To the FEMCA-CISL General Secretary Sergio Gigli
To the General Secretary of UILCEM-UIL Romano Bellissima
on 12 April 2006 we received, like all insiders, the "mandate document" for the renewal of the Chemicals CCNL. We have participated, with the workers registered in our Association, in the meetings organized by the pharmaceutical sector and collected their opinions. Now, on the eve of the General Assembly in Rome, in full respect of the roles (the AIISF also sets itself the objective of researching the problems related to the work of the ISFs to entrust them to the attention of the Unions so that they can address them and try to resolve them), we feel it is our duty to entrust you with our considerations on the proposed agreement proposal.
The AIISF does not consider the content of the "document" satisfactory and asks the Unions to review the positions concerning the Scientific Representatives of the Drug (hereinafter ISF).
He especially expresses strong worry as "defined" in point 4 of the "mandate document". He considers it very dangerous to entrust such an important and crucial issue as the definition of the role and profile of the ISF to committees. It hardly needs to be noted that in the CCNL in force (in 2002) the National Observatory was already engaged in working "in particular" on Legislative Decree 541/92 governing the activity of the ISF. If more than 4 years have not been enough to "suggest the solutions deemed most suitable" for defining the profile of the ISF, it is not clear how a commission to be set up can (or wants?) give answers in one year.
He deems it useful, in this moment of synthesis, to entrust to the sensitivity of the Unions what is written in the "Final report of the inquiry into the problems underlying the phenomenon of comparison" published on 18 January 2006 by the single chamber commission of inquiry where on page 152 reads:
“… it is therefore not clear how it is possible that the scientific representatives of the drug, the first link in the chain, still operate in the absence of an adequate and modern regulation which specifically regulates their activity. In some cases, this involves them are devoid of any guarantee of stability of their employment relationship and grants the pharmaceutical industries the right to benefit from complete discretion, both as regards economic and commercial treatments, and on their own technical-scientific communication strategies. The lack of suitable regulation could lead to a series of problems both for scientific representatives and for health professionals and citizens. In this way, above all, there is a tendency to transform their activity from a technical-scientific profession of information and support to health professionals, to a real activity exclusively promotional and commercial..."
In this context, do you think a weakening of the contractual position of these workers is acceptable? Do you think it is possible to accept compromises with a strong dilatory imprint such as those proposed by the "opponent"?
The AIISF asks
