The Noble Bandit and his questions: did the military also give the union?


Yesterday, the Minister of Defense announced the intention to submit to the parliamentary examination a decree that, by accepting the indications of the Supreme Court, leads in the direction of a union representation even for men and women in uniform.

Now you know, I am a bandit and normally the bandits disregard the laws, but I am also a man of arms and therefore I feel interested and supportive towards the soldiers of the third millennium.

Belonging to the nobility of the sword, since I was a child, I was educated to govern men first, to control their impulses, to have their needs at heart, to the point that I would never have dreamed of abandoning somebody before, nor during and after the battle, at the same time I would have never had pity against cowards, traitors and slackers

Today I see that things have changed, for those who need weapons there has been a need for union representation and this is interpreted as a clear sign of distrust towards the captains or as you call them, the commanders, on the other hand you need to be an expert in geometry to understand that in a vertically organized system, any horizontal insertion is an element of discontinuity.

I will be clearer, less medieval: the military organization is structured in such a way as to provide immediate answers to emergency situations in which it is decided the life and death of human beings, such raw and necessary immediacy is ensured mainly by two elements, the hierarchical organization and sense of responsibility or, if you prefer, a sense of duty.

The hierarchy ensures decisions in the hands of a single subject and at the same time allows the fulfillment of orders up to the last individual belonging to the organization, setting also awards and blame according to provisions and regulations, the sense of duty instead ensures that those who stay at the command does not perform actions dictated by personal vanity or self-interest and ensures that each performer is not hit by the demon of insubordination.

Being a man of the Middle Ages I want to deepen the question of the sense of duty, since I already imagine the objections of you individuals of the third millennium, objections based entirely on pseudo-scientific and skeptically oriented approaches, all aimed at asking you if the ethical dimension can condition behavior such a point to defeat vices and faults in the name of a superior good.

History has shown that your skepticism is unjustified, the motivation impressed by the example of the commanders, the spirit of belonging to a group, a simple symbol have allowed millions of individuals, framed in military groups over the millennia, to overcome unsearchable trials, well beyond the limits of human endurance.

Understand that, having died in the 1313, my view of history has a horizon more limited than yours, but I can not believe that the centuries, followed at the XIV of the Christian era, were devoid of ethically relevant acts, comparable to those of the Spartans at the Termopile or the Franks, heirs of Charlemagne, who swore mutual loyalty to Strasbourg.

With so much history on my shoulders, the one known to me, added to what I do not know, I wonder why the militia of the third millennium need a trade union, a heterodirect organization to assist and protect, provide advice and represent; where did the hierarchy end, the spirit of body, the example, the duty?

Where the ethical and moral values ​​have fallen, on which I understand an oath is taken again by structure, commitments taken and loyalty to the word given, not too different from that of Strasbourg of 842 d. C. pocanzi cited?

Of course if it has been decided that the military institution is no longer able to give protection to its people there must have been some warning, some symptoms of malaise or disbelief must have hit the men in arms, perhaps the lack of a certain orientation, of a firm and sure guide, this I would not be able to say, however if it should have happened I ask myself a further question: what sense does it have to affirm the intention, on the part of the political organ, to dictate criteria, limits and statutory purposes ?

The Constitutional Charter is clear: unions can not be subject to any obligation, unless they are registered with central or peripheral bodies, as established by law, and they must also have a democratic statutory organization.

It is clear that the idea of ​​dictating criteria, limits and statutory purposes seems to me, too, that I remember first of all a raider, a forcing of the rules in force, although the same rules and in particular Art. 39 of the Italian Constitution are partially disregarded by the currently existing unions, since the 1946 does not take place neither the registration with the central bodies, nor the determination of the juridical personality of the unions.

In such a situation, the ministerial initiative gives a positive regulation that, while on the one hand seems to want to ensure full course of the constitutional dictate, on the other stands in sharp contrast to current practice, thus defining a new inequality of treatment between the world of military and non-military work, since the defense personnel would be governed by a situation that the rest of the workers, for reasons connected with operations and independence, chose not to regulate.

Brothers in arms of the third millennium, but are you really sure to want to slip into this maze of laws and regulations when you have the millennial experience of the Western armed forces at your disposal? The hierarchy, discipline, honor, fidelity, duty, example, value, all elements of ethical significance with tangible and effective repercussions are at your disposal, in the face of an uncertain future and of which, the same Constitutional Court has delegated all determination to acts of parliament.

I understand that my doubts are medieval, but try to understand me, in my day did not vote, I was noble by birth, brigand for revenge and caprice, man free by papal will, what you want to know about union representation and democratic laws one thing, however, I understand it, two opposing forces clash on this issue of representation, which have as their objectives a new rent of position on the one hand and the will to continue not to care for their men on the other.

Ghino di Tacco