The old advancing
There is nothing wrong with wanting to work even when you are already retired. E 'but do dishonest at the expense of the youngest, however, pretending not to realize this. It also happens in the world of journalism - urea, if it happens! - But it is a scandal in which too many people close their eyes to the corporate spirit. So, given that for a few days in this part there is a judgment of the Supreme Court that legitimizes this practice in my opinion unhealthy, it is perhaps appropriate to begin to discuss it without mince words, for clarity and try to put some stake, even before legal ethics.
Let's start with the facts. In Libya, following the war of 2011- and as reporters, not the commentators' - there were several distinguished colleagues pensioners, who once again did not want to give up the thrill of being in the front line, without thinking too much for the fact that in this way they ended up stealing the bread and butter to the many freelance and temporary workers who, almost always at their expense - and often without life insurance - were convinced to find hell of Misrata or Sirte few job opportunities, saw the skinny landscape that characterizes long services abroad in the Italian press. I mention no names for love of country, but there are those who - among these luxury retirement - had made arrangements with several newspapers, as well as radio and TV, with bulimia to make sense; to the point of being forced to sit in the hotel often, in order to keep up with all his clients, even if it meant begging the day's news from freelance colleagues. It happens to the foreign, but not only. And is an increasingly common practice.
Nothing illegal, for charity. Especially since the savage practice of pre-retirement forced expelled from newsrooms a large number of colleagues in the full force of their physical and intellectual, can still can make a valuable contribution to the publications for which they worked. I find, therefore, that these legitimate colleagues want to continue working. And I'm glad, frankly, if they can. But I can not find right that are used with the same tasks as before: that is, that they continue to do the reporters, correspondents, or even - and it happens, it happens - who work at the desk. It 'obvious fact that such use is convenient to the editor - so that saves, and not a little - but it is equally obvious that doing so blocks the turnover in newsrooms and reduce more and more the employability of young journalists, which are (for this) forced to hunger. That journalists-retirees do so commentators, columnists, or, if they get the chance. and capabilities. But let's stop, please, with this unhealthy practice, which generates an absurd war between young and old, which does not feel the need, especially at this time.
It 's true, in a ruling recently the Supreme Court has ruled that there is nothing wrong with "heap", disavowing such a rule was introduced by INPGI well and that reduced the amount of pension for subjects who receive income from work of more than 20 thousand euro per year. But frankly, I would not go so proud of this judgment, nor would call "historic", as does the Journalists Union Retirees . In my opinion this is not a defensible judgment. And I can not give reason to how they pick the "old hands" of preparation, that instead of doing the "noble fathers" of this profession are transformed into "stepfathers" whose behavior, if only on the ethical, is decidedly reprehensible. We want to talk or keep doing like ostriches?