” For me it’s created a system in the public sector so who pays wrong ‘. Sunday had opened to greater flexibility for the state from February to discuss the reform Madia; yesterday – writes PRINTING – in the traditional year-end press conference, the premier Renzi went further. Explaining that yes, the rules governing the public work will be on Parliament to intervene, but also offering his personal point of view: ‘My idea is that anyone who does not work well because they choose not to work well, the so-called slackers, it should mandate at home ‘. It motivates a backstory told in recent days by the newspapers: in the decrees of the Jobs Act dismissed by the Council of Ministers on 24 was originally a paragraph that expressly excluded from the measure of the state, then suppressed, as he unveiled Senator Pietro Ichino. ‘I suggested I remove the rule’, says Renzi, ‘made no sense insert it into a text that spea ks of another’. But the ability to intervene on public employees is fully open. (…) The point that appears most controversial is to identify the ‘economic and organizational reasons’ dismissal in the public sector. Just as there are questions about which portfolio companies may be already included in the rules of the Jobs Act and which are not. It is the same Renzi to explain that it is said you have introduced the novelty of the private audience in exactly the same way: ‘If we decided not to provide for the poor performance (as grounds for dismissal, ed) for individuals, not to say that no one can predict the public ‘, where maybe you can imagine’ a greater role of judges versus private ‘. Reflections that are still postponed for a couple of months, when the law Madia, stops in the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Senate will resume its path (after approval dell’Italicum). Although easier to predict outputs from P a will not be a walk (…) “.
No comments:
Post a Comment