Method, timing and involvement of union representatives. The Public Employment and Services Federations of CSdL, CDLS and USL have weighed in on the negotiations for the renewal of the contract covering employees of the Extended Public Sector and AASLP wage earners, voicing “strong disappointment” over the way the Government publicly presented its proposal on pay increases during the Congress of State’s press conference on 7 August.
“It is not acceptable to draft and present a draft worded in such a way as to make content appear substantially agreed upon when, on the contrary, it still has to be examined, discussed and approved by the trade unions and, through them, by the workers concerned,” the Federations state in a joint statement.
At the heart of the complaint is, first and foremost, the method followed by the Executive. For CSdL, CDLS and USL, what the Government presented must be treated solely as a proposal still to be discussed within the negotiations.
“A Government proposal is and remains a one-sided proposal. It cannot be publicly presented as an agreement already reached, nor can the consent of the trade unions be taken for granted. When drawing up a document meant to become an agreement, its content and wording must be built through prior, genuine and respectful discussion between all parties,” the statement continues.
The unions also object to the absence, among the potential signatories listed in the draft, of the Secretaries General and Secretaries of the Services Federations of CSdL, CDLS and USL, who represent AASLP wage earners.
“This is not a mere formal oversight, but a lack of institutional and trade union respect, first and foremost towards the wage-earning workers themselves, who have a full right to be represented by their own Federations just like all other employees concerned,” the unions argue.
The dispute then turns to the substance of the pay increases. According to the unions, the 3% increase for 2025 is not a new initiative from the Executive but corresponds to a request jointly put forward by the workers’ organisations.
“On the substance, the 3% increase for 2025 corresponds to a specific request jointly put forward by the trade unions. It cannot therefore be presented as a unilateral concession or as the result of a sudden government initiative,” CSdL, CDLS and USL point out.
The position differs on the 1.5% advance for 2026, which the Federations say cannot be assessed until the Government’s overall economic framework is known.
“This percentage can only be evaluated once the Government’s overall economic proposal for the whole of 2026 and the following year is known. An advance payment cannot be considered adequate in the abstract; it must be weighed against the final increase, the overall duration of the contract and the need to recover workers’ lost purchasing power,” they explain.
Another point of contention concerns the timing of the negotiations. The unions reject the Government’s use of the term “acceleration,” pointing out that the previous contract expired on 31 December 2024.
“By the time of the press conference, more than a year and seven months had therefore passed since its expiry. In the meantime, the trade unions repeatedly called for talks to open and continue, also requesting a precise, detailed schedule of meetings,” the statement stresses.
According to the Federations, that schedule has still not been provided, while the meetings held so far are described as “occasional and spread far apart.”
The three organisations nonetheless reaffirm their wish to reach a swift renewal. “CSdL, CDLS and USL clearly reiterate that the contract must be renewed as soon as possible and, indeed, should have been renewed long ago. Speed, however, cannot be mistaken for unilateral decisions or for the public presentation of texts not yet agreed upon.”
Hence the call to reopen talks following a clearly defined path. “Reaching a serious agreement requires a proper method, prior discussion, respect for the trade unions and, above all, respect for the workers,” the Federations state, adding that “one cannot let a delay of more than a year and seven months build up and then present as an acceleration what is merely the belated start of a process repeatedly called for by the trade unions.”
The Federations report that they have once again requested, through a joint letter, that negotiations resume, and that these must proceed “on clear grounds, with a defined schedule and with the full involvement of all the representatives concerned.”
