egr. President, I am addressing you as the representative of the category of scientific informants, but my hope is that you can report to the entire National Council and, therefore, to the entire category, investing the political and trade union bodies, in the eventual correction of the Jobsact, so that pay attention to all the categories that find themselves in the same situation, as far as I am about to observe.
I work as an accountant and I have had the opportunity to explore some issues for ISf clients.
In several articles I read the dispute that arises about the Ateco code, in the activation of the VAT number, to be adopted for this category, or, if representatives (code 46.18.31) or professionals not classifiable elsewhere (code 74.90.99), without shadow of a doubt (should the situation continue as it is) is the second, as pharmaceutical industries require high professionalism, demanding the following degrees: Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Medicine and Biology (at least the Multinationals), while for the former, compulsory schooling is enough and given the choice, I would recommend representing the candy or biscuit industry, because they are more marketable and without any responsibility.
I can understand that the world of work is not easy and that the companies involved take advantage of it to buy the Ferrari at the price of a Cinquecento and offload the higher costs on the subject, but this is not always possible, as registration with a VAT number , as agents or otherwise, is a diminutio that does not encourage the growth of the person and the company they represent, in addition it must be said that Law 219/2006, supported by judicial sentences and regional laws, does not include this figure among the Commercial Agents .
Beyond any consideration, everything is superseded by the Fornero law and the Jobsact that no one dares to mention and which provides for the compulsory classification as employees, in the present case, with the classification of the chemists' contract, such as some Groups of companies apply, recognizing the high professionalism.
It is true that we are in a country where everything is based on the "do ut des" and politics looks at the pool of votes to be captured and not if a law makes the country more civilized, without thinking that although small, that of informants is large in related industries in the category of Doctors.
The Fornero law considers the position we are talking about to be FALSE VAT ITEMS, in fact an amnesty is foreseen, but as we know, many laws are not applied, nor does anyone take charge of careful control and sanction the defaulters.
Fornero provides that single-mandate contracts of over 8 months must necessarily be considered bridging contracts, some might object that companies would equip themselves for a mandate of less than eight months, but who would accept such a short mandate?
Another solution would be to eliminate the sole agent contract from the (uncivil) code. Surely this writing of mine will not excite you, but I believe that if you take the initiative to spread these ideas to achieve certain results, the category will be more united and will appreciate your work.
Sincerely
dr. Vincenzo Practicò
egr. Dr. Vincenzo, we thank you very much for your open letter.
The ISTAT Professional Code is 2.1.1.2.2 – Pharma company sale representative. ISTAT states that "it is to be used to communicate, disseminate and exchange internationally comparable statistical and administrative data on professions; however, this instrument should not be understood as an instrument for regulating professions. The Ateco code of an economic activity has no legal value but simply statistical value; it can be used in operations of reporting or registering one's business“.
Having said that, we are infinitely grateful to her because, although she is not an ISF but somehow extraneous to this sector, she has correctly framed the problem.
Our Association, first as AIISF and now as Fedaiisf, has been trying for more than 50 years to make politicians, trade unions and institutions understand what you have correctly denounced. The problem arises from the "ambiguous" nature in which the ISF has been culpably placed.
The Legislative Decree 219/06, which regulates our business, clearly excludes the ISF from any commercial activity, saying that "they must report to the scientific service referred to in Article 126, on which they depend", And "The scientific service must be independent from the marketing service of the pharmaceutical company.” So says the law, indicating in the ISF and in its scientific information the only way to make the drugs of the company, on which it depends, known to the operators authorized to prescribe or dispense them, excluding propaganda or claims.
The ambiguity arises from the incorrect interpretation by pharmaceutical companies of considering the FSI a seller and consequently they treat the FFIs as such, hiring them with commission contracts on sales or, if under CCNL, with bonuses on the achievement of sales targets.
Also guilty were the unions who, in the National Collective Labor Agreement, agreed to include the ISFs in the functional area of marketing, with an area manager reporting directly to marketing itself. Politicians are a rubber wall in the sense that they listen to us, but do nothing, evidently our powers of conviction are very different from those of Farmindustria. Finally, AIFA, which has the institutional obligation to control the world of medicines, limits itself to having the list of dependent ISFs sent to the ISFs. For the rest, there is no check whether the provisions of the law are actually respected and not just formally. No one else checks! Least of all the ISF with a VAT number.
Today the union seems more sensitive to this state of affairs, certainly it will be a huge undertaking to enforce a law that has never been applied and to dent the encrustations settled over many years of impunity, without thereby harming the "atypical" workers now employed. Despite everything, let's be optimistic.
The editorial staff Fedaiisf
