The mass movement against genocide and war in Gaza, from late August to early October, accelerated the process that our party has predicted and advocated since the late 1970s: the decline of collaborationist and regime-friendly trade unionism and the rebirth of the class-based trade union movement outside and against it.

The CGIL confirmed its nature as a regime trade union by refusing to bring the struggle against war to the trade union level, something that grassroots trade unionism, in particular the USB, wanted and was able to do.

The CGIL leadership reacted disproportionately to the USB’s success in channeling the interclassist movement against the war into a general strike, elevating it to the level of a working-class struggle.

First, it tried to sabotage the grassroots’ unionism general strike on Monday, September 22, by calling a competing strike for Friday, September 19, one working day earlier! Faced with the dismay and anger of a significant portion of its members – with the epicenter among school workers, who struck in large numbers on September 22 with the grassroots unions – the CGIL national leadership rushed to take cover and, on a proposal launched in Genoa by the local leaders of USB and CGIL, agreed to call a unified general strike with all the grassroots unions for October 3. A press conference was even held in the Chamber of Deputies in the presence of the leaders of USB and CGIL.

Overall, the strike on October 3 was successful considering that it was a political strike against the war, at a time of serious political and trade union backwardness among the working class. It had good participation in some sectors, such as in education, the INPS (National Social Security Institute), and maritime or naval logistics, but low participation in the manufacturing and the more strictly defined blue-collar sectors. Huge crowds participated in the marches, including unorganized workers and even non-workers,led mostly by the working-class trade unions.

It is important to repeat and note some striking facts of the general strikes of September 22 and October 3:
     1) For the first time since the Second World War, two general strikes, both successful, took place within a span of only 11 days; this proved that it is not at all impossible to conduct a general strike lasting longer than the standard 24 hours, if there are trade unions willing to call on workers to do so;
     2) For the first time, Italy’s largest regime-aligned trade union found itself having to follow the initiative of the grassroots unions;
     3) It was grassroots trade unionism, not regime-aligned trade unionism, not the CISL and UIL, obviously, but not even the CGIL, that knew how and wanted to interact with, support, strengthen, and direct the anti-war movement through the strike;
     4) On October 3, a general strike was held for the first time outside the anti-strike laws (146/19990 and 83/2000, supported by CGIL, CISL, and UIL and voted by PCI and DS), demonstrating once again that if the trade unions are willing, those laws can be opposed by the the strength of struggle;
     5) The convergence of the various trade unions in the same strike, similar to what occurred in France in recent years, has a multiplier effect on the participation of the strike and subsequently its strength. As the strike gains strength, the mass of workers tend to move towards more combative methods, demands, and trade unionism, i.e., it strengthens class-based unionism and weakens collaborationist and regime-friendly unionism.

After October 3:

Class-based unionism pushes for unity of action held back and restrained by the opportunism of the regime unions and its leaders and factions

After the mobilization of October 3rd and 4th peaked, the movement against the war in Gaza ebbed.

The USB leadership correctly set out to channel, as far as possible, the energies that had been expressed as antiwar sentiment more strictly into the trade union struggle, continuing to highlight the war issue within unions, first and foremost by promoting action against the new budget law, which is geared towards rearmament, a position maintained and agitated for since the beginning of the war in Ukraine behind the slogan:

“Lower your weapons, raise your wages!”

But this correct trade union line and aim is being hampered by the USB leadership’s desire, identical to that of the CGIL, to backtrack on the October 3 united strike, relegating it as an exceptional case, not to be repeated.

After the government presented the budget law on October 17, on the 21st the CUB – initially alone – notified the Guarantee Commission for a general strike proclamation on November 28. But two days later, on October 23, the CUB wrote a letter, made public, to all the grassroots unions including the CGIL, clarifying that it had ‘set’ the date in order not to incur the restrictions imposed by the anti-strike laws and to make the day of strike action available to all unions, calling for the widest possible union convergence. It also pointed out the need for a follow up of the September 22 and October 3 strikes, as well as noting, now more than ever, that a unified response was of the utmost importance in view of the initiation of sanctioning procedures by the Guarantee Commission against the unions that had promoted the October 3 strike outside the limits of the anti-strike laws.

On the same day, October 23, the USB National Executive took the decision to strike on November 28, without, however, making any proposal for unified action with the CGIL. This decision was then validated at the national assembly of USB delegates on November 1, held in Rome at the Teatro Italia, where several USB leaders spoke out against the possibility of a new joint strike with the CGIL.

This was despite the initiative not only of the CUB but also of the Cobas Confederation, which on October 29 had published a statement with a very clear title: “Let’s do as we did on October 3! Cobas appeals to CGIL and grassroots unions for a joint strike on November 28 against the Finance Bill”.

