All the hard-won labour gains from the 20th century are all being lost! It is due to the younger generations ignorance of the proletarian plight and that consciousness... oh well, wage-slavery to be replaced with blatant slavery - welcome to the new order of things. 

First, there is difference between companies owned by private owners and companies in which state have some property rights. Mine opinion is that there is a lot of reasons that that rule is still in practice in companies that have state as one of owners. On the other side, if we live in the time of liberties of all sorts you can not force anyone on anything. now we live in time of free economy but only for the owners of the capital workers have only one freedom - freedom to stay without of job.

Maybe the best solution is that the companies with more than 15 workers can fire worker without a valid reason - only if the company is non solvent, and that it can bee proved by the figures from last financial report.

Hi Plojovic Semsudin,

I will give an example. In Italy as well as in other countries, it is prohibited to ask to a candidate for a job, his/her sexual preferences or political preferences. Now, suppose that an employer  does not want to hire left wing workers because he believes that these workers are more aware of their rights however he cannot investigate on their political preferences.  Unfortunately (for him), He hires a left wing worker and only after the hiring he discovers his political preferences (this is not a hypothetical example, before the introduction of  EPL in Italy it was not so uncommon to see workers laid off only because they were caught  while reading "L'Unità", a left wing newspaper), and he fires him. I think that this kind of firing practice will be considered illegal everywhere. However,  how can the worker prove that he has being fired for political discrimination? It is very difficult (probably impossible). It is for this reason, that the norm about "giusta causa"  was introduced in the Italian legal system. So, I still wonder, what are the benifits of such elimination?

Hola Amigos es importante lo que estan señalando, pero no olvidemos que estamos en un mercado globalizado que impone a las empresas normas para ampliarse en el mercado, es decir pasar de estructuras rigidad a estructuras planas que puedan insertarse en los mercados tales como franquicias, esto implica flexibilizar las relaciones con los trabajadores implementando la subcontraciòn regida por leyes comerciales y no por normas laborales, lo que origiuna que el trabajador se convierta en una mercancia que vende su fuerza de trabajo es usado por un tiempo determinado y despedido cuando la empresa no lo requyiera autores sobre el tema estan planteando el fin del trabajo permante

Employment protection is a complex web of laws and practices that usually also can be changed by contracts. I think somebody is trying to change the concept of with whom a right is allocated, because as far as I know at-will-employment is not the norm in Europe. If two parts enter into a contract, it is usually the case that you need to show that the terms of the contract has been violated by one party, in order to terminate the contract. Otherwise, I see no need for contracts... (anybody can break it for any reason at any time at no cost?)

Now, the question is "under what circumstances can a contract be cancelled"? If there are few, if any, get-out clauses, that is generally not a good thing in employment law. What if you could not change jobs (terminate your contract)? What happens if a firm runs into a slump, or closes?  If there are few circumstances where a firm can reduce the workforce (only through voluntary agreements or retirement of the workforce), this may be a bad thing. Employers would be reluctant to take on new permanent staff, because the potential cost would be high. This could create a dual labour market, where some are permanently and safely employed, and some are reduced to (the modern equivalent of) day labour. In some circles, the anglo-saxon, especially US concept of fairness in this arena is somehow held as a shining example of a well-functioning labour market. The evidence for that is somewhat spotty, since the ultimate purpose of what outcome is desirable is highly complex. For example: what is the purpose of the labour market? Does the labour market serve that purpose well? Who is it for? What is a desirable outcome?

You can read more on this topic, and study differences in employment relation legislation in different countries at http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/oecdindicatorsofemploymentprotection.htm

There you can download materials, including the employment protection indicators for OECD countries. There I found that Italy ranks 8 in the risk of individual dismissal of both permanent and temporary workforce.