Dear collegues,
I thank you for expressing your thoughts publicly because you give me the opportunity to respond by highlighting the point of view of those who are committed to trying to protect the category, despite the lack of cooperation from colleagues.
This type of activity is highly demanding because it is carried out after having fulfilled the classic work duties which, as those who carry out our activity know, do not end in the traditional eight hours. Engaging in associative activities therefore means sacrificing the little time that remains available to an ideal vision. Also knowing that they can count on the active collaboration of only a few other colleagues among the associates, and having few means available.
The counterparts, on the other hand, are formidable war machines, very well organized and perfectly integrated into the vital nerve centers of society. In recent times this is demonstrated, among other things, by the profound changes made to labor laws, all to the advantage of the stronger side, and by the distraction (or connivance?) of other workers' protection organisations. Our CCNL amply highlights it where (it is only one example among many that I could give) it considers Scientific Representatives, hired as employees, "assimilated" to managers, allowing companies to impose formidable work rhythms on them without being burdened by further expenses. In fact, managers are not paid overtime.
Commission-based reports also deserve further study because even Enasarco recognizes that, given the current legislation, the informant cannot be considered a sales agent.
In my opinion, in order to effectively face this state of affairs, the Isfs should understand the importance of opposing a common front to the interlocutors; unfortunately, however, only a few have chosen to support the associative activity of the category, thus depriving it of the necessary representativeness.
I realize that those who carry out our business are the result of a careful selection made by the companies, which in every way hinder the idea that their employees can organize themselves into autonomous associations. Employment relationships based on commissions, or the achievement of economic bonuses linked to the result of sales also help to reduce the "appeal" of whistleblower organizations, so I'm not surprised if among the whistleblowers themselves someone wonders what associations have made for him.
Instead, I ask what the col
