Larks and Mirrors (broken)
At the risk of being unpleasant I would express some concern sull'unanimismo that seems to have compacted the category - Order of Journalists and FNSI, precarious and guaranteed - about the ongoing battle in our halls of parliament for the "fair compensation". My concerns are different from those made by the Minister Fornero, in the sense that I find more than fair, sacrosanct, penalizing publishers who got excited with public money in practice a savage de-regulation, to the detriment of the quality and dignity of journalistic work . Much more difficult it seems to me, however, the road to a fair compensation for those who do this work without a contract. And make it "the mother of all battles" it seems to me - I want to be frank - a way to circumvent the many problems that afflict the category, and increasingly unable to reinvent itself to meet the challenges that puts us in the future.
We start from the law . Which is full of good intentions (Article 1), but merely to prepare the introduction of a tariff (Article 2), to be determined by a special commission, which will be part of the relevant ministries and members of the boards of that category . The application of this tariff should be guaranteed by the sanctions that will apply to publishers in default of which the above-mentioned Commission will endeavor to establish that list. Fine. And yet I wonder such a law, if it is approved in these terms and without modifications which annacquino (as often happens) the intentions, will be able to discourage illegal hiring journalism, and thus stimulate the reversal of all we hope? I say this because in terms of tariff the past is certainly not for comfort. I'd also say that in Italy - and not only in the field of journalism - is a well-established ability to circumvent the provisions of the law. I will respond that the law on 'fair compensation has a symbolic value, which serves to erect safeguards, which re-establishes a principle. So be it. But I believe that remain outside the door at least a couple of key issues, I would say self-evident, on which our bodies continue to fly over category and instead, along with brazen arrogance of publishers, are objective with a wild-cause of insecurity to which trying hard to remedy. 
The first question is in the numbers. In response to the crisis plaguing the world of publishing, journalists today are too many. In Italy as elsewhere. And this can only be reflected in the fees that are offered to non-guaranteed. I which are then forced to suffer the effects of both the Digital Revolution that the Participatory Network, which resulted in a new generation of citizen-journalist and communicators who are now able to compete - at least in terms of speed - with us professionals Information. It will also be unfair competition - I'm not convinced it's another story - will also be dumped, but the problem exists and it will not be the law on 'fair compensation to discourage it. There is nothing to prevent the publishers - who already do, however - to have recourse to this (huge) market to enrich its range of information, by-passing those who are protected by law because they joined the Order of Journalists. Anyway, it is the market, would the Fornero, and is a little 'hard to blame her, given the situation. Around the world, unfortunately, there are too many negative indicators about it - read for example here - and it is useless to poke your head in the sand, like the ostriches, because it is not needed. The risk, in short, is that the law cuts off from a labor market that is no longer growing irrigimentabile slices of journalists, too protected (by the publishers) to be used according to the needs of the new business requires.
Defeatist? I would not say. Our bodies are pretty category that have failed, unable so far to propose a reform neither credible nor platforms to the occupation of trade union negotiations with publishers that take account of increasing insecurity. Only these moves can make the law on fair compensation a crowbar useful to flush the publishers and force them to confront a future of publishing that is sustainable in the workforce. Instead, we have entrenched in defending an idea and a practice of journalism that no longer corresponds to the reality of today - with a syndicate of contracted speaking on behalf of the precarious and unOrdine made of lawyers and accountants who speaks on behalf of journalists - and we also tried to defend small income position that did not take us anywhere. In all this confusion, and without any real strategy, I would not want the law on fair compensation had become a battle of the facade on which young and old trombones, and the Order of the union, they would rebuild their virginity that have long since lost. If not I would like to take this step from following the other, consequential.
Related Posts
-
Syria and my heart Posted on April 23, 2013
-
Silence, you die Posted on March 23, 2013
-
Tweets of Luigi Barzini sr. Posted on March 5, 2013
-
That empty chair ... Posted on February 24, 2013
Tags
Share This
There is another aspect, perhaps more important fair compensation: the certainty of the times and the ways of payments. Otherwise I end up preferring the newspapers that do not pay, but "they give you visibility." At least they give you the option to choose in a conscious way. And 'much more serious than having to feel one / a stalker who haunts the administration to get what you deserve. Among other things, these figures are often so low that the publisher would be enough to open his wallet ...
Maybe it will be the fault of the infernal heat that also hit my hermitage, but I must confess that I begin to find nice and interesting your blog.
And 'ilcaldo, Orlando, do not worry ...