"We must increase wages by linking them to productivity, by incentivising second-level bargaining with decontributions and tax exemptions". Thus Maurizio Stirpe, Confindustria's vice-president for labour and industrial relations, in an interview with Il Messaggero, speaks on the reduction of the working week to four days and the minimum wage, issues at the centre of the debate.

"First of all,' he said, 'we need to clarify between a reduction in working hours for the same wage and a rescheduling of working hours. On this I think there is a lot of confusion. Working 40 hours in 4 days instead of 5 changes little. If, on the other hand, the reduction in working hours leads to increased costs for the company and thus loss of competitiveness, we are on the wrong track. We have to build a toolbox for companies and workers with tools that guarantee on the one hand the company result and on the other hand the possibility to reshape working hours. There must be a positive outcome for both workers and companies. I would then add that wage growth cannot and must not be at the expense of productivity. This is and remains a fixed point. Just as it is clear that a reduction in working hours cannot be separated from maintaining or increasing productivity'. Furthermore, on the average number of hours worked in Italy, Stirpe added: 'we are within the average, but on this front I believe we must do more. The government must, in my opinion, not only make a robust cut in the tax wedge, but also introduce incentives to encourage second-level bargaining, thereby increasing the purchasing power of workers. Decontribution and de-taxation are valuable tools that allow companies to reduce labour costs, workers to have benefits in their pay packets, and the country to be more competitive overall. This is why the executive should move in this direction. I am thinking above all of tax relief on performance bonuses or tax incentives for those who hire young people and women. Much can be done on this front. The resources,' he noted, 'can certainly be found, with 1.2 trillion in public spending, the room for manoeuvre to give a boost to those who produce is there. It is enough to reorganise spending to find the resources and thus increase the purchasing power of wages at the same cost for companies. And we have to do it right now with inflation biting, the energy transition to be implemented, and the trend to be reversed on youth unemployment'.

On demographic decline and youth unemployment Stirpe said: 'without new young people entering the labour market and with the demographic decline, our welfare is at great risk. We spend around 30% of GDP on health, care and welfare. We must tackle the demographic winter and do it now. A comprehensive strategy must be put in place to address the critical issues. This is possible, but so far the issue has never been tackled organically. The current trends should give us pause for thought. Many companies have already moved independently to increase levels of employee welfare, but more can be done. For the industrial sector in the first place, but also services and the public sector must focus on second-level bargaining to increase payroll, of which welfare is an important element'.

And on the introduction of the minimum wage reiterated that 'a minimum wage is perfectly useless in the industrial compact where the minimum thresholds in the various sectors are well above the proposed EUR 9 gross. But Confindustria is not against it prejudicially. However, we believe it is much more appropriate to talk about Article 39 of the Constitution, which has never been applied, rather than the minimum wage. I think it is appropriate have a single contract for each production sector that has effectiveness erga omnesby cancelling the current thousand contracts. This would implement the Constitution, which provides for contracts to be signed by those who have the real representation of a category. This would eliminate the tangle of associations that often dump contracts without having the requisites, i.e. the true representation. This would be an operation to bring clarity."

Stirpe then spoke on the debate on thedifferentiated autonomy reiterating that 'the theme posed some 20 years ago has to come to terms with the fact that the world has changed profoundly. And that subjects of those years have now taken on a different connotation and no longer fit into an organic reform framework. It is absurd, from the point of view of business, just to imagine a regional energy policy, when even the national one has to be linked to the European sphere. The same applies to bridges, roads and railways. Infrastructure policy and strategies must be national, certainly not regional. In essence, the subjects must be reviewed and, at the same time, the financial perimeter of the LEP, the minimum assistance levels, must be calculated, defining a hard core of services from which no exceptions can be made. The obsolete concept of historical expenditure, which penalises the less fortunate territories and increases inequalities instead of reducing them, must be definitively overcome. For this we need a equalisation fund adequately financed, which we have been talking about for a long time, in order to erode and correct the gaps at a territorial level. Our country must reduce these gaps, change crystallised balances, give all areas the same opportunities for growth.

And in conclusion, on the role of Rome, Stirpe said: 'The role of the capital of Italy, and too many people often forget this, must be properly valued and brought into line with the status of other European capitals. A decisive step on the autonomy front can only be taken by taking these aspects into account and not by mortifying the territories that are furthest behind. The objective must be to make up for historical delays, to bridge the inequalities in services to citizens and in infrastructure. For the good of our country as a whole'.