Monday, March 23, 2009

Cockatiels Playgrounds

According to the EU Court of Justice, women are discriminating against men

As I mentioned in a previous post , the debate on the pensionable age of public employees is tainted by a long series of misunderstandings. Among these, however, there is a misunderstanding born quite understandable reasons: information was, shall we say, twisted and upside-down sign because it appeared to be contrary to any logic.

The European Court of Justice. The need raise the female retirement age comes, as we know, from a ruling by the EU Court of Justice. The Luxembourg judges have decreed that our social security system is "discriminatory". That is, discriminates against women. Reading this news, all in Italy, the Court thought that the same complaints of discrimination against women workers. Instead it is the opposite. The sentence shall act to protect people: civil servants are being discriminated against males.

The Board of Brunetta. The text of the European ruling in truth is not so clear: the decision speaks only of "a discriminatory regime, contrary to Article. 141 of the Treaty of the European Community." But the correct interpretation is the one above it follows from another text: the report of the Committee established by the Minister Brunetta to study the equalization of retirement. In this paper make it clear that we are talking about "unequal treatment to the detriment of men." And it even adds: "At this stage, a male civil servant may appeal to the court for the granting of the retirement pension at 60, citing the rule that allows that option for women."

What is not said. If this is so, then the whole debate over retirement age by removing part of a basic premise: la riforma che si sta andando a fare ha come obiettivo il peggioramento delle condizioni lavorativo-previdenziali per le dipendenti pubbliche, perché questo di fatto ci chiede l'Europa. Parlare di "equiparazione" e di una riforma per "i diritti delle donne" penalizzate nelle loro prospettive professionali è del tutto fuorviante.
Il che non esclude che una riforma sia effettivamente necessaria. Ma un dibattito fondato sulle premesse sbagliate conduce con ogni probabilità alla soluzione sbagliata.

0 comments:

Post a Comment