On the same day, October 29, an internal USB appeal was also published – “For a winning union tactic” – which argued the importance of proposing a united strike to the CGIL leadership as a way to gain more influence over the combative part of the CGIL base – those who had appreciated the united strike or who had struck with the grassroots unions on September 22 – presenting it in opposition to CGIL leadership, even if, as expected, it rejected the proposal. Our comrades collaborated in the drafting of the appeal, which we reproduce below, as well as in its dissemination at the assembly at the Teatro Italia.

The correctness of this union tactic was confirmed by the publication of a similar appeal on October 31, on the initiative of CGIL activists, entitled “Appeal for a united strike by all unions”, which gathered hundreds of signatures from that union and dozens from the grassroots unions.

On November 6th, in support of a new strike along the lines of the one conducted on October 3rd, the GKN factory collective in Florence, most of whose workers are members of the CGIL, took a stand, writing: “Declaration on the need for a new October 3 and on the upcoming general strike on November 28”.

But on the same day, during the meeting in Florence, the CGIL’s National General Assembly confirmed its decision – which had already been circulating since the end of October – to call a general strike for December 12.

The obvious observation that this was a coordinated delay of the strike, given that the budget law approval process would be near its end by the time of the mobilization making it irrelevant: the important thing was not to strike with the grassroots unions!

It should also be noted that last year the situation was reversed: it was the USB leadership that called a general strike – on its own – for December 12, so as not to strike with the CGIL on November 29, as well as with all the other grassroots unions that had previously set that day for a general strike.

It should also be noted that last year only a small group of grassroots unions – Confederazione Cobas, Adl Cobas, and Sial Cobas – explicitly expressed their desire to “do as in France”, that is, to strike together with the CGIL, while the CUB limited itself to setting a date on which it knew it would most likely converge, due to the limits imposed by anti-strike laws, but without explicitly declaring that it aspired for this result. This year, however, the Cub leadership had explicitly taken this approach, another positive effect of the strikes on September 22 and October 3.

At the CGIL general assembly on November 6, three members of the minority group called “Le Radici del sindacato” (The Roots of the Union) presented an alternative agenda that concluded by stating: “The CGIL General Assembly considers it essential to call a general strike for next Friday, November 28, 2025”. This was a clear position, but one that was not shared even within that minority group, given that six of its delegates voted for the majority document, limiting themselves to presenting a contribution entitled “Uniting the struggles for peace, democracy, and social justice” which, despite its title, was careful not to address the issue of a united strike: uniting the struggles but without saying to strike together! This internal division within the “Le Radici del Sindacato” area reflects the cold fusion that took place at the 19th CGIL congress between the opposition area “Riconquistiamo tutto” (Let’s Take Back Everything) and the more moderate “Democrazia e Lavoro” (Democracy and Work), which at the previous congress had not presented an alternative document to that of the majority.

The other minority group, called “Le Giornate di Marzo” (The Days of March), with its sole representative at the General Assembly, not to be outdone in opportunism with the former members of “Democrazia e Lavoro”, presented a voting statement in which it specified that it would abstain on the issue of a general strike, whether united or separate, because "the issue... is not the date... A ritual strike added to another ritual strike called by other trade unions does not change the substance’. As if, in order to carry out a ‘non-ritual’ strike, it was not useful, indeed essential, for the trade unions to converge, as well as to do so in good time!

Still on the subject of hypocritical ‘verbal’ tributes to the unity of the workers’ struggle, in order to better deny it in practice, Sinistra Sindacale, the magazine of the ‘left’ wing of the CGIL trade union, called Lavoro e Società, which supports the majority, was quick to clarify in its October 27 issue in a front-page article entitled ‘Let’s work for unity’: ’Often unique gatherings [those of October 3; ed.], even among trade unionists who are profoundly different from each other, have not ushered in a new era of trade union unity between the CGIL and grassroots trade unionism. Those who, even within our own ranks, raise the specter of convergence between such different trade union histories have not seen what happened in those days in important parts of Italian society (and beyond), around an issue that is as dramatic as it is still unresolved".

Opposition to the CGIL’s unity of action with the grassroots unions was also expressed at the General Assembly of Filt Liguria on November 3 by the regional secretary of Filt CGIL Liguria, from the PD secretary’s faction, the national organizational secretary of Filt CGIL, the secretary of Filt CGIL La Spezia, and the most ‘left-wing’ party in parliament, Alleanza Verdi Sinistra (AVS). The national organizational secretary of Filt CGIL spoke out not only against new joint actions with grassroots unions but also against the decision of October 3, thereby criticizing both the leadership of the CGIL Labor Chamber in Genoa, which had proposed the joint general strike, together with the local leadership of USB, and the national confederal leadership of CGIL.

This criticism marks the start of maneuvering for the next CGIL congress, the twentieth, to be held next year. Criticism of the work of the current confederal secretariat, headed by Landini, has been levelled not only by the leadership of the Filt, but also by that of the Flai (Agroindustry), the Slc (Communications), the Spi (Pensioners) and the confederal secretariat of Emilia Romagna.