In mid January 2007, the government and the main Italian trade union confederations reached agreement on the reorganisation of public administration. The aim is to modernise the Italian public sector and improve its performance. The content of the agreement should be included in the upcoming renewals of the collective agreements for public servants.
On 18 January 2007, the Minister for Reform and Innovation in the Public Administration (Ministro per le riforme e le innovazioni nella pubblica amministrazione), Luigi Nicolais, the Minister of the Economy and Finance (Ministro dell’economia e delle finanze), Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, and the general secretaries of the three main Italian trade union confederations signed a memorandum on the reorganisation of public administration – Memorandum d’intesa su lavoro pubblico e riorganizzazione delle amministrazioni pubbliche (in Italian, 494Kb PDF). The general secretaries involved included Guglielmo Epifani of the General Confederation of Italian Workers (Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro, Cgil), Raffaele Bonanni of the Italian Confederation of Workers’ Trade Unions (Confederazione Italiana Sindacati Lavoratori, Cisl) and Luigi Angeletti of the Union of Italian Workers (Unione Italiana del Lavoro, Uil). In Italy, around 3.5 million people currently work in the public sector, of whom about one third work in the education system.
The memorandum follows a wide reform process of the Italian public sector, which was pursued mostly in the 1990s (Legislative bill No. 165 of 30 March 2001 (in Italian), IT9711217F, IT9709311F, IT9802320F).
Debate on reform outcome
In recent months, academics, experts, representatives of the political parties and trade unions have engaged in a lively debate on the outcome of the various public administration reform processes.
Previous reforms have resulted in significant changes in the public sector, modifying both the organisation of the relative actors and also the structure, procedures and content of collective bargaining in order to bring the employment conditions of public sector workers closer to those of employees in the private sector (IT0611029Q).
The debate has also highlighted delays in the change process, as well as unexpected effects which, in certain cases, have hampered the achievement of the initial objectives of the reforms. More specifically, in some branches of public administration, the implementation of certain measures has been ineffective, such as: the new legal status of senior managers in public administration, theoretically intended to reinforce their managerial role; pay schemes in which performance-related increments should, in principle, have an important weight; and mechanisms for monitoring individual and collective productivity.
The new memorandum reviews the progress of public sector change, indicating areas in which action should be taken to remove those obstacles that hampered the more effective implementation of previous reforms.
Main points of memorandum
The document signed by the government representatives and the trade union confederations aims to promote a reorganisation of the public sector at central and local level. This reorganisation should ‘pursue the goal of increasing the productivity of the national economic system. This requires the creation of conditions in which the quality of services is measurable and verifiable’. The agreement also launches the procedures necessary for the renewal of national collective agreements, which expired at the end of 2005 in many contractual divisions of the public sector.
In the future, the memorandum – which at present concerns employees of the central state administration – will be extended by a special protocol to regional administrations, local authorities, the healthcare system and the non-economic public bodies. A separate agreement will be signed for employees in the education and research sector.
The main guidelines set out in the memorandum for the reorganisation of the public administration include the following:
- Restrictions on the use of external consultants, with the taking over by the organisations of certain tasks deemed essential for their operation. This change should be undertaken through consultation with trade unions.
- Rationalisation of the use of ‘atypical’ work, which will be regulated by collective bargaining. Over the next few years, public sector workers on atypical employment contracts should be rehired on open-ended contracts.
- Measurement of the quality and quantity of services. The public sector should set targets and monitor performance in achieving them. Performance-based criteria should be used to assess managers. Measurement units will be established with the participation of management, trade unions and also members or associations of the public.
- Reorganisation of the legal and contractual aspects of the managerial employment relationship. The number of managers should be reduced. Automatic career advancement will be eliminated, and promotions and pay increases will depend on the results of the assessment procedure. Appointments to executive posts will be carried out through transparent and public procedures. The dismissal of managers should be the ‘extreme outcome of unsatisfactory performance’, while the ‘spoils system’ – whereby persons are politically appointed – should be restricted to the administration’s senior executives.
- Geographical and functional mobility. Following functional reorganisation, the geographical mobility of public sector employees should be encouraged by support measures and incentives, which should also be defined by collective bargaining. Attempts will be made to match the demand for personnel by organisations which are short of human resources with the supply of employees wishing to relocate. Redundant staff who cannot be outplaced by means of mobility procedures will be offered incentives for voluntary resignation.
- Redefinition of the complementary bargaining system. Decentralised collective bargaining should pursue objectives concerning the quality and quantity of services: for instance, the extension of opening hours of administration offices; a reduction of waiting times; and the introduction of technological and organisational innovations. The achievement of targets – measured by assessment systems introduced by collective bargaining – will be the criterion for differentiating pay levels at decentralised level. It will also be ensured that, as in national-level bargaining, the administration will be the counterparty to the trade unions in negotiations, thus avoiding the collapse of the complementary bargaining system.
Reactions of social partners
The representatives of the government and of the trade unions have expressed their satisfaction with the agreement. According to Minister Nicolais, the deal has introduced ‘concrete ideas for an efficient public administration able to drive development rather than hamper it’. At the same time, the general secretaries of the trade union confederations involved consider the agreement to be ‘a good basis’ for public sector improvements.
However, the memorandum has been criticised by the Rank-and-File Unions (Rappresentanze Sindacali di Base, RdB Cub) belonging to the Unitary Rank-and-File Confederation (Confederazione Unitaria di Base, Cub), which have announced industrial action over the next few months.
Commentary
The agreement highlights the areas in which immediate action should be taken to remedy some of the main shortcomings of the Italian public administration, also emphasised in the debate of recent months. On the one hand, the agreement affirms commitment to the more effective implementation of some of the standards and guidelines already set out in previous public sector reforms, which – for various reasons – have not or only partially been applied, or which have been applied with major distortions. On the other hand, the memorandum introduces a number of innovative provisions intended mainly to improve the quantity and quality of services through both the use of more efficient systems for assessing individual and collective performance, with the direct involvement of citizens, and also partial redefinition of the goals and procedures of collective bargaining, especially at decentralised level.
Moreover, the agreement indicates that this process of public sector reorganisation should come about mainly through dialogue and negotiation among the government, public organisations and trade unions. The achievement of the objectives set out in the document will depend once again on the capacities of the actors involved and on their willingness to accept change. In particular, a clear definition of the role and functions of the various actors may be even more important at the decentralised level, where, to date, the most evident distortions in the implementation of public sector reforms have occurred.
Diego Coletto, Fondazione Regionale Pietro Seveso