The unions' statement on the ISF and on the alternative job offers for them, aroused a strong negative reaction from many colleagues, in particular on the proposal to use the ISF remotely.
As is known, this editorial team has always been remotely opposed to the ISF, a non-regulated and strongly market-oriented hybrid figure.
Some time ago we wrote: The real risk that can be glimpsed, often already a reality, is the perniciousness of the information/advertising that is offered to healthcare professionals. There is an oversupply of the 
which all companies (they all do the same things) have (e-mail; telephone; etc) which at best disturbs the recipient. We are increasingly similar to those who offer us new contracts for gas and electricity or telephony via telephone, unmissable commercial proposals, etc. In the end with kindness or not the answer always becomes the same NO THANKS.
Let alone in this moment in which the doctor rightly puts clinical activity before his professional updating! But do you really think that remote working could work if all companies adopted it? Has anyone tried calling their GP these days?
We are told that in Zambon a few days ago the locals and the RSU harshly criticized remote working, complete with a joint statement. A few days later this release comes out!
The attention paid to a worker who has too often been forgotten and the fact that we try to protect him in this emergency situation is appreciated, but in reality we fear that they have given the go-ahead towards the digitization of the work of the ISF: the ISF remotely . All the big companies have been using this tool partially for some years, the risk that everything goes remotely we've been feeling it for a while. In 2007 the unions agreed to place the ISF in the functional area of marketing, illegally. Tragic choice that has produced 15,000 layoffs of ISF partially replaced by fake VAT numbers. At the time it was believed, provided they were in good faith, that they were saving jobs by shifting the ISF's role into commercial. Don't make the same mistake!
We are surprised that even FULC has not understood that, at this moment, the doctor rightly puts clinical activity before his professional updating. We understand the dramatic moment and that the alternative in some cases is the CIG but let's not overlook the fact that certain companies can take advantage of the situation to irreversibly change the role of the ISF.
Editorial – 6 March 2020
