An entire life spent in the trade-union. Forty-four years of battles, pressures, mediations, negotiations starting right from the bottom of the professional ladder up to the top where all national problems converge. He was one of the closest collaborators of Sergio D’antoni, but whenever Raffaele Bonanni speaks about his “ Cisl”, his expression is that of a young man again, full of passion when spending time with workers, in helping them, giving them support and – whenever deemed necessary – guiding them, even along difficult paths. Bonanni is a true Abruzzese, (region of Abruzzo), born 10th June , 1949 in the town of Bomba with 930 inhabitants in the province of Chieti, which is part of the “Comunità Montana Valsangro” (Italian Regional or Provincial Association established for the Care and Protection of inland Areas). And this is where we start off with our interview …
As a child how did you perceive the work done by adults?
I come from the countryside, where work is perceived in a different manner, because it is innate to the very life of the individual. You don’t even notice it, but everything is work. If you worked on the vineyards, it was normal spending hours to cultivate it, and then harvesting the fruit, and then making wine. After a day of work, it was normal in the evening to see either parents or grandparents repairing shoes, watching grandmother spinning or weaving. My father was a barber, shoemaker, plumber and, electrician. There wasn’t a time set aside only for work, for recreational activities, for chatting … What we nowadays refer to as hobbies, then was an active whole of our day.
And do you today, thanks to those teachings, do something in the house?
Well, all the electricity work for instance, I did myself. And not only. In my home in Abruzzo, I still have a Fiat 500 dating back to ‘ 71, a Fiat 600 dating back to ‘ 58, a R4 of dating back to’ 72, my own bike when I was 20: all workperfectly well, and much of the maintenance I did myself. Today it is considered a hobby, at that time though … it wasn’t.
Grandfather, grandmother, parents … have left strong sensations and handed out lessons on life. What memories of your family do you have and how do you consider the family today as an institution?
There are sidereal distances between 50 years ago with the family who lived in the countryside and the family living in the city today. Not only because they all lived together under the same roof, they had their meals together and ate at the same time, but also because everyone depended on the other’s work. My father, my mother, grandfather and two aunts: all the members of the family helped each other. In so doing they passed on the traditions, teachings and values.
The trade-union too is based on the concept of togetherness …
Yes, the union is just the “getting together”. And it is the only reality where one pays to subscribe as member. Itis the unique sharing experience, so much so, that in politics today, you neither pay nor keep together: there are no political parties but only electoral committees. The issue is not trivial: whoever pays to be part of a federation, clearly means that he believes in the values it represents, he has made a carefully thought out choice which strongly makes him responsible in his engagement with others. Politics, on the other hand boil down to some Monad and it all ends there, because one thing’s true: one provides for all but only each provides for himself staying together with the other. Nowadays, politics have produced only butterflies, leaders who have a short life. And they have led us to believe that this is all to do with a phenomenon of ‘ modernity ‘…
What is the difference between how unions are conceived as such and the expression they embody?
Just to point out, in Italy, the union is plural, and my union does not spring from a confessional one, as Acli would have wished, but from Giulio Pastore, an extremely religious man who was persecuted under the Fascist regime, it is inspired by the social doctrine of the Church. Whoever has this inspiration, does neither theorize throwing social classes against each other. Other unions spring from different origins…
These differences, however, have prevented dialogue among the same trade unions?
The capacity of dialetics is never to be considered a bad thing, as long as it is done in an orderly fashion and in mutual respect of the other. Let’s say that sometimes dialectics has not really been respectful. My trade-union is certainly not violent, neither verbally nor physically. Others just happen to be intolerant to …
Politics – from your observatory- what opinion does it have of the unions today?
This kind of politics, which are arranged by electoral committees often frown upon the trade-unions today, be it just because it’s the only one thing that is organised. There is difficulty in the capability of engaging with each other. Let me give an example: should there be two people talking, on the one hand a trade-unionist of Cisl and the other a politician, he undoubtedly risks being confused: the unionist will appear to be a warden and the politician a populist.
And how does one become Secretary- General to a colossus such as this with 4.5 million members?
Through Darwin’s theory on selection-he responds jokingly, n.d.r-eventually will make it to the top! I can’t say by pure chance because it would be not admitting the delicate process of selection within the union, however … I also believe in the hand of Providence.
And after making it to the top, what else is left?
In the meantime, there is lots to be done in the trade- union system that needs to be restructured, unburdened and reorganised. Then, my idea is to take this experience right up to the end. The work there was to do, has already been done: territorial unions were 124 whilest now there are 58; from 17 categories of representation, we are now down to 7. They have been very difficult operations to carry out, and I have been personally engaged in them…
Have you ever been received by Renzi for direct confrontation?
Neither have I called him nor have I ever been called by him. But he declares not wanting to meet with the unions, and I believe that he’s doing not doing right; not so much for us, but for himself and for the responsibility he has. Unfortunately, these are the signs of our times.
Should you have the opportunity to give the Prime Minister some advice, what would you say to him?
To rather use the term ‘ we ‘ and not to use the words “Wha’ aah think…” because “what I think” we’ve already had.
Translation provided by Marina Stronati
