the majority vote, the united proposal of the Avs, M5S and PD to incentivise companies that sign contracts for a progressive reduction of weekly working hours, including in the form of the 4-day short week, was rejected. For the State General Accounting Office there is a lack of economic coverage
Key points
In the Chamber of Deputies, the united opposition proposal on the reduction of working time to 32 hours per week, with equal pay, including in the form of a short week of four working days, was definitively rejected by the majority parties. The proposal of the Avs, M5s and Pd - with first signatory Nicola Fratoianni together with the three leaders Giuseppe Conte, Angelo Bonelli and Elly Schlein - envisages the introduction of a three-year experiment entrusted to bargaining.
The reactions
The oppositions rose up: 'The oppositions make a proposal to improve the conditions of those who work,' said the leader of the PD, Elly Schlein, 'you scuttle it without even wanting to discuss it, denying us even the right to discuss it in this Parliament. Technology makes it possible to produce more with less work. We want to lead the transformation with a proposal to experiment with shorter working hours that leverages bargaining, with benefits in terms of quality of life, employment and reduced emissions'.
Walter Rizzetto (Fdi), president of the Chamber's labour committee, explained the reasons for the rejection: 'There is a coverage problem, this proposal costs 8.2 billion in 2027 and 8.4 billion in 2028. I think it is a mistake to entrust the hourly work reduction to a law that would apply to all employers, including companies that cannot afford it. If labour productivity does not increase, the reduction of working time by law will result in a pure increase in labour costs. Rather with decentralised bargaining, as many companies have done, working hours can be reduced by identifying the measures that best suit the individual production reality'.
The proposal's troubled process
The bill of the Avs, M5s and Pd has had a troubled course; the discussion in the Chamber of Montecitorio was originally scheduled for late October 2024, then it went back to the Committee on Labour, where a year ago the majority approved seven amendments suppressing the measure - rapporteur in committee Marta Schifone (Fdi) - after the negative opinion expressed by the State General Accounting Office, which had highlighted the lack of coverage of the bill, estimating also that the possible extension beyond the private sector to the PA would have the effect of determining 'new and increased charges on the public finance at the state unquantifiable'. After the rejection by the Rgs, the House Budget Committee also expressed a contrary opinion. In the Chamber of Deputies, having voted on the seven suppressive amendments, the text lapsed.
Encouraged the signing of contracts to reduce working hours for the same salary
But let us take a closer look at what the text envisages, which favours the signing of national, territorial and corporate collective agreements between companies and their representatives and the trade union organisations that are comparatively more representative at national level, aimed at defining organisational models that entail a progressive reduction of normal working hours from forty to thirty-two hours a week, with the same wage, even in the form of shifts spread over four days a week, which are accompanied by investments in training and technological and environmental innovation.
