We try to clarify as much as possible what we are seeing, reading, and your main questions which come in hundreds through the various channels and in private.
Please try to read thoroughly before asking questions, we are trying to clarify some essential points.
- the Law Decree exists and is in force. It will have to be converted into law within 60 days and in this time frame it could undergo changes but at the moment the text is in force as we read it (here the text)
- Does it suck? It's unfair? Is it unconstitutional? Yes, but there is.
Those who will have to evaluate and decide on injustice and unconstitutionality are the judges (of labor especially in this case) and the Constitutional Court. It cannot be established by the employer, the recipient instead of many actions proposed in these days and of which we speak only because we have been asked too many times ... let's face it: the warning, whether for privacy or otherwise, intended for the employer work or to the ASL, if you want to send it, but it won't change things. It is not the employer who can oppose the law, if a law instructs him to absolve something, he acts in accordance with the law, period. We repeat: that the law sucks (for us), it does not change this state of affairs and a judge or the Constitutional Court will have to establish it.
So let's get to the point: what can be done?
As for suspensions and / or demotions, therefore mainly for employees, it will be necessary to go before a judge and, incidentally, ask for the constitutionality judgment to be lifted.
Timing: uncertain. We could get there before 31/12 or later.
Feasibility: concrete. This can be done for all work suspensions or demotions subsequent to the DL.
Possibility of seeing our reasons accepted: we cannot predict them.
One thing must be very clear: this path requires the awareness that for the entire duration of the appeal and up to the sentence, the worker will be suspended or demoted, as required by law. So, as we have already written, it must be taken into account that the fight will be tough.
As for the professional categories, freelancers (for example pharmacists) who are not employees, we honestly tell you that it is not clear from the text of the law WHAT exactly should happen.
Carryover from the law:
"6. Once the terms referred to in paragraph 5 have elapsed, the competent local health authority ascertains non-compliance with the vaccination
acquisition of any further information from the competent authorities, shall immediately notify in writing to the interested party, the employer and the professional association of membership. The adoption of the deed of assessment by of the local health company determines the suspension of the right to perform services or tasks that involve interpersonal contacts or involve, in any other form, the risk of spreading the infection from SARS-CoV-2. "
Now, it is not clear to what extent the professional order is involved in this procedure: the ASL communicates to the interested party and the professional order the ascertainment of the non-compliance with the obligation but how this could lead to suspension the right to perform services or duties?
IF a suspension from the order is meant, this can be appealed and the appeal is internal to the order itself, at the central commission; in this first phase the mere fact of having recourse determines the suspension of the provision, therefore, the freelancer, by using the order INSIDE, already sees his suspension frozen and can continue to work (only after eventually reaching the Supreme Court).
IF, on the other hand, the interpretation were textual, it is really not clear how the ASL can order the impediment to exercise ... This point is a mystery to us, therefore we reserve the right to see how they will apply it and with what measures.
Nhowever, no sanctions are envisaged, neither administrative nor otherwise. This means that those who do not respect the provisions are not offered sanctions of any kind (read consequences).
If the health workers ALL opposed demonstrating an "act of force", staying at home en masse (or giving the warning to follow this path, an out-out) MAYBE we would not even see the conversion of this part of the decree. Perhaps we would see it modified or perhaps not even this, but what is certain is that the weapons available, apart from that of the social struggle, see only legal avenues as the only way to establish the effective unconstitutionality of the law.
In any case, the merits can only be entered before a judge, only there will it make sense to bring the observations, the disputes, the arguments that we all rightly share now. They will not find confirmation except through a sentence, because it is a law that we are talking about, even if we do not like it.
- Are you wary? Do them, but do not delude yourself that they are decisive.
- As we have already written, in the end the question is one: how much are you willing to sacrifice to defend a right? What are you willing to lose? Because there will be no "easy" routes and no easy solutions.
- If there is no massive response, however, this law will only be the prelude, we are convinced that other increasingly harmful and increasingly stringent rules will follow.
We know that this is not what you would like to hear, we know that we are also often disagreeable, but we write our evaluations in all honesty and we do not expect them to be taken as absolute truths but represent our response to your requests of the moment.
Thank you, Staff Corvelva.