"Workers and the local community no longer need announcements; they need action. We are making this clear: we cannot go any further than Friday, October 23rd. At that time, the Government must guarantee the necessary funding to continue operating the plant. These resources aren't just for securing workers' wages: they are the very condition for securing the site."
In a statement, Filctem Cgil, Femca Cisl, Uiltec, and the RSAs of the Eurallumina factory announced a new mobilization with a sit-in at the gates of the Portovesme plant on the eve of the crisis meeting convened at the Mimit.
"If further delays and promises arrive from Rome, the responsibility for what happens to the workers, their families, and the environment of Sulcis will have a clear name and direction," maintain territorial secretaries Emanuele Madeddu, Nino D'Orso, and Pierluigi Loi, and RSAs (Health and Safety Centers) Enrico Pulisci, Simone Zucca, and Davide Boi. "In this dispute, there are those who decide and those who pay: so far, Rome has decided not to decide, and the workers have paid the price. The Eurallumina workers have always demonstrated a sense of responsibility and far too much patience. That patience is now almost exhausted."
"The workers are responsible for ensuring water treatment, the hydraulic barrier, monitoring the red mud basin, the continuation of ongoing remediation, and the maintenance and upkeep of the facilities, the latter of which has been virtually nonexistent for some time now. Without them, and without resources, that protection comes to a halt. And a halted environmental protection effort in Portovesme means exposing the area to the concrete risk of an environmental disaster," the unions point out. "It also means exposing the state to safety and remediation costs, which the company itself estimates at around €300 million, compared to the few million currently needed to ensure continuity. Postponing further doesn't mean saving money: it means multiplying the bill, and the workers, the area, and the entire community would pay for it. It seems worth remembering once again: preserving the asset is not a courtesy, it is a legal obligation on those who ordered and maintain the freeze."
