So, as you know, since entering office, this Government has focused the most on the issue of wages, on the issue of helping families economically. This is a major priority for us and we are clearly interested when the matter of boosting salaries is raised.

This is why I chose to hold a meeting with opposition parliamentary groups based on their specific minimum wage proposal, because we care about the issue of combatting poorly paid work, although there must be an understanding that this is an extremely broad subject matter and all the relative complexities need to be addressed. There are differences in opinion regarding what instruments should be used to strengthen families’ purchasing power, to boost salaries, and I have proposed a much broader discussion involving also the entity that is constitutionally better equipped to do this job: the CNEL [National Council for Economics and Labour]. The aim is to complete a process to comprehensively reason about the issue of poorly paid work before the Budget Law gets underway and therefore obviously also in time to have any necessary cover in place to introduce measures. In my view, this issue cannot be resolved simply by introducing a minimum wage. As you know, many (including many trade union organisations and sector experts) believe that, in a nation such as ours, where there is a very high level of collective bargaining, this measure would paradoxically risk making conditions worse for more workers than it would actually improve conditions for. We are of course open to discussion on the much broader issue of poorly paid work and adequate salaries. In this regard, we have proposed to work together over the next 60 days, and CNEL and its President have already offered their support on this, with the aim of understanding if there is room for political groups and social partners to share effective solutions. Supporting work, fair and adequately paid work, is one of our top priorities, as indeed this Government has shown in particular by allocating the majority of its resources to cutting the tax wedge, ensuring adequate wages and defending families’ purchasing power.

Questions

Question: Can we say that, as of today, there is no structured counter-proposal from the Government?
    
President Meloni: Look, if I’d have come with a structured counter-proposal from the Government, it would have been said that I didn’t want to allow the opposition to make their own, just like when I proposed to have a discussion with CNEL and I was accused of wanting to make the opposition withdraw their proposal. Look, I simply want to give a signal of our attention and respect on an issue that is close to my heart, because unlike those on the opposition who are now proposing a minimum wage despite not actually introducing a minimum wage when they were in government, we have proven, with facts, that we care about this issue, because everything we have done, most of what we have done, has been devoted to this. I therefore held this meeting with opposition parliamentary groups to tell them that the Government is fully ready and willing to work on this issue, but that this does not mean that others have to abandon their proposals or that I have to end up saying that ‘this is my proposal and shouldn’t be yours’. This is how others were reasoning; I see it as a sign of attention and respect. And, look, I am saying that because I was on the opposition for many years and I do not recall ever being invited by a President of the Council of Ministers to discuss a proposal I had put forward in Parliament. So, this is a signal of our attention to an issue that is close to my heart. I am obviously aiming to reach a proposal in time for the Budget Law, but I do not want it to simply be a proposal by the majority against the proposal by the opposition groups. As you know, the majority has proposals also on this issue - Forza Italia, a party in the governing majority, presented the latest one – but it would not have been a good way to engage in dialogue if we’d have said ‘replace your proposal with ours’. In my view, a good way to engage in dialogue is to say ‘let’s try to work together on a proposal that comprehensively addresses an issue that I fear a minimum wage alone will not resolve’.

I hear people talk about a minimum wage and poorly paid work and they do not take into consideration the fact that Istat or Eurostat surveys talk about ‘poorly paid work’ in terms of household income, which means this does not depend on how much your hourly wage is. You can earn more than EUR 9 per hour and still be considered a poor worker. This issue is therefore somewhat more complex than how it is addressed in certain cases, but it is an issue that needs to be addressed because it is a problem for Italy. 

There has to be an understanding, and this is something else I said to those around the table, that the reason why our salaries are lower than the European average is that our growth has been below the European average. In other words, we either understand here that getting the economy moving again is the only way to guarantee salaries and incomes, or we will continue to come up with solutions that unfortunately will not solve the bulk of the problem.

This is why we have set out to work primarily on growth. Germany is used as an example, France is used as an example, but over the last twenty years those nations have grown by more than 20%, while Italy has grown by 2%. How could we think our salaries would grow enough if the economy wasn’t growing? The two things are inevitably linked, which is why, on the one hand, I believe we must continue working to foster growth.

Something has happened regarding GDP this year and you have seen that employment figures are in any case more satisfactory. We have once again reached record employment levels, a record number of permanent contracts and the lowest unemployment rate of the last 14 years: these signs go hand in hand with economic growth. This is therefore a path that needs to be addressed. Then there is obviously the matter of pirate contracts and fraudulent conduct; there is also the issue of job insecurity that needs to be dealt with; there is certainly also an issue of some workers being excluded from protection mechanism in the market; but, I believe this is the approach that should be taken when addressing this matter, because if we think we can give a simple response to what is an extremely complex issue then we risk causing more damage than the problem we think we are solving.

Question: The Secretary of the PD [Democratic Party] also asked you about the flood damage relief in Emilia-Romagna and the possible resignation of De Angelis…
President Meloni: Look, saying that she asked me is a bit of an overstatement. Let’s say we had a little back and forth and I told her that, with regard to the matter of Emilia-Romagna, I had already replied to President Bonaccini’s continuous complaints with a long letter (complaints that I do not believe have much basis). 
With regard to De Angelis, I do not think it is my job to deal with the Region’s head of communication, because I believe this falls under the responsibility of the President of the Region.

Question: Do you see the 60-day time frame as being a commitment by the Government to settle the issue of what instruments to use against…
President Meloni: This is the commitment I have formalised with the President of CNEL and they have assured me they are able to complete this work in 60 days. I have also told the opposition parliamentary groups that President Brunetta is available to meet with them as early as tomorrow, because I believe this work needs to be done immediately. Why did I want to hold this meeting today, let’s say forcing also all of you to be here? Because I was struck by something in the opposition’s proposal: they provide for something that I believe is sensible, and that is relief for employers having to deal with a rise in salaries should their proposal be approved, but then they do not provide for any cover or quantification and, as you know, the Constitution requires any law that imposes higher expenses to also identify how those expenses will be covered. They say that they don’t want to go into areas that fall under the Government’s responsibility. You know, this seems a bit like passing the buck to me, with them saying ‘in our opinion, this needs to be done but then it’s up to you to see to it’.

Now, in this respect, to take serious action, you need cover, and so we are already working on the Budget Law. I can announce here and now that the Budget Law we will be presenting will be along the same lines as the previous one, i.e., focused on employment-income, which is what we have already done with all the main measures that were included in the last one, from the increase in the number of people eligible for the gas and electricity bonus through to the first signals we have given regarding productivity bonuses and now the lowering of the tax wedge.

We’re going there with the Budget Law, but clearly any measure that aims to be even remotely serious must have enough cover, so it is a good idea to carry out this work before the Budget Law. This is why I wanted to hold this meeting now, in order to have availability and in any case to begin a job that can be completed in time to have any cover that may be necessary.
Thank you.

[Courtesy translation]